THE Brief History of Gendered Nouns and the Origin of “Latinx”
Traditionally, gender has been used for categorization and identification when assigning roles and values throughout history. From what you wear to what you enjoy doing, many recognize that gender is often a dominating factor in how others perceive you and your actions. Gender is so inherent to forming and controlling identity that it’s often used within languages to sort and assign grammatical articles and pronouns. However, the extent to which gender identification applies to a language varies. For example, objects in English are usually assigned no gender and considered neutral. Yet, regarding Spanish, all nouns possess a gendered article. This may seem relatively unimportant in our daily lives, as we often use the conventions of our languages instinctively. Although these conventions of language are intuitive, even the essential components of the language we use to convey ourselves reflect the systems that exist within our society.
This cannot be seen more clearly than within the debate over gender-neutral terminology and representation in Spanish. As a romance language, the way ideas are communicated is, as previously mentioned, inherently gendered. This gendering creates great difficulty among those who fall outside of the gender binary, mainly when communicating their origins. Thus began the search for a better way to represent all Latin American individuals under a collective identity that exemplifies our connection to one another and allows us to share our nuances and differences. But, complex questions arose:
Where does one begin when crafting and shaping new language?
How does one create language that must rise to the occasion regarding comprehension and representation and remain true to its cultural and historical nature?
With these linguistic conundrums came a plentitude of attempts with many creative options to represent the Latin American people. These ideas first began with the classification others gave the Latin American identity, many of which failed to represent all those that could claim such an origin. “Hispanic” was one of the most popular; however, as the root of the word suggested, “Hispanic” did not attempt to represent those who spoke languages other than Spanish predominately. Notably, there was a disregard for those from cultures that spoke French or Portuguese, which often under-minded the intersectionality between all those who live within Latin America. Moreover, this classification relied on English phonetics, utterly different from how Latin Americans referred to themselves past their nationality. Then came “Latino” and “Latina,” languages that originated from Spanish and described most cultural and linguistic origins within Latin America. Yet, this language, as described, was gendered and created a void for those who did adhere to the gender norm.
Many looked to the past for inspiration and found that past attempts were made to introduce gender-neutral pronouns and terminology. This inspiration came from pronouns such as “Usted” and its pluralized form within the Spanish language. Although this language was used with gendered adjectives, it was a starting point for incorporating non-gendered terms in Spanish. Furthermore, it could be phonetically pronounced and often used in everyday formal speech, denoting some level of gender-neutral success. Even though “Usted” was a gender-neutral pronoun option, its origin was rooted in respecting an authority figure, resulting in it being avoided in common dialectal usage within Latin America. Moreover, many of the adjectives used to describe the pronoun remained gendered, which defeated the purpose of its gender neutrality.
Eventually, a solution came from the social scientific community through psychological studies. Within specific psychological journals based in Puerto Rico, using “x” to replace a/o within gendered articles and adjectives describing participants became extremely popular. This was especially true when researchers wished to avoid the possibility of misinterpretation of terms such as “los participantes”, as being solely a sample group of men rather than the more applicable mixture of genders in the participant groups. It also purposely avoided the possible influences of patriarchal language within studies. This was done as gendered language subconsciously creates a level of bias toward the masculine perspective. Moreover, it was also done to ensure misrepresentation was avoided within the application of the study. After the widespread usage within the psychological community in Puerto Rico, the conversion of gendered language to a more universal “-x” ending became even more popular, particularly within Latin American campus organizations. This could be mainly seen in one of the biggest Latin American cultural centers in the United States, New York City. The first example of academic usage came in the name change of the Chicano Caucus to the Chicanx Caucus at Columbia University. Thus, gender-neutral conversion gained tremendous popularity, eventually resulting in the term “Latinx.”
ThE Good
As a term, Latinx attempts to represent all those who vary in gender identity and belong to the Latin American experience. The term’s origin, founded within the scientific community and cementing itself first within a multi-cultural organization, is a testament to what can be accomplished when great minds attempt to make the Spanish language more inclusionary. Moreover, the intersectionality inherent to the change also cements a growing movement towards reflecting dichotomy between and hybridizing distinct cultures and languages. This dichotomy often occurs between the cultures and languages of Latin America and the U.S. Hence, the combination of English and Spanish phonetics is more approachable to those who share experiences in both languages and live their lives in the grey area between them. Thus, the term “Latinx” shows the greater hybridization of identities within the United States, which includes many marginalized, culturally mixed individuals embracing the new term that reflects a new interpretation of their combined background.
The Bad
Although an intersectional and hybridized classification of the Latin American experience is incredibly useful in representing many individuals, the term “Latinx” does possess faults. The same hybridization that empowers the term can often pose difficulties to those who may not have the resources nor the experiences that would allow them to use the term in conversation. This is due to its reliance on English phonetics for pronunciation and language flow. Such a reliance results in a vast majority of Latin Americans not having the opportunity to utilize gender-neutral language outside of hybridized settings. In my personal experience, this has appeared primarily when speaking to older figures of authority, who see the use of English as misplaced in conversation or disrespectful, as it is interpreted as a conscious choice to exclude them. Therefore, the popularity of such a term would face greater scrutiny from those who may not wish to learn English or may not have the resources to do so.
Moreover, the confusion behind English phonetics may only be the beginning of a more significant issue: whether the term “Latinx” is even the most efficient and reflective gender-neutral term that could be used.  A variety of gender-neutral terms can be utilized by those looking for an alternative to gendered adjectives. Prime examples of such would be “Latine” and “Latin@.” “Latin@” relies less on the potentially confusing English phonetics; however, its pronunciation remains enigmatic. “Latine” does have merit in that its origin is found within romantic pronunciation. Furthermore, the “-e” sound’s ability to be used for articles, adjectives, and pronouns is incredibly useful. However, it is evident that the term “Latine” is still in its infancy and requires much more time to cement itself as an alternative option. Hence, the predominant issue among Spanish speakers is which term to use and whether the gender-neutral terms will be recognized or known by other traditional speakers. This confusion may result in all gender-neutral terms being disregarded as complicated and meaningless by those more familiar with a conventional gendered dialect. Therefore, this results in a lack of usage and the further isolation of gender-conforming Latin American individuals.
The Ugly
Finally, there remain those who believe that referencing intersectionality and the hybridization of language as a potential benefit ignores the possibility of linguistic imperialism of the Spanish language and its dialects. This is regarded as particularly detrimental, as the perception of those who utilize both Spanish and English in a formal setting results in a potential for shaming from those with positions of authority with uniform, traditional dialects. Thus, using a term derived from English and Spanish phonetics can suggest a shifting interpretation and execution of the Spanish language, which may result in the loss of culturally originated vocabulary and assimilation of the language to fit a more English-oriented world.
Speaking of assimilation, there seems to be a greater movement of individuals who wish to claim the letter “x” as interrelated with Indigenous heritage and separate it from the original Spanish-led linguistic imperialism. Yet, applying this thought to the term “Latinx” results in a potential for misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the indigenous languages that still exist in parts of the Americas. This may lead to the marginalization of those often-underrepresented communities within Latin America, as the true nature of their languages is not expressed within the misinterpretation of the true origin of the term “Latinx.”
Is There an End to the debate?
Ultimately, from my research, the movement to create more inclusive grammar and vocabulary within the Spanish language seems to be growing exponentially. I believe languages adapt, include, exclude, and change throughout time. Thus, time will tell if “Latinx” will remain the predominant term used to describe the Latin American people in the future. However, from my perspective, what is consistent throughout the entirety of the debate and greater Latin American history is that we, the Latin American people, are those who thrive in intersectionality, with an intertwined history of many diverse cultures, languages, and religions. This intertwined history and intersectional existence is what makes us resilient and adaptable. Hopefully, wherever the debate takes us, it reflects our character, resilience, adaptability, and love for each other and our cultures.