Speaker 1: So I have some genuinely great news for you today. You know,
most of the stories that we have when you do news and politics are
unfortunately stories of people doing things we don't want. Bad things happen,
things we have to resist. But here's a good story, something that we should welcome.
Speaker 2: And I'm doing Speaker 1: this story
Speaker 2: knowing it's not going to get a Speaker 1: lot of clicks. Not that many
people care about it because I care about it. I think that this is good.
The Latino civil rights organization the League of United Latin American Citizens has officially
Speaker 2: dropped Latin X as a Speaker 1: gender neutral term for referring to
Latino or Hispanic individuals, of which I am one. And the organization's president, Domingo Garcia,
sent out an email last week saying We are stopping the use of Latin X in all communication.
It's very unliked by most Latinos, and Speaker 2: of course, that that's a factor.
Speaker 1: That's something that certainly should be considered now. There are a ton of
organizations still using it, but one organization saying we're not going to use it anymore is a good
thing, and I've been against this term for a while when people have asked about it. I've
mentioned it anecdotally, but I've not really done a segment about it. As many of you know,
I'm from Argentina. I grew up speaking Spanish. My mom teaches Spanish literature and language at the
college level, has for decades with my family being from Argentina and politically involved.
As you can imagine, this idea of Latin acts, particularly in the United States, is something
that I've been involved in. You know, a dozen hours or more of discussion about over the years,
I have been opposed to this term for a number of reasons. Now, first of all. Spanish is different
than English, and it really makes no grammatical sense. Now I know many. But wait, David, hold on a
second, sir. Some people say, referring to a trans person as they makes no grammatical sense. If it's
the right thing to do, then it's the right Speaker 2: thing to do.
Speaker 1: OK, first of all, they singular actually makes plenty of sense. If you look
at the history of the English language, people actually use it even today all the time without
even realizing they're using they to refer to one person. Latin X is a completely different
Speaker 2: category, but it's not Speaker 1: wrong that one could argue,
even if it makes no grammatical sense, we might say for reasons of justice and equity,
let's make it part of the language if you want. OK. We go to the next issue. The problem with
Speaker 2: Latin X is that Speaker 1: it did not
Speaker 2: stem from a desire Speaker 1: from within the global Latino
Speaker 2: community to change language Speaker 1: to be more gender inclusive
or gender neutral. Latin X was Speaker 2: pushed primarily
Speaker 1: by non-Latino people. The origins aren't 100 percent clear. It
might have been academic in origin. Speaker 2: It might have come
Speaker 1: from the feminist community. Speaker 2: There were a number of
Speaker 1: professors in the U.S. who at one point argued for changing the term Chicano
Speaker 2: to Chicano X rather than Chicano. Speaker 1: She can actually kind of X.
And at the same time, there might have been some people said, Let's do the same thing with Latin X.
Speaker 2: But the point is it was mostly Speaker 1: embraced by non-Latino
Speaker 2: people. And in survey Speaker 1: after survey, almost no
Latino folks actually used the term or preferred it, and many had didn't even know what it was.
I once hosted an awards show for a Latino organization, and on the scripts,
they set me for introducing different Speaker 2: awards, it said Latin X and
Speaker 1: I said, Listen, guys, I don't speak that way.
Speaker 2: My audience knows. I don't speak that way. It's going to be very obviously
not genuine. If all of a sudden I'm saying Speaker 1: Latin X and they said, OK, don't use
Speaker 2: it. And the ease with Speaker 1: which they just said,
don't use it signaled to me. This may be going Speaker 2: out at some point soon. So the point
Speaker 1: here isn't language can't change over time. Of course it can. We don't use the
R word as an insult. I mean, listen, there are people that do, but it's oh, I cringe when I hear
someone use the R word as an insult. We don't call people or I don't say the F-word as an insult.
Speaker 2: At least many Speaker 1: of us don't.
Speaker 2: We don't say or I don't. Speaker 1: That's gay when I want to
say something is bad. Speaker 2:
And that has sort of removed Speaker 1: itself from the culture
because the culture is what change, not because it was suddenly said the word is done. There,
of course, have been attempts to say in a school setting or whatever. We don't use this word or
we don't use that word, or here's the word that you use. But that's fundamentally my
real issue with Latin X. This was not a cultural movement from within whose natural conclusion
Speaker 2: was, let's use the Speaker 1: term Latin X rather
than Latino or Latina. Speaker 2: It was from
Speaker 1: above. Let's just change the language Speaker 2: and then we'll
Speaker 1: fix the other stuff that comes with it. And of course, we can deal with the issues
of gender inequality, gender inequality within the Latino community, et cetera, without having
to come in and say, this is now the word that is being used. So I like that it was
Speaker 2: dropped in this Speaker 1: case. I think it's a good thing. I hope
it goes away completely. I'm going to continue not using the word while I fight and argue for.
All of the very things that the words imposition Speaker 2: was theoretically
Speaker 1: supposed to push. Let me know your thoughts. If you have them,
I know for a lot of people this is like not even really an issue at all.
It's just not something you think about, Speaker 2: something that's
not it's not. It's not even Speaker 1: in sort of the discussion for
lots of folks. Something I've been following for a while and glad to see the decision. Quite frankly,