Am I in the wrong to think that the #discussion over the use of #Latinx should be handled by people who #identify as such? I read two essays today on the subject; one was written by a #queer #Latino writer, and the other by a #Latina author.
While I agreed with the overall #agrument against the use of Latinx as an umbrella term (window dressing, as one writer put it), their execution was reminiscent of #AntiTrans talking points on #Twitter.
I have nothing against the usage of the term #Latinx if that is how one identifies. This term is useful in queer circles within the #Latinidad and nothing anyone can say will ever nullify that. The problem is when it's forcefully placed on people who don't identify as such.
Being called Latinx myself is just a whatever thing; I prefer #Latine.
To cleanse my palate, I turned to "The X In Latinx Is A Wound, Not A Trend" by Alan Pelaez Lopez, an #AfroIndigenous ( #Zapotec ) #poet and #artist.
In their essay, Lopez argues that "it is important for us to not normalize "Latinx," but to engage in critical reflection on how violence against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Asexual + (LGBTQIA+) Latin Americans has been accepted by Latin American people to the the point that LGBTQIA+ Latinxs have had to create a linguistic...
...intervention in the hopes that they can live a livable life."
They then list the four wounds that the "X" in Latinx represent:
1. The Wound of Settlement
2. The Wound of Anti-blackness
3. The Wound of Femicides
4. The Wound of Inarticulation
In their essay, Lopez manages to to articulate what the Latino and Latina authors wanted to. The overuse (and often misuse) of Latinx is watering down its purpose, and casts a shadow on those who use it.
Alan Pelaez Lopez concludes their essay with:
[I]f you are using "Latinx," I encourage you to ask yourself at the end of everyday: "what have I done to show up for Black, Indigenous, women and femmes of the Latin American diaspora today?" And second, "why?"
It's not hard to notice that those pushing for the usage of Latinx are not within the Latinidad, but usually white, cisgender people. It's a charade to promote inclusivity without actually doing the leg work for it.
And you can argue against the umbrella usage of Latinx without undermining those who use it the word as an identifier.
I just wish the two authors of the first essays understood that.
The argument of language is make a few times. And I'm guessing the first two essays were written before the gender neutrality efforts of the Spanish language were getting traction. But these are only a few years old.
It bums me out that Latinx is being reduced to a white term because it's academia and media that push it onto those within the Latinidad.
Language is a living organism. It changes with the times.
@gwimo yes this, and exactly.
While the situation isn’t the same, when this comes up, I think about the history of the term nuyorican, and how I grew up with it used as an attack instead.
My take (and I admit I could be out of the loop bc my brain did things) is that we’re at a weird tension point with Latinx as a term, and also just in finding ways to communicate our experiences regardless of if we go by Latinx/Latine.
Dunno how the dust will settle, but it’s an interesting time.
It really is and thank you for your response. I feel better going into class having this Mastodon thread.
gwimo
Glitch