[Ads-l] Latinx

[Mark Mandel]

I agree with Chris.

Mark A. Mandel

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 10:31 PM Chris Waigl <chris at lascribe.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 1:15 PM Dan Goncharoff <thegonch at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The topic of this conversation was the general use of Latinx, not one
> that
> > applies only to those of non-binary gender.
> >
>
> Sure, but the genesis and rise of the term can't be separated by the
> intention to be gender-inclusive specifically in a way that includes
> non-binary genders. The Yahoo! News article about the Pew survey implies
> this: If you need a term to talk about how someone shot and killed a bunch
> of queer people, you're bound to get a term that's inclusive of the gender
> identies you find among queer people.
>
>
> You comment about a popular vote was a clear preference for making the
> > majority of people swallow it, since their opinion doesn't matter to you.
> >
>
> Make ... people ... swallow?
>
> Your use of "clear" does a whole lot of work here. In a long-standing group
> of people with a scholarly interest in dialects and usage, I didn't think
> I'd have to spell this out: We aren't usually basing our
> judgement substantially on opinion surveys when we assess the viability of
> some usage or other in some speaker community or other. And wouldn't you
> expect that widely cast surveys nearly every time find that innovations are
> a) unknown to a large percentage of people and b) rejected by quite a few?
> For practically any innovation I would expect the initial attitudes to be
> negative - some are found too crass, some too artificial, and then there's
> the old chestnut of "what's wrong with [old word]?!?!?!," advanced in a
> bellicose manner as if it were an argument. Saying that usage shifts by
> people acutally using language rather than under the pressure of polls and
> surveys doesn't mean people's opinion doesn't matter to me. (Not that it
> sounded all that negative in the first place from the survey...)
>
> Hell, I don't even use the word! I mean, I might, but I tend to be fairly
> conservative and veer on the side of terminology I've already assimilated,
> and in what public speaking I do this particular topic doesn't tend to come
> up much. If it were to, I would probably consult some trusted sources about
> what the up-to-date terminology should be. If put on the spot I'm just as
> likely to say "Latino and Latina" as "Latinx". After this thread I'm more
> used to Latinx than I was before... But if in 10 years we all say "yeah,
> there used to be this term, "Latinx", back in the 2010s, but people didn't
> warm to it and we say XYZ now" that's completely fine with me.
>
> Concluding that I'm trying to shove some usage down your throat
> (personally!) just because I object to people pointing and sneering at it
> is quite a non-sequitur.
>
> BTW, opinions about the aesthetics of a term are always legitimate, since
> > they are opinions about aesthetics.
> >
>
> I'd get off-topic here, so I'll leave this at saying that our aesthetic
> judgements are surely influenced by our biases, prejudices and bigotries,
> and you can be assured that I take mine to tune-up and maintenance in
> regular intervals.
>
>
> --
> Chris Waigl . chris.waigl at gmail.com . chris at lascribe.net
> http://eggcorns.lascribe.net . http://chryss.eu
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org