Political Correctness

Survey: Only 2% of Hispanics Prefer the Politically Correct Term 'Latinx'

"Despite its usage by academics and cultural influencers, 98% of Latinos prefer other terms to describe their ethnicity."

|

"Latinx," the progressive, gender-neutral alternative to Latino/Latina, is a favorite of campus activists and ethnic studies departments. But among the broader population of Hispanic people, it's wildly unpopular: Just 2 percent of respondents to a nationwide poll chose it as their preferred term.

So says Mario Carrasco of the market research agency Think Now. Although his group is "progressive on social issues," he writes, "as researchers, we have to put aside our personal biases and render advice based on the best available empirical evidence." And the evidence shows that practically nobody wants to be called Latinx:

The Stranger's Katie Herzog interviewed Carrasco, who was a little surprised at how unpopular Latinx was.

"We went into it with the hypothesis that awareness was going to be lower than social media makes it seem," said Carrasco. "We didn't think it was going to be as low as it is. We also thought that it was going to be significantly more popular among young people, and it's not. There's no significant difference there."

The term may not be popular with actual Hispanics, but Democratic presidential frontrunner Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) sure seems to like it. She referenced "African American and Latinx families" during her remarks at the June debate. This kind of thing—embracing politically correct terminology that a tiny minority of extremely progressive people embraces—could easily backfire on a general election candidate, perhaps Warren most of all.

Advertisement

NEXT: L.A. to Uber: Either Hand Over Realtime Data on Scooter Riders or Get Out of Town

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Zero surprise here. It was an invention of pasty white affluent progressives. I mean duh. Nothing pasty white affluent proggies love more than to speak for people of color.

    1. Exactly.

      Also, I wonder if native Americans want Columbus day renamed in their honor. Probably not for the same reason.

      1. I’ve never seen data on that particular question, but I have seen data that suggests most “Native Americans” prefer the term “Indian” and don’t care that there are sports teams called things like “Braves” and “Redskins.”

        Additionally, having lived in some pretty ghetto-y areas, I’ve never heard a black person who wasn’t college educated use the term “African-American.”

        1. Some Indians are very hot and bothered about Columbus Day. But they are in the minority. The rest simply do not care. The Indians have so many other and actual problems they mostly don’t have time to care about the stupid shit that woke white people care so much about.

        2. And it seems a bit insulting to people and cultures to just lump them all into one big bucket. Latinos (or whatever you want to call it) are a huge and extremely diverse group. Hardly the basis for any real cultural identity. Same thing with Indians/Native Americans.
          If you want to talk about people’s cultural identities, maybe find out a little more about who they are and where they come from before throwing them in a big bin with all the other people who speak the same language (more or less) and come from the same hemisphere.

          1. To lump all Spanish speakers in one group is one of the dumbest most insulting things I have ever seen. I can’t believe people are stupid enough to do that.

            1. To lump all Spanish speakers in one group is one of the dumbest most insulting things I have ever seen.

              Sort of like lumping all English speakers together, including South Asians, Nigerians, and Ghanans.

            2. Did you see that movie about how a rich reclusive billionaire hired a naive nerd to figure out if this chick qualifies for a Hispanic scholarship? Check it out, it’s called Ex Latina.

            3. You mean like calling people a basket of deplorables?

            4. To lump all Spanish speakers in one group…

              There is one group of Spanish speakers that is pointedly excluded from being considered “Hispanic” or “Latinx” by progs—people from Spain.

          2. And it seems a bit insulting to people and cultures to just lump them all into one big bucket.

            Yeah – this was exactly the debate I was having with people back in the early ’90s when these terms started gaining currency.

            What would really tickle ‘Native Americans’ pink would be recognizing their tribes as distinct things. Changing out the broad brush you paint them all with isn’t much of a concession, really.

            I was also struck by how the term implies “you were just sitting here waiting to be conglomerated by conquest into your ‘native’ culture.”

            I was also never clear on how always affixing your ancestors’ place of origin to your denominator is more inclusive. I am not a “European-American,” and I’ve never seen a significant movement to make me one. Why do we demand that everyone else label themselves as something permanently separate in the name of “inclusiveness?”

            Why do I ask these questions when I already know the answer is “shut up?”

            1. You have apparently missed the euro-ethnic tourist traps that dot our nation. I grew up a handful of miles from “The Swedish Village” with it’s annual Swedish Day Festival. A bit further south is a very touristy Danish town always flying it’s Danish flag and selling open faced sammiches and stuff. There’s a Russian town up north, which used to fly the old Russian flag to distinguish themselves from the Soviets. I’ve seen Norwegian towns, German towns, and even a British town. Up in Novia Scotia it’s wall to wall Scottish towns.

              So yes, European-Americans are proud of their heritage and will fly their ethnic flags and march in ethnic parades and name their high school football teams after their ethnic tribes. And except for the Lutefisk, it’s all fine. So it doesn’t bother me one whit when some Hispanics of Mexican origin celebrate Cinco de Mayo or Día de Muertos.

              1. Yes, in my region commemoration of German heritage is very common and widespread, and we have tens of thousands of German speakers among the “plain people”.

          3. Cool story.

            I never again want to hear about how immigrants aren’t assimilating into “American culture”.

            1. I never again want to hear about how immigrants aren’t assimilating into “American culture”.

              I’ll bet cash money you never have heard that from Zeb.

            2. Well, you will probably be disappointed. But I can assure you you won’t hear that from me because I don’t believe it to be true.

              But thanks for illustrating my point with a parallel example of why it’s a bad idea to put a diverse group of people into one bin.

            3. My grandma came over from Denmark. Her cousin refused to learn English and went off to live in a Danish village where no one spoke English. Up on the Dakotas somewhere. It’s now a quaint Danish themed tourist trap.

              So yes, sometimes even pasty white Europeans don’t “assimilate”.

        3. “” but I have seen data that suggests most “Native Americans” prefer the term “Indian” and don’t care that there are sports teams called things like “Braves” and “Redskins.”””

          I don’t call them Native Americans because it’s PC. I do it to differentiate them from people from India.

          1. That’s why we have the term “American Indian.”

            But the proper distinction is “red-dot Indian” vs. “tomahawk Indian.”

            1. I thought the distinction was between “dot” and “dash” Indians.

          2. I grew up on a reservation and work aside another one. They really don’t care for the term Native American, either American Indian or preferably refer to their specific tribe. They often refer to each other as Red or Skins in shorthand.

          3. I think the hip new thing is to call them “First Nations.” But I haven’t had the opportunity to ask any of the folks that would fall under this descriptor how they feel about it yet.

            1. First Nations is specifically for Canadian Indians, not American ones. I worked with the tribes in Washington State and the First Nations in Canada, and was, as a dumb white person, surprised to hear them call themselves “tribes” all the time as they are “tribal” people – and here I am with my liberal college degree thinking tribal is an insult that no indigenous person would want to call themselves.

              On a different note, I did youth programs for that job in both tribal and non-tribal schools, and the quality of school lunches on the reservations was far superior to the absolute chemical s**t that was omnipresent thanks to Michelle Obama and the 200-calorie limit that was imposed. Kids guzzled Coke Zero and other highly processed foods just because it met the low-calorie count, but the tribal schools had fresh foods grown on their lands, cooked by their community. Was quite an eye opening job for me.

          1. Which correctly pronounced sounds like you’re about to hock a loogie.

        4. I have, but most Black people I know prefer “black”. And Latinx is an abomination. It’s not Spanish and it’s not even Spanglish. It’s pretentious, and so patronizing it’s almost insulting. I’d call it a microaggression if I believed in such things.

          1. The impositions by woke scold activists qualify as mega-aggressions.

        5. I know a Navajo who sometimes wears a Washington Redskins jacket. It’s one of his favourite teams.

          I live in Oklahoma, so I know a lot of Indians. I’ve never asked anyone what term they prefer, but on those occasions when I’ve heard someone refer to ethnicity, it’s usually been ‘Indian’, but I have heard ‘Native’ more often in recent years (but never ‘Native American’). Most often, they just refer to the specific Tribe (and nowadays, mixed ancestry is very common, so people are often Otoe/Ponca or Choctah/Chickasaw or some such).

        6. Re: Indian or Native American
          From what I’ve been told by my Indian friends if you want to refer to all the indigenous peoples of North American or a group of mixed tribes call them Indians if referring to members of a specific tribe use the tribe name.
          Ex The Winnebagos don’t draw a single red cent from the popular RV company for use of their names.

          1. I used to live near Omaha, and the Ho-Chunk seemed to have a lot more business savvy than that.

        7. Well, “African-American” is pretty passe.

          In my workplace there are about a dozen Black employees. Five of them don’t come America. Three actually came from Africa. So saying “African-American” is kind of stupid.

    2. Who made white women the enforcers of and arbiters of what is “political correctness”?

      1. I’m going to say it was white women.

        1. Just the ones who got stuck in their pubescent vegetarian phase.

  2. Is that really a dude in a cape?

    1. Looks like those shoulder thingies that priests put on to demonstrate they are now in priestly mode.

      1. Then, after the altar boy enters, they drop the cape and go from priest mode to beast mode.

        1. “The altar boy enters” — isn’t that just a bit, ahem, backwards?

          1. I don’t doubt that some swing the other way…

      1. He’s the only one worthy to lift Nadir, the bovxhorn of social justice.

    2. Yeah. He’s really rocking it too.

  3. Spanish like all romance languages has male and female nouns. People who speak Spanish or originate from Spanish speaking countries are proud of Spanish as a language and don’t want to see it destroyed by a bunch of retards the way said retards have destroyed English.

    1. No. It’s not male and female, it’s masculine and feminine. Gender in language is NOT the same as gender in a sexual sense. They’re just terms invented by grammarians. The only linkage is that males are linguistically masculine and females linguistically feminine.

      I’m not going to pull out my Spanish dictionary, but there are languages where penis is feminine and vagina is masculine. So it really does have nothing at all do with with sex.

      1. Wow you sure got fired up over a slight misstatement.

        1. Sounds like some kind of libertarian.

      2. But the purpose is to eliminate the gendered forms of a word in the language in reference to whether one speaks of males or females.

        And we are speaking of transgender activism here. Rationality is not its strong suit.

        1. Spain needed more Vikings. They’re the ones who chased gendered nouns out of English.

      3. Gender in language is NOT the same as gender in a sexual sense.

        ^ This. For example, the word “Madchen” in German, meaning “maiden,” is neuter.

        When I was made to take ‘Chicano Literature’ back in the early ’90s my professor was adamant that Spanish was better than English that way because English insists on ‘natural’ gender being mirrored in grammar, whereas Spanish recognizes that gender is arbitrary.

        1. Wenn die Soldaten
          Durch die Stadt marschieren,
          Öffnen die Mädchen
          Die Fenster und die Türen

          1. Zweifarben Tücher,
            Schnauzbart und Sterne
            Herzen und küssen
            DieMädchen so gerne

            1. Hast du andere liegen?

          2. Yes – in both example referring to the plural.
            Das Mädchen – one girl
            Die Mädchen – more than one girl

            Care to try again?

      4. Grammatical gender is different from separate gendered nouns. English has lost most grammatical gender, but retains some gendered nouns (actor/actress). You don’t call a man an actress. It isn’t simply inflection as some gendered nouns don’t share a root (buck/doe).

        1. I’ll add there are languages, like Tagalog, that lack grammatical gender, even he/she, but still have gendered nouns.

          1. That’s a cookie, not a language

            1. Some people tell a story through cooking.

      5. What’s wrong with recognizing gender?

        If your gender doesn’t match your sex, you will always be disordered.

        Who are you to force your false narrative on everyone? It won’t end as you wish.

      6. No no no you have it entirely wrong.
        The fact that avión (airplane) in Spanish is a masculine noun means that the Spanish think it is a giant penis. It is known.

        1. No, it’s a MaxiPad, because it has wings!

      7. Except for this example being latina for female latins and Latino being male latins.

        So your pedantry is misguided.

        1. Since we’re speaking English, what’s wrong with “Latins”?

      8. In German, “girl” (whether “Fräulein or Mädchen) is neuter.

    2. Sadly, movements to gender-neuter Spanish are gaining some ground in Spain anyway.

      1. We’re doing a good job neutering the populace in general…

        1. Not according to the Royal Spanish Academy. They recently turned their collective nose up at both “latinx” and other abominations like “ciudanos y ciudanas” (male citizens and female citizens).

      2. It could happen, but it’ll be slower than the political activists want. 1,000 years ago, every English word had a gender, just like Spanish or German. By 500 years ago, the genders had vanished.

        Of course, during that period French was the official language of England, and English was only spoken by mostly uneducated commoners, so that may have helped the changes along.

        1. A good bit of the nobility did speak at least some English, as it was the language used by their wet nurses, stable hands etc. As a result they often spoke the coarsest English.

          1. Fair enough – much in the way that the American nobility tends to have at least a little Spanish.

        2. Eh, the real problem with Latinx is that it’s fairly unpronounceable and doesn’t give any workable guidance on un-gendering the rest of the language. Once someone figures out a popular (enough) way to accomplish the same idea that works with the language (rather then against it) it’ll probably start happening.

          It’s like how in English you get a lot of push-back to new pro-nouns. People don’t like learning them, remembering them, etc. But leaning on they/them/their? Even the folks that claim confusion understand it well enough, and it already works with the language.

          So if/when it happens, it’ll be with a different method.

          1. Yeah – I think Spanish is at the point in its evolution that you could simply drop the gendered endings and I doubt it would make much difference. Such inflections are most native in language that don’t depend on word order. Spanish is pretty word-order-dependent at this point, and the endings don’t really contribute anything to semantics.

            That kind of change can happen over the course of a generation or two.

            Even the folks that claim confusion understand it well enough, and it already works with the language.

            Well, yeah – “they” as a neuter third-person has been in common usage for a long time, now. As you say, “Latinx” doesn’t have a similar pre-existing currency.

            1. Third person plural only works for indeterminate singular.

              This sentence is okay: “Someone stole my lunch out of the breakroom fridge, I hope they choke on it.”

              This sentence is choking to death on wokeness: “Bob stole my lunch out of the breakroom fridge, I hope they choke on it.”

              1. But of course, if Bob has told you their pronoun preference, you may be misgendering them if you use “they”.

          2. The “gender” fad will pass before it has a lasting effect on language.

        3. It was the Vikings who chased gendered nouns out of English. When the English had to find a way to communicate with their new Danish countrymen, they tended to keep mutually intelligible root words and drop the endings that didn’t match. That was the end of English as an inflected language.

  4. Also, the whole raping of the Spanish language to please the sensibilities of white English speaking identitarians aghast that the Spanish language actually has genders.

    1. Pretty much this as well.

  5. Trying to degender a gendered language in order to spare the feelings of tiny minority does not go over well with the overwhemling majority of the speakers of that language. What a surprising dog bites man twist.

  6. Sure looks like a horrible waste of time in the park on such a nice day.

  7. “African American and Latinx families”?

    Why not Latinx Americans do they not get to be Americans? Racist Warren

    1. Latinx Americans are people from Latinx America. Here they’d be Latinx American-Americans.

      1. Doesn’t Latinx mean latin American people from some imaginary line below the mason dixon line in some parts of the U.S. to separate them from the first arrivers formally called Indians then native Americans who were in similar areas and are they not mostly native to the Americas as well. I’m so confused on where everyone is supposed to be from lets just call everyone by individual names

  8. I’ve always wondered how it’s supposed to be pronounced. Lah Teenks? Lah Teen Ecks?

    What a stupid word.

    1. Yeah, if you want a neutral word, how about “Latin”?

      1. Or, perhaps, “Hispanic”, which per the poll is the actual preferred term?

        1. Yeah, that’s better. Accurately describes their linguistic heritage, no extra BS.

        2. “”Or, perhaps, “Hispanic”, which per the poll is the actual preferred term?””

          Because the PC crowd are authoritarian in nature. They don’t care what other people think.

        3. “Hispanic” defines them by the language of their conquerors. Which is why “Latin.” Plus, “‘spic” is short for “Hispanic,” which makes “Hispanic” hate speech.

          And lastly, look over there!

          1. Aren’t most also descended in part from their conquerors?

            Carrying around the guilt and/or trauma of your ancestors gets confusing fast.

            1. Aren’t most also descended in part from their conquerors?

              You didn’t obey my final argument.

              *smdh*

              1. But saying Latin just pushes it back to the Roman conquerors.

                1. What part of “look over there” is so hard for you people?

                2. Romani ite domum!

          2. How does “Latin” not do that?

            I mean, pretty certain latin has to do with a language spoken by Romans that is the basis of the Romantic languages, spanish being one of them.

            So how does Latin differ from hispanic?

    2. Dwelling in the Heart of Wokeness the way I do, I’m here to inform you it’s “Lateen-zzzz.”

      Now you have no excuse.

      1. Huh. I’m pretty sure I heard some people on NPR or something say it “Lateen-ex”.

        1. Though I suppose it’s possible I’ve heard it pronounced as you indicate and never realized that that is what they were saying.

          1. I happen to be doing a project right now for a queer-trans student group and a minority-outreach student group, and I’m quoting their usage.

            No disrespect, but I think they trump NPR (pun intended).

            (But in all seriousness, there’s a consulting company that I’ve worked with called Gilbane where I’ve noticed that their employees hesitate to speak the name of the company because even they don’t know whether it’s a hard or soft ‘g’ and are afraid to ask – I think there’s a similar thing here).

        2. If NPR said it then it must be right no matter what the Lateen-zzz say

      2. Isn’t that what fluffy says so he must be right since he’s Lateen-zzz

    3. It’s pronounced “Latina” if you’re referring to a woman, and “Latino” is you’re referring to a man.

      1. It’s an English usage when you’re speaking English. In Spanish, for instance, you’d say “familias latinas” for “Latino families” or just “Latin families” because you’re using Latino as an English modifier.

    4. It is quite unpronounceable, isn’t it? Which may be one reason the actual people it’s meant to refer to don’t like it.

      A few years back, a different approach to indicate being non-committal about whether a term should end in -a or -o was used for a certain city in Eastern Europe: Kosav@. Here it wasn’t a matter of masculine or feminine, but rather a question of one spelling being used by the Serbs, and the other by the Croats. (Or maybe it was Serbs and Albanians? I’m not going to look up what the groups were, and which used which spelling.) The idea was that the @-sign looked like an a inside an o. So Latin@ is a possible spelling that writers of academic papers could use. Certainly no one else will.

    5. I’ve always wondered how it’s supposed to be pronounced.

      Maybe you’re supposed to just pause for a moment at the end of the word.

  9. “We went into it with the hypothesis that awareness was going to be lower than social media makes it seem,” said Carrasco. “We didn’t think it was going to be as low as it is. We also thought that it was going to be significantly more popular among young people, and it’s not. There’s no significant difference there.”

    That moment when you realize most people actually aren’t on Twitter and don’t really give a shit about your linguistic hangups.

    1. It’s funny when elitist authoritarians speak of “awareness” while showing no awareness of reality or the subjects of which they speak

  10. Hispanics are primarily left leaning and/or Democrats for one reason, and one reason only. That reason is immigration. On everything else in the woke pyramid of ghoulish reality inversion, Hispanics are decidedly sane. In my experience, they don’t particularly like gays, they don’t like blacks or the whole ANTIFA/BLM alliance and the “fuck the police” tropes, and they cannot fathom the whole transgender bending spectrum that is increasingly being peddled and thrown in their face. And, a ton of them see themselves as white, especially after a few generations.

    1. Also Roman Catholic/anti abortion…

      1. This always amazes me as it relates to party politics.

      2. That’s not so true any more. Evangelical Protestantism is making big inroads on the Hispanic population in this county–as it is, for that matter, in Latin America itself.

    2. Lots of Republican “retrospectives” have made this point, that Republicans could make strong headway with Hispanic voters if they dropped the racism.

      Republicans politicians have noted that advice, and quietly filed away in the “burn for heresy” folder.

      1. Meanwhile, the Ds support affirmative action, and EE finds nothing wrong with that at all.
        Is that because you support racism, EE?

    3. Strange, cuz I heard the opposite.

      I was under the impression they favor strong government.

  11. All the romance languages have gendered nouns. I’m just waiting for some of these rich American pinkos to head off to France to tell the French all about how French is wrong. If that ever happens, the results are sure to be amusing.

    1. Cause the French will surrender? While throwing insults and eating brie?

    2. I wouldn’t be too sure that the French pinkos won’t get there first.

    3. That’s “Frenx” to you, Bub.

  12. pronounce the x like in Axayacatl or like in minx?

    1. pronounce the x like in Axayacatl or like in minx?

      Neither. It’s pronounced ‘ex’ as in ‘ex cathedra’.

      It’s hilarious that the people always grumbling about social constructs managed to nail this shingle to a wall and continue to pretend that it’s somehow natural, right, or sensible.

      1. >> It’s pronounced ‘ex’ as in ‘ex cathedra’.

        so, Latin not Latino

    2. pronounce the x like in Axayacatl

      Not helpful, dude.

  13. Next time I suppose best use phonemes common to the language of the people you’re saving from microaggression or whatever.

  14. So you’re telling me that people who’s language is inherently made up of gendered words aren’t in favor of rewriting their language?

    Weren’t we told just yesterday that forcing cultural changes on ‘minorities’ that make up the majority of people in the Americas is uncouth?

    I guess it’s different once you have a Ph.D. since at that point you can claim to be more native than the natives. It’s no coincidence this type of thing comes out of our bastions of professional navel-gazers.

    1. What is the opposite of cultural appropriation, where you force your (desired) culture onto another group?

      1. Last I checked, colonialism. Amusing given the source, yes?

      2. If you pay them, colonialism. If not, slavery.

  15. What’s more fucked up… the term Latinx or the fact they had a survey about it?

    1. Let me know when some Nobel Laureate Latin American writer uses Latinx in a poem. Non sarcastically.

  16. “Despite its usage by academics and cultural influencers

    This is where we need that little Wikipedia superscript font to write (who?)

    1. Despite its usage by academics and cultural influencers.

    2. For how many decades have academics and cultural influencers been using “B.C.E.” and “C.E.”, and still the regular people refuse to play along with their betters?

      1. That’s another one that drives me crazy.

        “We don’t want to imply that our calendar dates from the birth Jesus, so we’re going to keep the same dates, but rename it and pretend it doesn’t date from the birth of Jesus, and just call it the “common” era.

        Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists the world over I’m sure were totally fooled by that.

        1. It’s less honest, too. “Common Era” suggests that everyone get on board with the calendar. At least BC and AD referred to an historically agreed upon event. It’s merely a fact. Like “before freezing and after freezing”. It carries no ideology. “Common” assumes a truth we all agree on.

          1. At least BC and AD referred to an historically agreed upon event.

            Not really. “Christ” means Messiah and thus contains a specific claim as to the status of Jesus, while “Anno Domini” means “in the year of our Lord”, and thus implies that you recognize him as your lord. So it’s understandable that people would see those as ideologically loaded.

            However, the use of “common” is, as you point out, ridiculous. CE and BCE as abbreviations make sense for “Christian Epoch” and “Before Christian Epoch”, “epoch” meaning the start date of a calendar and “Christian” marking whose calendar. It’s a purely and truly factual statement about the dating system used.

            Somebody feeling a special need to be multicultural can then explain that it’s merely historically contingent that we use the Christian one instead of dating things using the Roman, Persian, Jewish, Vikrami, Saka, Byzantine, French (revolutionary), Unix, or other epoch.

        2. Didn’t even fool the Jews.

          1. Nope. The Gregorian calendar was put into place 1500 years later.

            It is the one we all use. Don’t care what letters you put next to the numbers.

            Orthodox Jews have another one which depends on the sun and stars used only for religious purposes.

            Old conundrum. If you are on the space station when does Shabbat start. When asked the rabbis convened. This really happened. The determination was the astronaut was to mark time from the launch point in Florida.

            http://lubavitch.com/news/article/2014606/Chabad-Rabbi-Guides-Astronaut-in-Keeping-Shabbat-in-Space.html

            And Hebrew also does not have a gender neutral case.

  17. “We went into it with the hypothesis that awareness was going to be lower than social media makes it seem,” said Carrasco. “We didn’t think it was going to be as low as it is. We also thought that it was going to be significantly more popular among young people, and it’s not. There’s no significant difference there.”

    This is clearly the guy who flies over Kansas and wonders what the little patchwork of squares and rectangles are that he’s looking at.

    1. he would probably determine that the patchwork was clearly religious symbolism to appease whatever sky god they think is looking down at them, and make the determination that those flying over them were the ones being deified which would fit his world view of himself and all those on either coast working in such institutions.

  18. 2%; That’s about the level of the usual coding error, so the results are consistent with the actual rate being roughly zero.

  19. Only 2%?
    That means we keep calling them that because it’s now funny, right?

  20. Funny that they didn’t seem to get any No molestes.

  21. Why are Latinos racists against themselves? White progs know what’s best for them.

  22. These are surprising results. Two percent is wildly disproportionate to the tiny student radical/ethnic studies community. Don’t underestimate the influence of these people, who have bamboozled Bobby to write a column about the word.

  23. Only 2% of Hispanics Prefer the Politically Correct Term ‘Latinx’

    That means the other 98% are racists, right?

    1. Transphobic?

  24. “”Latinx,” the progressive, gender-neutral alternative to Latino/Latina, is a favorite of campus activists and ethnic studies departments.”

    Pretty sure most latins are pretty much like most people; don’t call me late for lunch.

  25. 2% is enough for a vanguard. The 98% will either be grateful for receiving correct leadership, or they’ll get re-educated.

  26. What is the purpose of this article? Is it an outrage piece about how out of touch those stupid libtards are?

    Just to set the record straight, “latinx” is, linguistically at least, probably the most correct form of the word (this is the part where you type “Technically Correct” into Youtube and click on the first link). The reason for this has little to do with danger-hair activists and more to do with the fact that the English language doesn’t have gendered nouns but its also a language that thrives on appropriating words from other languages, but there’s no singular unambiguous way to use the word latino or latina in English without taking along its gender rules. Thus was born latinx as the “technically correct” term. And of course hispanics don’t prefer using it. They’re already familiar with the terms “latino” and “latina” and are happily blending the rules of English and Spanish together the way they’ve been doing for hundreds of years.

    1. Thanks for whitesplaining that.

    2. English lAnguage doesnt have gender

      Steward vs stewardess. Waiter vs waitress etc…. and so on.

    3. Your explanation is nonsense. English has a gender system similar to Spanish, and that’s no accident since the languages are both Indo-European. In both languages, the masculine form of nouns is commonly used when the gender of an individual is unknown. So, “latino” and “schoolmaster” both refer either to a male or a person of unknown gender, while “latina” and “schoolmistress” refer to a female.

      Neo-Marxists object to this standard grammatical usage because they believe it somehow privileges males; hence, they created absurd linguistic constructs out of thin air. There is no linguistic justification for that.

    4. “latinx” is, linguistically at least, probably the most correct form of the word

      No, it’s not, by any metric. It’s a terrible political shoehorn and the people who insist that it’s perfection aren’t fooling anyone except themselves. English and Spanish have gendered nouns and words for gender as well as multiple ways for ‘neutering’ them, the ‘x’ suffix isn’t one of them. Mailman, mailwoman, mailperson, mail carrier… father, mother, parent… brother, sister, sibling… uncle, aunt, relative…

      Seriously, it’s obvious to anyone who’s spoken English or Spanish for more than a couple of years.

  27. Something about Latin-x that sounds a bit like involuntarily cutting the penises off Latinos. I’m sure this will get Lizzy lots of Latino/a/x votes.

  28. Obviously, they are self-hating and ignorant, and they need to listen to their informed, woke, white upper-class progressive betters!

    1. Rev Kirkland, is that you?

  29. I don’t even know how to pronounce that word. Does it rhyme with “Professor X” or does it rhyme with “those finks?”

  30. I’m waiting for someone to claim that spoken language is a tool of oppression imposed by the patriarchy. Maybe someone has and I missed it.

  31. I don’t know a single Hispanic person who wants to be called Latinx. But there are plenty of white progressives who want to make that decision for them. Attention white progressives: Stop speaking for minorities. They have their own voices.

    1. Oh, but they don’t have their own voices. Even though they’re just as good as us whites they just can’t make it without our “help.”

  32. What a moronic idea. While the gender (or is it sex? I never remember) warriors continue to rewrite the English language to suit their incomprehensible needs and ever-changing desires, the rest of us just roll our eyes at the things that make the left’s heads explode.

Please to post comments