Just because white people like rewriting their history and language doesn't mean they have a right to rewrite mine.
If you find that inflammatory or offensive, now you know how I feel.
And even if for a moment it is true, since when do those few represent the whole?
I swear you linguistic imperialists are insufferable. Leave your hands off of my language.
It was created by native apeakers of your mother tongue, as a conscious rejection of the way they saw it—their mother tongue—as erasing, or at least obstructing communication of, their gender identity.
And even if for a moment it is true, since when do those few represent the whole?
I swear you linguistic imperialists are insufferable. Leave your hands off of my language and butcher up your own mother tongue.
The funny thing is that I haven’t even mentioned my preference for a label the group in question in this discussion.
> Leave your hands off of my language and butcher up your own mother tongue.
While at least some of the labels under discussion originate in your language and its community of speakers, the discussion is about use in English. So unless your mother tongue is English, no one's hands are, metaphorically, on it in this discussion.
So, I guess to be consistent, keep your “linguistic imperialism” to yourself...
> So, I guess to be consistent, keep your “linguistic imperialism” to yourself...
Right back at ya pendejo.
That's a very good question. Since you appear to be arguing against that strawman, tell us, who said that?
EDIT: My point is, if we can acknowledge that, like Hispanic and Latino and Latino/Latina (each of which are strongly objected to by some in the community, preferred by others, and tolerated but neither preferred nor objected to by others when talking about the broader group inclusively) these are preferred identity labels of part of the community which is being addressed, we can then talk about how to address a community with internal divisions over preferred identity label, when one specifically wants to address the whole group and not just those who favor a particular label. But we can’t even get to that point as long as we pretend that this is just an external imposition unconnected to preferences expressed within the population described.
EDIT: to elaborate: I take issue to the fact that this word is used to describe not just people who wanted to be referred to like that, but the general population.
This I agree with. This is a problem. And, in fact, we’ve been through and addressed almost this exact same problem with the inherently gendered nature (and default-male gender) of Spanish-derived demonyms and how that conflicts with some people’s gender identity before – and the problem of conflicts of preferred identity label for reasons other than gender – before. And mostly, what was done when addressing a group of mixed demonym preference with no single mutually-acceptable one was use multiple, joined with a slash (or, sometimes, here they differed only by a suffix, to separate the alternate suffixes with a slash.)
Actual, rather than performative, inclusion means not imposing a shared label just because you view the group as one for your purposes.
New terms arise all the time. There's no 'native-spanish-speaker referendum' for each new term that is created.