The thing is the X is not just a random choice, it is a deliberate choice because it is linked to Nahult language which was the language of the Aztecs.
In the published literature about the term Latinx, scholars have stated that the “x” was first used at the front of Chicano written in the form of “Xicano” as part of the civil rights movement for the empowerment of Mexican origin people in the United States (Guidotti-Hernández, 2017; Milian, 2017), while other scholars in the field of linguistic anthropology and archeology have made the argument that Chicano was changed to Xicano to emphasize how the letter X and the word origins are related to the Nahuatl language and to peoples of Mexican descent (Pharao Hansen & Tlapoyawa, 2018).
Also, Latinx is not something to describe people from Latin America, but people in the US whose cultural heritage includes identifying with Latin America. So it is more inclusive in the sense that you may not have actually grown up outside of the US but, because of the way you were brought up by your family, you were strongly influenced and feel an affinity to the history and culture of Latin America.
And again, as others have pointed out, the term did not originate outside of the group it describes, it came from people in that community. A subset of that community decided to use a gender neutral description, due to their perception of the word Latino and its association in their mind with a male dominated culture.
What is a Nahuatl connection supposed to explain? Are Argentinians, Argentinian-Americans, Brazilian-Americans, etc., supposed to relate to it? Many Latin Americans are for sure not Chicano or even Hispanic at all, so ISTM messy if someone is trying to sneak in a specific group agenda.
Why the X was chosen? That it wasn’t some random letter choice by the people who created the term? I am not sure what else it is supposed to explain. That is how etymology works.
Dating a Hispanic woman, she calls herself a Latina, she only uses Latinx on documents, and doesn’t really bother herself with what we silly Anglos are arguing about.
I’m remembering a group conversation (via Zoom) just a little while back (January or maybe right after Christmas), seven old college friends (we’re all around 60 years old now). This actually came up, although I can’t really remember why.
Two participants who are Puerto Rican (born in the US of Puerto-Rican-born parents), one Dominican (again, born in the US of Dominican parents).
One is an academic, a professor of a social science at a branch of the City University of New York. He said the term is used by the social sciences faculty and students, and students who are politically and socially active. Otherwise, not really used much.
The other two people who might be described as Latinx said they were aware of the term, but didn’t use it and thought it sounded awkward and forced, and that they didn’t see the point.
One woman of what I’d guess you’d call European descent (meaning Mayflower type, from Connecticut, family are multi-generational Fairfield Hunt Club members, etc.) used the term regularly. She couldn’t quite explain why, just that she thought it was the appropriate terminology.
The rest of us had never used the term, were vaguely aware that it existed, and also thought it was kind of awkward and didn’t exactly roll off the tongue. We were also not sure what need it satisfied and what replacing the terms “Latino” or “Latina” or “Latin” was supposed to accomplish.
So there’s a tiny bit of data to add to JohnT’s one point.
You’re correct – you would pluralize it – if it’s a countable noun – as “Latinxes,” I should think. However – and I’m not sure if you were being facetious – it would be pronounced “Latin exes” as “Latinx” is pronounced “Latin ex” not “Latinx” to rhyme with “minx.”
That said, I’m not entirely sure if I’ve heard it as a countable noun. It’s most often an adjective in contexts I’ve seen and heard it (e.g. “Latinx populations,” “Latinx issues.”) But I think I’ve heard it said “there are a lot of Latinx in that neighborhood” as opposed to “there are a lot of Latinxes in that neighborhood.” I’m sure this is all evolving and not settled language-wise, but that’s what my observation is.
One could see sentences like “That is a Latino neighborhood” or equally “That neighborhood has a lot of Latinos”. Said another way the noun version is countable and the adjective isn’t (of course)
So if we’re going to switch from the -o male supposedly including female to the -x explictly gender non-specific we’d (or at least I’d) expect to follow the same pattern:
“That is a Latinx neighborhood” or equally “That neighborhood has a lot of Latinxes”.
I wish the folks who invented this term had instead just stopped at “Latin”; IMO the x is an anti-pattern at least in English. This is so much better IMO: “That is a Latin neighborhood” or equally “That neighborhood has a lot of Latins”.
I certainly understand the parallel construction. I’m just not 100% sure if it is used that way typically or not.
Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn’t expect anything. Language is weird. That would be the logical construction, yes. Speakers might feel a gender neutral term like “Latinx” is more like “French” and while you say “That is a French neighborhood” you don’t say “That neighborhood has a lot of Frenches.” Usage will dictate which wins out.
Huh, well dictionary.com (American Heritage) does give Latinxs or Latinx as the plural, but not Latinxes. Huh.
Merriam-Webster only lists it as an adjective.
Wiktionary also lists it as “Latinxs”. (With the “Latin exes” pronunciatoin.)
So it looks like (for the moment) I’m wrong about “Latinxes” being the plural, if it is a countable noun. See?! That’s what I get for applying logic to language! But I suspect this is still in flux.
ETA: wrote this before you’d posted the dictionary link, but hit send just after you did.
For sure. And given how awkwardly the “x” is pronounced by itself and how much worse the plural forms are I’d not be surprised to see “Latinx” treated as a non-countable noun.
OTOH, the motivation for the coinage itself has at least one foot in the academic hypercorrectness camp. Which might very self-consciously choose to emphasize the x as a class marker.
Because that already has a different established meaning that incorporates a wider grouping than just Spanish speakers? And wouldn’t make quite the same point it seems some of the originators wanted to make about nonbinary options.
But I suspect this is still in flux.