The X Factor: How Group Labels Shape Politics
November 1, 2024 6:32 PM Subscribe
The X Factor: How Group Labels Shape Politics (PDF) By scholars Amanda Sahar d’Urso and Marcel F. Roman, a recent paper posits a "Identity-Expansion-Backlash Theory," explored through the partisan consequences of the term "Latinx" through seven experiments. They find a decrease in support for Democrats who use "Latinx" among Latino voters who might otherwise support Democrats, but who are resistant to LGBTQ+ inclusion in Latino identity.
The authors further discuss their findings here in the Washington Post.
Abstract: What are the political consequences of group labels? Group labels are political, but little theory and evidence explains how group labels shape politician evaluations. We present an Identity-Expansion-Backlash Theory and posit politicians who use inclusive group labels may experience backlash among relevant group members predisposed against newly included or salient group members. Latinos’ relationship with “Latinx,” a gender-inclusive label, is a theoretical test case. Using several datasets, we find: Latinos are less likely to support politicians who use “Latinx” (Studies 1, 7); Latinos who oppose “Latinx” are less likely to support politicians who used or are associated with “Latinx” (Studies 2-5); Latinos in areas where “Latinx” is more salient are more likely to switch their vote toward Trump between 2016-2020 (Study 6). Consistent with our theory, these statistical patterns are driven by Republican, conservative, and anti-LGBTQ+ Latinos. Our findings have implications for politicians using identity-based appeals.
Abstract: What are the political consequences of group labels? Group labels are political, but little theory and evidence explains how group labels shape politician evaluations. We present an Identity-Expansion-Backlash Theory and posit politicians who use inclusive group labels may experience backlash among relevant group members predisposed against newly included or salient group members. Latinos’ relationship with “Latinx,” a gender-inclusive label, is a theoretical test case. Using several datasets, we find: Latinos are less likely to support politicians who use “Latinx” (Studies 1, 7); Latinos who oppose “Latinx” are less likely to support politicians who used or are associated with “Latinx” (Studies 2-5); Latinos in areas where “Latinx” is more salient are more likely to switch their vote toward Trump between 2016-2020 (Study 6). Consistent with our theory, these statistical patterns are driven by Republican, conservative, and anti-LGBTQ+ Latinos. Our findings have implications for politicians using identity-based appeals.
If I never see the word "Latinx" again it will be too soon.
It seems to be an idea imposed by non-Latino forces in a wildly-misguided attempt for maximal inclusion.
Here's an idea: listen to the people you're trying to uplift.
posted by netowl at 9:20 PM on November 1 [20 favorites]
It seems to be an idea imposed by non-Latino forces in a wildly-misguided attempt for maximal inclusion.
Here's an idea: listen to the people you're trying to uplift.
posted by netowl at 9:20 PM on November 1 [20 favorites]
The one I saw used by actual people was latin@ - any thoughts on that?
posted by freethefeet at 10:05 PM on November 1 [1 favorite]
posted by freethefeet at 10:05 PM on November 1 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I'd say including an unpronounceable nonalphabetic character is even worse.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:16 PM on November 1 [8 favorites]
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:16 PM on November 1 [8 favorites]
I recently encountered Xicanx as a gender-neutral form of Chicano/Chicana. I get the intention, but it's impenetrable to both native English and Spanish speakers, from what I gather. The letter "x" is intended to be pronounced both as a soft "ch" and as a hard "ex" in the same word without any diacritic distinction. This is a bad marketing strategy for the radical queer agenda.
posted by cosmologinaut at 11:49 PM on November 1 [2 favorites]
posted by cosmologinaut at 11:49 PM on November 1 [2 favorites]
I'm no expert, but I'm informed by people I believe to be knowledgeable that Latine (LAT-in-AY or la-TEEN-ay) is preferred over Latinx; it is the proper Spanish-language non-gendered variant rather than a Spanish-language-disrespecting English amalgamation. I have also observed this whole matter to be a doubly-hot-button, mixing both gender-identity and ethnic-identity.
posted by zaixfeep at 11:53 PM on November 1 [10 favorites]
posted by zaixfeep at 11:53 PM on November 1 [10 favorites]
I was in Spain a decade or so ago when I first heard about neutralizing the masculine default of the language. The argument I heard was simply to defer to the feminine -- nosotras for a mixed gender group of people, for example. The idea was that for 1000+ years the masculine was the default, so just give the feminine form a turn.
Latine is also a neologism that has the same buy-in issues as Latinx. Spanish is/was a gender binary language, unfortunately.
posted by cosmologinaut at 12:00 AM on November 2 [3 favorites]
Latine is also a neologism that has the same buy-in issues as Latinx. Spanish is/was a gender binary language, unfortunately.
posted by cosmologinaut at 12:00 AM on November 2 [3 favorites]
Latin@ still reads as binary.
I'm no expert, but I'm informed by northern Mexicans I believe to be knowledgeable that their preference is to write latinx and pronounce it latine.
Google trends for Mexico lean toward more searches for latinx, particularly closer to the northern border.
Google trends for Spain lean heavily toward more searches for latine, with latinx being most searched for in Madrid and Catalonia.
Google trends for Colombia lean toward more searches for latine.
Seems regional to me.
Also, this seems like a quick way to do a first-pass take on trans-friendly a region might be, if anyone is planning a move.
posted by Mirth at 12:23 AM on November 2 [7 favorites]
I'm no expert, but I'm informed by northern Mexicans I believe to be knowledgeable that their preference is to write latinx and pronounce it latine.
Google trends for Mexico lean toward more searches for latinx, particularly closer to the northern border.
Google trends for Spain lean heavily toward more searches for latine, with latinx being most searched for in Madrid and Catalonia.
Google trends for Colombia lean toward more searches for latine.
Seems regional to me.
Also, this seems like a quick way to do a first-pass take on trans-friendly a region might be, if anyone is planning a move.
posted by Mirth at 12:23 AM on November 2 [7 favorites]
I feel like I have to tap the "correlation is not causation" sign.
E.g., the actual discussion of "study 6" says "the association between Latinx salience and ∆ Trump vote is positive and statistically significant for Latinos who report unfavorability toward LGBT people". And, they note, there is no effect for people who are not unfavorable towards LGBT people.
So, to be blunt, homophobes trended toward Trump. The paper argues that this is because Democrats insisted on using the word Latinx. But homophobia correlates with a lot of things... one of them is Republicans pushing anti-LGBT rhetoric since 2016. Also, what about other parts of the Democratic message? Is how often they say "Latinx" the only relevant factor about Democrats that they're measuring?
posted by zompist at 1:24 AM on November 2 [22 favorites]
E.g., the actual discussion of "study 6" says "the association between Latinx salience and ∆ Trump vote is positive and statistically significant for Latinos who report unfavorability toward LGBT people". And, they note, there is no effect for people who are not unfavorable towards LGBT people.
So, to be blunt, homophobes trended toward Trump. The paper argues that this is because Democrats insisted on using the word Latinx. But homophobia correlates with a lot of things... one of them is Republicans pushing anti-LGBT rhetoric since 2016. Also, what about other parts of the Democratic message? Is how often they say "Latinx" the only relevant factor about Democrats that they're measuring?
posted by zompist at 1:24 AM on November 2 [22 favorites]
What is the objection? To this word? Great, what's a better one to use? Or is the objection to the very concept of gender inclusive language? If so, then I'm sorry but that makes you an asshole. "Traditional values" as a euphemism for bigotry, homophobia, misogyny, it's just as bullshit if it's being deployed by Latin communities as it is when it's white odalists.
posted by Dysk at 2:42 AM on November 2 [4 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 2:42 AM on November 2 [4 favorites]
I work at an historically Latino social service organization in Chicago. The term “Latinx” is frowned upon and never used by anyone at the agency. It came up a few times in the last couple years from people outside the agency and some new people working here, but it is generally not accepted by the Hispanic and Latino management and/or the participants. I’m not Latino at all, and one thing that is bugging me is the general lack of acknowledgement of the LGBTQ community and I think it’s the fact that a lot of the senior management are older and have been around for decades. Plus we do a lot of work with elderly Latinos and I believe that LGBTQ issues are sort of glossed over because of more conservative culture. I plan on changing that along with the new management on my team. We are the communications and marketing people and ignoring those issues is pig headed and backwards facing and times continue to change.
The organization is very liberal in other respects, but I think completely ignoring LGBTQ community members is wrong and frankly not a good way to move the place forward.
Anyway, Latinx is not a “thing” with any age of my predominantly Latino co workers.
posted by SoberHighland at 3:46 AM on November 2 [7 favorites]
The organization is very liberal in other respects, but I think completely ignoring LGBTQ community members is wrong and frankly not a good way to move the place forward.
Anyway, Latinx is not a “thing” with any age of my predominantly Latino co workers.
posted by SoberHighland at 3:46 AM on November 2 [7 favorites]
I feel like I have to tap the "correlation is not causation" sign.
Oh wow thanks i don’t think the scholars ever considered that. Have you sent them an email detailing your original thoughts?
Care to point out where these scholars make a causal claim about the empirics?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:38 AM on November 2 [1 favorite]
Oh wow thanks i don’t think the scholars ever considered that. Have you sent them an email detailing your original thoughts?
Care to point out where these scholars make a causal claim about the empirics?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:38 AM on November 2 [1 favorite]
Care to point out where these scholars make a causal claim about the empirics?
I think it's frowned upon to quote an entire paper here, but you can read it here.
Start with the title: "How Group Labels Shape Politics". Then read the abstract: "We... posit politicians who use inclusive group labels may experience backlash among relevant group members predisposed against newly included or salient group members." Then read the paper.
posted by zompist at 5:01 AM on November 2 [4 favorites]
I think it's frowned upon to quote an entire paper here, but you can read it here.
Start with the title: "How Group Labels Shape Politics". Then read the abstract: "We... posit politicians who use inclusive group labels may experience backlash among relevant group members predisposed against newly included or salient group members." Then read the paper.
posted by zompist at 5:01 AM on November 2 [4 favorites]
I have a transmasc nonbinary friend who uses latine for themselves and I agree that this is incredibly depressing; people will vote for candidates openly bigoted against them because they're afraid queer people will...what? Exist? Be recognized as members of their communities? Heartbreaking and discouraging.
posted by an octopus IRL at 5:22 AM on November 2 [4 favorites]
posted by an octopus IRL at 5:22 AM on November 2 [4 favorites]
They’re not make a causal claim in any of their statistical models, the causality is in the theory, and they provide evidence consistent with that theory.
They clearly put a lot of work into this and I don’t think it does anyone a disservice to make drive by r/science 101 comments.
I urge you to actually read study 6. Their independent variable is level of Latinx use at the local level, and change in Trump support between 2016-2020. Do you think Latinx use positively correlates with republican homophobia at the local level in 2020 but not in 2016 enough to account for the results they find?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:53 AM on November 2 [3 favorites]
They clearly put a lot of work into this and I don’t think it does anyone a disservice to make drive by r/science 101 comments.
I urge you to actually read study 6. Their independent variable is level of Latinx use at the local level, and change in Trump support between 2016-2020. Do you think Latinx use positively correlates with republican homophobia at the local level in 2020 but not in 2016 enough to account for the results they find?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:53 AM on November 2 [3 favorites]
Yeah, latine is the way to go for all the reasons described above. It’s about as controversial as singular they/them is in English, which is to say, unfortunately still fairly controversial, but it has the benefit of being a home-grown gender-neutral solution as opposed to one created and used primarily by non-hispanic people.
posted by rhymedirective at 6:00 AM on November 2 [1 favorite]
posted by rhymedirective at 6:00 AM on November 2 [1 favorite]
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I'm having a fantastically difficult time parsing the OP, and the link opens on a PDF that is very long and that I will never read. Is it saying that voters don't want to support democrats who say "Latinx," or who identify as "Latinx," or that people who identify as "Latinx" don't support democrats, especially if they (the voters or the candidates?) are LGBTQ...I'm just not understanding what is happening.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:41 AM on November 2 [1 favorite]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:41 AM on November 2 [1 favorite]
They’re saying dems using the word latinx is shifting people to the right.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:51 AM on November 2 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:51 AM on November 2 [2 favorites]
I mean, yeah, that's what they're *saying*, but it's not what they're actually showing.
What they show is that:
(1) In an abstract hypothetical in one survey, more latino respondents would respond negatively to a candidate using "latinx" than would respond positively.
(2) In a set of different surveys, latino respondents who said that they oppose the term "latinx" also express less support for Democrats measured in a variety of ways
(3) In another different set of surveys, latino respondents who oppose the term "latinx" don't state lower approval of Biden, controlling for their approval of Trump in 2019. But, latino respondents who liked Trump and who oppose "latinx" stated lower approval of Biden than latino respondents who liked Trump and didn't oppose "latinx." Same for latino respondents who were Republican. tl;dr -- no difference overall, but people who already shouldn't like Biden very much liked Biden even less if they opposed "latinx."
(4) How often people in a media market search for the term "latinx" has no overall effect on the change in Trump vote from 2016 to 2020 among latino respondents. But looking only at latino respondents who say they don't like queer people, the ones who live in a media market where people do more searching for the term "latinx" have a larger vote shift towards Trump than the ones who live in media markets with fewer searches for it.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:27 AM on November 2 [5 favorites]
What they show is that:
(1) In an abstract hypothetical in one survey, more latino respondents would respond negatively to a candidate using "latinx" than would respond positively.
(2) In a set of different surveys, latino respondents who said that they oppose the term "latinx" also express less support for Democrats measured in a variety of ways
(3) In another different set of surveys, latino respondents who oppose the term "latinx" don't state lower approval of Biden, controlling for their approval of Trump in 2019. But, latino respondents who liked Trump and who oppose "latinx" stated lower approval of Biden than latino respondents who liked Trump and didn't oppose "latinx." Same for latino respondents who were Republican. tl;dr -- no difference overall, but people who already shouldn't like Biden very much liked Biden even less if they opposed "latinx."
(4) How often people in a media market search for the term "latinx" has no overall effect on the change in Trump vote from 2016 to 2020 among latino respondents. But looking only at latino respondents who say they don't like queer people, the ones who live in a media market where people do more searching for the term "latinx" have a larger vote shift towards Trump than the ones who live in media markets with fewer searches for it.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:27 AM on November 2 [5 favorites]
Mod note: Comment removed, replies left up for context. Please be considerate and respectful when making your points.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:40 AM on November 2
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:40 AM on November 2
It seems to be an idea imposed by non-Latino forces in a wildly-misguided attempt for maximal inclusion.
Plenty of Latinx people use and encourage the use of Latinx (which I use here in deference to how they describe their own identities). In my experience they are often people involved in academia and/or queer advocacy, which could be a different conversation about class and values, but they certainly aren’t “non-Latino” forces.
I typically use Latine as from my knowledge it’s the more generally accepted term, but everyone I have spoken to off-internet who uses Latinx is Latinx themselves. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the “right” word going forward, but it’s certainly in use by the people it’s intended to describe, just potentially only in certain subcultures.
posted by brook horse at 8:04 AM on November 2 [4 favorites]
Plenty of Latinx people use and encourage the use of Latinx (which I use here in deference to how they describe their own identities). In my experience they are often people involved in academia and/or queer advocacy, which could be a different conversation about class and values, but they certainly aren’t “non-Latino” forces.
I typically use Latine as from my knowledge it’s the more generally accepted term, but everyone I have spoken to off-internet who uses Latinx is Latinx themselves. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the “right” word going forward, but it’s certainly in use by the people it’s intended to describe, just potentially only in certain subcultures.
posted by brook horse at 8:04 AM on November 2 [4 favorites]
I have lots of Latino students, who, to a person, prefer "Latino" even though they acknowledge it's fundamentally sexist.
Had the pleasure of attending a function a couple of years ago where three different associate-dean level officials, two black, one white, all women, no Latinas, used the word "Latinx", only the first one said "LatEEnex", the second "Latin-ex" and the third "La-TINKS", though in her defence I think she was reading aloud from something someone had handed her rather than something she'd written or rehearsed herself. I damn near died trying not to laugh.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:14 AM on November 2 [2 favorites]
Had the pleasure of attending a function a couple of years ago where three different associate-dean level officials, two black, one white, all women, no Latinas, used the word "Latinx", only the first one said "LatEEnex", the second "Latin-ex" and the third "La-TINKS", though in her defence I think she was reading aloud from something someone had handed her rather than something she'd written or rehearsed herself. I damn near died trying not to laugh.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:14 AM on November 2 [2 favorites]
the politics of division ever strong. the left does something small and poorly thought out. the right amplifies it as if it's widespread and incredibly civilization shatteringly awful. and we end up discussing it as if something legitimate and real is happening. meanwhile our energies are dispered and our focused moved off the real problems.
repeat ad nauseum as the world burns.
posted by kokaku at 8:29 AM on November 2 [5 favorites]
repeat ad nauseum as the world burns.
posted by kokaku at 8:29 AM on November 2 [5 favorites]
I am actually sympathetic to people who respond negatively when they are referred to as “Latinx”. My first rule of talking to/about other people is to call them by the name(s) they want me to use. I have an obligation to treat people with respect and that starts by identifying them in the way they choose. My understanding is “Latinx” did not develop from the community so when others use it to describe people in the community, it comes off as patronizing and insulting.
“I, an outsider, have decided this is a problem so I, an outsider, will solve it for you.”
None of what I just said should be construed as saying we shouldn’t work to include all people. People who are in marginalized communities within minority communities certainly need support! But it isn’t my place as an outsider to “fix their problems “. When working for change, we need to meet people where they are, not where we want them to be.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 8:37 AM on November 2 [1 favorite]
“I, an outsider, have decided this is a problem so I, an outsider, will solve it for you.”
None of what I just said should be construed as saying we shouldn’t work to include all people. People who are in marginalized communities within minority communities certainly need support! But it isn’t my place as an outsider to “fix their problems “. When working for change, we need to meet people where they are, not where we want them to be.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 8:37 AM on November 2 [1 favorite]
Who are the authors of the study here? The right? The left? The distractors of real issues?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:37 AM on November 2
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:37 AM on November 2
Spanish is an actual language with actual rules, including for noun gender. However virtuous the cause, we don't disregard the rules of English to the extent that "Latinx" does of Spanish.
I don't think it offended anyone enough to make them vote Republican, but it sure did/does make the flavor of progressives who thought it was a good idea seem silly to most people who speak Spanish or are of a Spanish-speaking heritage.
"Latine" and "latines" at a minimum sems a lot more graceful and respectful of the language, but it surely is going to require some greater adoption from mainstream Spanish-language writers and broadcasters before it becomes more messaging and less eat-your-spinach-ing.
posted by MattD at 8:41 AM on November 2 [3 favorites]
I don't think it offended anyone enough to make them vote Republican, but it sure did/does make the flavor of progressives who thought it was a good idea seem silly to most people who speak Spanish or are of a Spanish-speaking heritage.
"Latine" and "latines" at a minimum sems a lot more graceful and respectful of the language, but it surely is going to require some greater adoption from mainstream Spanish-language writers and broadcasters before it becomes more messaging and less eat-your-spinach-ing.
posted by MattD at 8:41 AM on November 2 [3 favorites]
I feel like there’s a voice missing here (unless I missed it): nonbinary people of the actual ethnicity in question. And that wouldn’t be me, I’m just nonbinary don’t speak Spanish, but I have listened to a podcast where nonbinary latines were talking about how their preferred term was “Latine” and how they were hopeful about other changes being used in the language to make it less gendered. And I would prefer to support them and use terms they prefer than those used by people who think my existence is invalid.
posted by antinomia at 9:31 AM on November 2 [2 favorites]
posted by antinomia at 9:31 AM on November 2 [2 favorites]
Yawn. Yet another "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WOKEISM HAS GONE TOO FAR!" and "IDENTITY POLITICS ARE DIVIDING US" panic piece from center-right liberals at the billionaire's newspaper.
Funny, the things we have normalized.
Whether or not you think "latinx" is cringe (as the youths say on the tick tocks), the argument that Democrats are driving voters away by using The Word That Must Not Be Spoken is inane at best, disingenuous TERFy bullshit at worst. The study is... god, I really did waste my morning reading it all, didn't I?
My favorite parts include: "We use toplines because B&A did not respond to requests to share their raw data. Therefore, we cannot conduct statistical difference tests. We can only descriptively interpret the data."
Christ, I'm used to studies that don't include their raw data, but the fact that the study authors themselves didn't have the raw data they were analyzing is disappointing.
And also: "Study 1 is limited for several reasons. [...] Second, the question we use to calculate net support is a leading question."
YEAH, I HAD NOTICED AND WAS WONDERING ABOUT THAT.
And also: "Self-reported opposition to “Latinx” may be highly politically motivated as opposed to a genuine process of exposure to the phrase..." but also "Studies 2-4 are limited since the results may be driven by reverse causality. Support for Democratic party politicians may motivate the adoption of preferences for gender-inclusive group labels, especially if respondents are following party cues in the form of Democratic party usage of the phrase “Latinx.”"
YEAH, I WAS WONDERING IF MAYBE PEOPLE WERE JUST GIVING THE ANSWERS THEY THOUGHT THEY "SHOULD" BE GIVING BASED ON THEIR POLITICAL GROUP MEMBERSHIP.
I don't have time to go into the rest of the reasons this study is deeply unconvincing. Stop trying to make Identity-Expansion-Backlash Theory happen. It's not going to happen.
The paper is just unconvincing and insignificant data analysis shoveled into a pile large enough to call a study (that nobody but rubes like me will actually read), just so they can then publish a 400-word summary on the WaPo Opinion page.
> So, to be blunt, homophobes trended toward Trump. The paper argues that this is because Democrats insisted on using the word Latinx.
Oh but don't worry, they are sure to mention (in the last paragraph), "Our findings do not imply that the Democrats should pander to anti-LGBTQ+ voters."
Oh, so they're not saying tha-
Wait.
Hold up.
"to anti-LGBTQ+ voters"
Irony is dead: it wasn't too long ago when you'd hear disingenuous arguments against the "alphabet soup" of "LGBTQ+" and here it is just casually being used no problem. Heck, even the terms "LGBT" or "gay" were derided by people who had the agenda of keeping "homosexual" with all its associations of criminality and psychosis.
Progressives will drag the corporate media Opinion pages, kicking and screaming, into better values just so that in the end they can pretend they always had those values.
Don't like "latinx"? Don't use it. I don't. But let's see this WaPo piece for what it is: just another ratchet that lets GOP fascists turn the wheel right while keeping progressives from turning it left.
posted by AlSweigart at 9:36 AM on November 2 [9 favorites]
Funny, the things we have normalized.
Whether or not you think "latinx" is cringe (as the youths say on the tick tocks), the argument that Democrats are driving voters away by using The Word That Must Not Be Spoken is inane at best, disingenuous TERFy bullshit at worst. The study is... god, I really did waste my morning reading it all, didn't I?
My favorite parts include: "We use toplines because B&A did not respond to requests to share their raw data. Therefore, we cannot conduct statistical difference tests. We can only descriptively interpret the data."
Christ, I'm used to studies that don't include their raw data, but the fact that the study authors themselves didn't have the raw data they were analyzing is disappointing.
And also: "Study 1 is limited for several reasons. [...] Second, the question we use to calculate net support is a leading question."
YEAH, I HAD NOTICED AND WAS WONDERING ABOUT THAT.
And also: "Self-reported opposition to “Latinx” may be highly politically motivated as opposed to a genuine process of exposure to the phrase..." but also "Studies 2-4 are limited since the results may be driven by reverse causality. Support for Democratic party politicians may motivate the adoption of preferences for gender-inclusive group labels, especially if respondents are following party cues in the form of Democratic party usage of the phrase “Latinx.”"
YEAH, I WAS WONDERING IF MAYBE PEOPLE WERE JUST GIVING THE ANSWERS THEY THOUGHT THEY "SHOULD" BE GIVING BASED ON THEIR POLITICAL GROUP MEMBERSHIP.
I don't have time to go into the rest of the reasons this study is deeply unconvincing. Stop trying to make Identity-Expansion-Backlash Theory happen. It's not going to happen.
The paper is just unconvincing and insignificant data analysis shoveled into a pile large enough to call a study (that nobody but rubes like me will actually read), just so they can then publish a 400-word summary on the WaPo Opinion page.
> So, to be blunt, homophobes trended toward Trump. The paper argues that this is because Democrats insisted on using the word Latinx.
Oh but don't worry, they are sure to mention (in the last paragraph), "Our findings do not imply that the Democrats should pander to anti-LGBTQ+ voters."
Oh, so they're not saying tha-
Wait.
Hold up.
"to anti-LGBTQ+ voters"
Irony is dead: it wasn't too long ago when you'd hear disingenuous arguments against the "alphabet soup" of "LGBTQ+" and here it is just casually being used no problem. Heck, even the terms "LGBT" or "gay" were derided by people who had the agenda of keeping "homosexual" with all its associations of criminality and psychosis.
Progressives will drag the corporate media Opinion pages, kicking and screaming, into better values just so that in the end they can pretend they always had those values.
Don't like "latinx"? Don't use it. I don't. But let's see this WaPo piece for what it is: just another ratchet that lets GOP fascists turn the wheel right while keeping progressives from turning it left.
posted by AlSweigart at 9:36 AM on November 2 [9 favorites]
If you'd like more examples of this panicky nonsense over non-stories, check out NYT's headline, "Harris Struggles to Win Over Latinos, While Trump Holds His Grip, Poll Shows" that leads with "Vice President Kamala Harris’s support among Hispanic voters is in dangerously low territory for Democrats" (oh, by the way, they mean 56% compared to Trump's 36%.)
But don't worry! USA Today yesterday reports Harris regains ground with Latino voters, new poll shows (because the numbers are now 57% to 33%.)
Just keep clicking and follow along with this manufactured roller coaster of news!
Also, going back to the study author's concern-trolling about "latinx": "Inclusive group labels may politically alienate group members who are predisposed against the inclusivity of newly included or salient group members. For instance, Black Americans may dislike the use of phrases like “people of color” [...]"
I guess now we should spend time discussing Does the Term “POC” Help Us or Hurt Us? If you think POC was a completely ordinary and acceptable term, maybe you're driving Black people to Trump! And maybe I am too, for capitalizing "Black" and dividing our country with identity politics!
And don't forget that people arguing about "ADOS" on social media is also worthy of our attention. From the study: "Likewise, the use of “ADOS” to refer to Black Americans may alienate Black immigrants who are concerned the phrase is an indication that their interests are not worth being represented."
Keep those clicks coming,folks ladies and gentlemen!
posted by AlSweigart at 9:59 AM on November 2 [5 favorites]
But don't worry! USA Today yesterday reports Harris regains ground with Latino voters, new poll shows (because the numbers are now 57% to 33%.)
Just keep clicking and follow along with this manufactured roller coaster of news!
Also, going back to the study author's concern-trolling about "latinx": "Inclusive group labels may politically alienate group members who are predisposed against the inclusivity of newly included or salient group members. For instance, Black Americans may dislike the use of phrases like “people of color” [...]"
I guess now we should spend time discussing Does the Term “POC” Help Us or Hurt Us? If you think POC was a completely ordinary and acceptable term, maybe you're driving Black people to Trump! And maybe I am too, for capitalizing "Black" and dividing our country with identity politics!
And don't forget that people arguing about "ADOS" on social media is also worthy of our attention. From the study: "Likewise, the use of “ADOS” to refer to Black Americans may alienate Black immigrants who are concerned the phrase is an indication that their interests are not worth being represented."
Keep those clicks coming,
posted by AlSweigart at 9:59 AM on November 2 [5 favorites]
Trolls, terfs, scare quotes, I wonder what the criticisms here would be if the authors were white.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:08 AM on November 2 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:08 AM on November 2 [1 favorite]
El Centro de la Raza uses gender neutral language (e.g. 'latin@').
If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.
Other people may use other terms and that's OK.
White homophobes and contrarians love to bang this drum as some kind of weird gotcha. It ain't.
posted by splitpeasoup at 10:49 AM on November 2 [1 favorite]
If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.
Other people may use other terms and that's OK.
White homophobes and contrarians love to bang this drum as some kind of weird gotcha. It ain't.
posted by splitpeasoup at 10:49 AM on November 2 [1 favorite]
Just agreeing with some of what's said above, that the correct answer to the question, "what is a better alternative to using Latinx?" is "Latine." I have a colleague (Latina professor of Spanish) who has explained that "Latine" is what she prefers for the nongendered form. There are certainly other factors too, such as gender conservatism, but it's just not true that "Latinx" and "Latine" will have exactly the same buy-in issues, because one of them violates the phonotactic constraints of Spanish and the other one doesn't. Monolingual Spanish speakers don't normally use this "x" sound in the final position in a word, so it's literally hard to say. For comparison, English has its own phonotactic constraints. A word beginning with the phoneme "ng" [ŋ] would not catch on in English because it's difficult for English speakers to pronounce this at the beginning of a word, although it's completely normal for speakers of many other languages (e.g., Vietnamese). So this is not solely an issue of people not wanting to say "Latinx" because they dislike nonbinary people.
That aside, the linked study does seem a bit "antiwoke" in the bad sense, in the way it uses the "backlash" argument, so I have a feeling it is in somewhat bad faith.
posted by demonic winged headgear at 10:57 AM on November 2 [3 favorites]
That aside, the linked study does seem a bit "antiwoke" in the bad sense, in the way it uses the "backlash" argument, so I have a feeling it is in somewhat bad faith.
posted by demonic winged headgear at 10:57 AM on November 2 [3 favorites]
These discussions often collapse the important distinction between the use of gender-neutral neologisms to refer to the specific individuals who have chosen them, versus their use as the new default demonym for the entire group.
posted by kickingtheground at 1:15 PM on November 2 [2 favorites]
posted by kickingtheground at 1:15 PM on November 2 [2 favorites]
I recently encountered Xicanx as a gender-neutral form of Chicano/Chicana. I get the intention, but it's impenetrable to both native English and Spanish speakers, from what I gather.
Yes, I came across this one recently in the context of an announcement about, IIRC, some kind of art exhibition. I was truly baffled for a minute. They used the word multiple times in the blurb about the show, as if any reader would know who and what they were talking about. I am a professional editor as well as an artist, who leans to the left politically, and yet I was completely stumped.
After reading the text repeatedly and racking my brains, I finally deduced out from context clues that it was a version of "Chicano/Chicana" put thru the double filter of radical politics and academic/art world obscurantism. Total fail, IMO.
But it's certainly bold to see what a flop "Latinx" has been and then decide that the correct move is to double down on the cryptic neologisms. LOL.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:11 PM on November 2 [1 favorite]
Yes, I came across this one recently in the context of an announcement about, IIRC, some kind of art exhibition. I was truly baffled for a minute. They used the word multiple times in the blurb about the show, as if any reader would know who and what they were talking about. I am a professional editor as well as an artist, who leans to the left politically, and yet I was completely stumped.
After reading the text repeatedly and racking my brains, I finally deduced out from context clues that it was a version of "Chicano/Chicana" put thru the double filter of radical politics and academic/art world obscurantism. Total fail, IMO.
But it's certainly bold to see what a flop "Latinx" has been and then decide that the correct move is to double down on the cryptic neologisms. LOL.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:11 PM on November 2 [1 favorite]
Shouldn't latinx be pronounced "latinequis"?
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 8:35 PM on November 2
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 8:35 PM on November 2
discussions often collapse the important distinction between the use of gender-neutral neologisms to refer to the specific individuals who have chosen them, versus their use as the new default demonym for the entire group.
So it's about misogyny and nonbinary erasure as much as it is about individual nonbinary people, isn't it? "Ladies and gentlemen" is somewhat problematic as a way to refer to a group (NB erasure) and "latino/latina" has the same issue. Just assuming male default is bad for all the obvious misogyny reasons that make it bad in any language.
It's not like "term for NB people good, gender neutral term for groups bad" makes a lot of sense. Both are good.
posted by Dysk at 12:46 AM on November 3 [1 favorite]
So it's about misogyny and nonbinary erasure as much as it is about individual nonbinary people, isn't it? "Ladies and gentlemen" is somewhat problematic as a way to refer to a group (NB erasure) and "latino/latina" has the same issue. Just assuming male default is bad for all the obvious misogyny reasons that make it bad in any language.
It's not like "term for NB people good, gender neutral term for groups bad" makes a lot of sense. Both are good.
posted by Dysk at 12:46 AM on November 3 [1 favorite]
What is the objection? To this word? Great, what's a better one to use?
Latine, hands down, for all the non assholes it’s a linguistic issue. Don’t worry about the assholes, they are going to asshole. For everyone else Latinx has some cultural imperialist overtones, is unpronounceable, and also doesn’t actually work in Spanish. I feel comfortable self describing that way and never have with latinx even when that was the best word. Not everyone who uses Latinx likes it - some of us were just uncomfortably using it to try to respect our non-binary comrades and waiting for something better to come along. Now it has! So use the good one if possible. (Latin@ works in written but not spoken language - the last character is a placeholder for whatever you are putting in there).
posted by corb at 3:45 AM on November 3 [4 favorites]
Latine, hands down, for all the non assholes it’s a linguistic issue. Don’t worry about the assholes, they are going to asshole. For everyone else Latinx has some cultural imperialist overtones, is unpronounceable, and also doesn’t actually work in Spanish. I feel comfortable self describing that way and never have with latinx even when that was the best word. Not everyone who uses Latinx likes it - some of us were just uncomfortably using it to try to respect our non-binary comrades and waiting for something better to come along. Now it has! So use the good one if possible. (Latin@ works in written but not spoken language - the last character is a placeholder for whatever you are putting in there).
posted by corb at 3:45 AM on November 3 [4 favorites]
It seems to be an idea imposed by non-Latino forces in a wildly-misguided attempt for maximal inclusion.
The paper includes a brief history of the usage of "Latinx," and links to several other papers that cover it more in depth.
While there is a broader perception of the term being imposed by "outsiders," the best evidence is that it emerged in '90s era chatrooms and listservs explicitly catering to teen and young adult LGBTQ+ latinx users, and from there spread to academia. The term broke through to popular usage after the Orlando Pulse nightclub shootings, as it was the way that many of the victims and survivors described themselves. As Isa Noyola, then director of programming at the Transgender Law Center said on Democracy Now in 2017:
E.g., the actual discussion of "study 6" says "the association between Latinx salience and ∆ Trump vote is positive and statistically significant for Latinos who report unfavorability toward LGBT people". And, they note, there is no effect for people who are not unfavorable towards LGBT people.
So, to be blunt, homophobes trended toward Trump. The paper argues that this is because Democrats insisted on using the word Latinx. But homophobia correlates with a lot of things... one of them is Republicans pushing anti-LGBT rhetoric since 2016. Also, what about other parts of the Democratic message? Is how often they say "Latinx" the only relevant factor about Democrats that they're measuring?"
"Conversely, for Latinos that are unfavorable toward LGBT people, they are less likely to report voting for
Trump in 2020 relative to 2016 conditional on living in an area where “Latinx” is less salient."
"What is the objection? To this word? Great, what's a better one to use? Or is the objection to the very concept of gender inclusive language? If so, then I'm sorry but that makes you an asshole. "Traditional values" as a euphemism for bigotry, homophobia, misogyny, it's just as bullshit if it's being deployed by Latin communities as it is when it's white odalists."
The argument of the paper is that there is an electoral trade-off for Democrats by increasing the salience of including LGBTQ+ people in the definition of Latino identity, and they work to quantify what that trade off is so that people who care about electoral politics can make decisions based on an accurate assessment of what the costs are to different strategies.
My understanding is “Latinx” did not develop from the community so when others use it to describe people in the community, it comes off as patronizing and insulting."
This is the narrative of one part of the community, but that narrative also serves people who would exclude LGBTQ+ people from Latin identities. And specifically, the authors seek to address that concern, and don't find that the idea that it is imposed by white, bourgeoisie, coastal elites drives the electoral backlash — it's specifically about including LGBTQ+ people into the political identity.
Yawn. Yet another "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WOKEISM HAS GONE TOO FAR!" and "IDENTITY POLITICS ARE DIVIDING US" panic piece from center-right liberals at the billionaire's newspaper.
This type of comment makes me less likely to participate here.
It's glib, dismissive and factually wrong.
god, I really did waste my morning reading it all, didn't I?
Apparently.
The paper is just unconvincing and insignificant data analysis shoveled into a pile large enough to call a study (that nobody but rubes like me will actually read), just so they can then publish a 400-word summary on the WaPo Opinion page."
Given that you start your comment with factually wrong assumptions about the authors, their motivations and the research, it's not surprising that you're unconvinced of their hypothesis.
But let's see this WaPo piece for what it is: just another ratchet that lets GOP fascists turn the wheel right while keeping progressives from turning it left."
That's bullshit, lazy bullshit that dismisses evidence that doesn't fit your ideological priors as a plot against you, rather than recognizing that there are tradeoffs in communication, and the first part of making an informed decision is to understand what they are.
These discussions often collapse the important distinction between the use of gender-neutral neologisms to refer to the specific individuals who have chosen them, versus their use as the new default demonym for the entire group."
THANK YOU
For those who would like to see one of the authors responding to points made by a different academic critiquing the statistical models and assumptions, Marcel Roman has a thread on Twitter here, which also addresses many of the assumptions that people here have made about Roman's political orientation and position within the Latinx community.
posted by klangklangston at 1:17 PM on November 3 [6 favorites]
The paper includes a brief history of the usage of "Latinx," and links to several other papers that cover it more in depth.
While there is a broader perception of the term being imposed by "outsiders," the best evidence is that it emerged in '90s era chatrooms and listservs explicitly catering to teen and young adult LGBTQ+ latinx users, and from there spread to academia. The term broke through to popular usage after the Orlando Pulse nightclub shootings, as it was the way that many of the victims and survivors described themselves. As Isa Noyola, then director of programming at the Transgender Law Center said on Democracy Now in 2017:
“This term didn’t start at the supermarket or the barrio—definitely not where our communities are,” Noyola says.I think it's fair to characterize "latinx" as a linguistic political project within the Latin community, and discussions about whether it's being imposed by outsiders, often explicitly racialized as "white outsiders" are making their own statements of political identity and polity. It's worth noting that the phrase is more often used by people who see a unitary pan-Latin American political and ethnic identity, e.g. Mexicans and Nicaraguans sharing the same community and political interests in America. I think there also may be reasonable parallels between the rhetorical differences between those who see LGBTQ+ as a unitary political identity, i.e. an LGBTQ+ community, or those who see their identity as part of one of the communities that comprise LGBTQ+, e.g. trans-exclusionary gays, lesbians and bisexuals. I also think that many people are canny enough to make contextual switches between unitary and comprising coalition identities.
But using the term Latinx is about inclusivity. “Now, more than ever, how we use language is important to build unity,” Noyola says.
E.g., the actual discussion of "study 6" says "the association between Latinx salience and ∆ Trump vote is positive and statistically significant for Latinos who report unfavorability toward LGBT people". And, they note, there is no effect for people who are not unfavorable towards LGBT people.
So, to be blunt, homophobes trended toward Trump. The paper argues that this is because Democrats insisted on using the word Latinx. But homophobia correlates with a lot of things... one of them is Republicans pushing anti-LGBT rhetoric since 2016. Also, what about other parts of the Democratic message? Is how often they say "Latinx" the only relevant factor about Democrats that they're measuring?"
"Conversely, for Latinos that are unfavorable toward LGBT people, they are less likely to report voting for
Trump in 2020 relative to 2016 conditional on living in an area where “Latinx” is less salient."
"What is the objection? To this word? Great, what's a better one to use? Or is the objection to the very concept of gender inclusive language? If so, then I'm sorry but that makes you an asshole. "Traditional values" as a euphemism for bigotry, homophobia, misogyny, it's just as bullshit if it's being deployed by Latin communities as it is when it's white odalists."
The argument of the paper is that there is an electoral trade-off for Democrats by increasing the salience of including LGBTQ+ people in the definition of Latino identity, and they work to quantify what that trade off is so that people who care about electoral politics can make decisions based on an accurate assessment of what the costs are to different strategies.
My understanding is “Latinx” did not develop from the community so when others use it to describe people in the community, it comes off as patronizing and insulting."
This is the narrative of one part of the community, but that narrative also serves people who would exclude LGBTQ+ people from Latin identities. And specifically, the authors seek to address that concern, and don't find that the idea that it is imposed by white, bourgeoisie, coastal elites drives the electoral backlash — it's specifically about including LGBTQ+ people into the political identity.
Yawn. Yet another "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WOKEISM HAS GONE TOO FAR!" and "IDENTITY POLITICS ARE DIVIDING US" panic piece from center-right liberals at the billionaire's newspaper.
This type of comment makes me less likely to participate here.
It's glib, dismissive and factually wrong.
god, I really did waste my morning reading it all, didn't I?
Apparently.
The paper is just unconvincing and insignificant data analysis shoveled into a pile large enough to call a study (that nobody but rubes like me will actually read), just so they can then publish a 400-word summary on the WaPo Opinion page."
Given that you start your comment with factually wrong assumptions about the authors, their motivations and the research, it's not surprising that you're unconvinced of their hypothesis.
But let's see this WaPo piece for what it is: just another ratchet that lets GOP fascists turn the wheel right while keeping progressives from turning it left."
That's bullshit, lazy bullshit that dismisses evidence that doesn't fit your ideological priors as a plot against you, rather than recognizing that there are tradeoffs in communication, and the first part of making an informed decision is to understand what they are.
These discussions often collapse the important distinction between the use of gender-neutral neologisms to refer to the specific individuals who have chosen them, versus their use as the new default demonym for the entire group."
THANK YOU
For those who would like to see one of the authors responding to points made by a different academic critiquing the statistical models and assumptions, Marcel Roman has a thread on Twitter here, which also addresses many of the assumptions that people here have made about Roman's political orientation and position within the Latinx community.
posted by klangklangston at 1:17 PM on November 3 [6 favorites]
Using 'X' to mean 'queer somehow' (as a gender marker, in 'latinx', in 'folx' which was already gender neutral as 'folks' so what the fuck did you need to put a X in it for) is a) very irritating to me and b) something I'm aware I need to just get over because some people do find it helpful.
If you're the kind of person who would vote for Republicans in the US right now, you're not the kind of person whose thinking would extend to part b) of that train of thought.
posted by ngaiotonga at 6:09 AM on November 4 [1 favorite]
If you're the kind of person who would vote for Republicans in the US right now, you're not the kind of person whose thinking would extend to part b) of that train of thought.
posted by ngaiotonga at 6:09 AM on November 4 [1 favorite]
The reality is that discussions of scientific papers on Metafilter are about on par with a general reddit comment. These threads are full of tendentious readings, accusations that the authors are bad people, and general ignorance.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:31 AM on November 4 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:31 AM on November 4 [1 favorite]
« Older choices that hint at stories | Technology sucks liquid out of the air to provide... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Like ok I got it, many people who identify as Latino or Latina find the idea of gender inclusive language incredibly offensive. Noted! Promise I won't try that one again! Loud & clear, boss!
Sorry for the tone and I truly do appreciate people attempting to throw some actual rigor at this, but I feel like there's a certain sort of smarter-than-thou podcast guy that wants to talk about what a stupid unforced error "Latinx" was basically nonstop, as a demonstration of why "woke went too far" and boy, I'm just very, very, very tired.
posted by potrzebie at 9:10 PM on November 1 [11 favorites]