Evidence that white people came up with Latinx? My sense was always that Hispanic leftists came up with it, and it was then amplified by their white leftist friends.
Which is maybe a distinction without a difference, and I realize that you were probably just making a pithy statement. But I think its important if we want to examine how something like that actually came to be.
Isn't "folx" lingo or jargon? Like, let me explain a bit...
Just like "shade", "tea", and other queer lingo that was predominantly used within the queer community, "folx" was originally (in recent usage) a term that was used by some queer folk as a signal to indicate safety and inclusiveness.
But like "shade", some outsiders heard that jargon and started using it in communities where it wasn't common, and didn't carry the original intent, and so it looked confusing or annoying.
I think it's fine for communities to have vernacular words that are understood within their community, I suspect the real "villains" here to you are the folk who pull that jargon out and try to make it widespread.
People absolutely say "folks" in person nowadays (of course you wouldn't be able to hear a distinction between "ks" and "x"). It's common (although, yes, mediated by subculture) around where I live.
I grew up in a culture where nobody had a problem with "you guys". I am really not that old, and I still live in the same city.
As for "not carrying the original intent" - I don't see how there's any meaningful difference in intent.
These are all black American words, not "queer lingo." Other than "folks" which is Southern, but comes to upper-middle class white people through Obama's act of pretending he had ever met black Americans before college at UCLA.
They come from the long tradition of gay men copying black American female mannerisms, not anything "queer."
> I suspect the real "villains" here to you are the folk who pull that jargon out and try to make it widespread.
Gay men have contributed a lot to world culture, they're not villains.
Go watch Paris is Burning. They absolutely are Black queer lingo for decades prior to them becoming known outside Black communities. Which then became queer lingo. Which then became popular lingo.
> Gay men have contributed a lot to world culture, they're not villains
Absolutely, I never insinuated otherwise. I also don't believe it's villainous to share one's culture and lingo. But the op who objected to folx appears to think that it is bad. Take it up with them!
They are referring to "shade" and "tea". Eg in "That's the tea. All tea, no shade."
Meaning "that's the truth, the straight truth, no disrespect intended".
These terms rose in popularity in the ballroom scene in New York. (Note: not ballroom dancing, but rather "drag ball" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_culture). The culture of that scene was predominantly Black and Latino.
I'm answering in good faith, assuming the question is in good faith.
Latin@ (or latine or latinao) are all attempts to add non gendered versions of gendered words in Spanish.
Some percentage of the population, probably in the tenths of a percentage point, identify as non binary. Those people prefer to use non gendered indicators where possible.
That's ... kinda possible in English, where you can use they/them or replace father with parent, for instance.
In Romance languages this is much more difficult because adjectives are supposed to agree with the gender of the person -- for instance roja is red, feminine, and rojo is red, masculine.
So, there is a genuine movement by people who are non binary to try out different things. Combining the an and o, for instance, to get rojao, or roj@. Or using a third vowel to indicate gender neutrality, e.g. roje.
It's extremely important, imo, to differentiate this from Latinx. Latinx is an American English construct, latin@ is a Spanish language construct. Latinx is an almost exclusively American (and therefore largely exogenous concept to Spanish speakers), whereas latine is a Chilean/Argentinian construction that is endogenous.
Hope this comment is helpful, I'd ask that people vote on it based on whether they felt I made a good faith effort to factually answer this person's question, even if they dislike the idea of gender neutral Romance languages.
Considering the comment history of the person you are talking to (basically only ever replies to fight over social justice), I think they must be mentioning a real trend.
