So in addition to the hatred of Latinx from the Brotinos who insist that Latino is already gender neutral are people who hate Latinx because they say everybody should be using Latine instead. Prescriptivist impositions is never the path to liberation though.
The idea that one term should be the only correct way of describing a large and diverse group of people with different nationalities, social classes, religions, phenotypes, gender identities etc. (which is true for literally every ethnoracial category) is misguided at best.
So instead of insisting that everybody should use your preferred term(s) maybe a more useful point of entry might be to explain to others why you prefer a specific term and assume that they have put as much thought into their preferred term(s) as you have
I prefer Latinx because in the communities I currently navigate as a US-born English dominant cis gay Latino it is recognizable as a term that challenges both the patriarchal framing of the masculine as gender neutral and the heternormative framing of gender as binary.
My understanding is that -e rather than -x ending is more common in feminist and queer circles in Latin America. If I were to one day be navigating those spaces it is likely I would switch. But I don’t think every context need to agree on the same ending or terms.
One of my discomforts with how the case for Latine gets made in the US is that it often relies on purist language ideologies that suggest that the -e is more natural in Spanish despite the fact that many Spanish speakers in the US (including me) use the -x just fine.
Also, not all US born Latinxs speak Spanish so whether a term is natural in Spanish is irrelevant to how they decide to define themselves to the world. It is a different context than Latin America so different strategies should be expected.
To be clear, I am not making a case for Latinx over Latine. I am describing my personal decision based on my experiences and the arguments I have heard. But the real battle is against patriarchal and heteronormative frames and I support any and all efforts to fight them!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Nelson Flores

Nelson Flores Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @nelsonlflores

19 Apr
Researchers committed to making the case that “academic language” is more complex than “social language” are actually committed to making the case for their own intellectual superiority over people from low-income communities of color that most of them are too scared to enter.
Because these researchers have never been in low income communities of color they describe their homes as “lacking a strong foundation in academic language” not based on any empirical data but just based on what feels right to them.
Researchers who insist that they are not arguing that academic language is more complex than social language are even more disingeneous because they want to be able to maintain a dichotomy while claiming innocence about their complicity in reproducing deficit perspectives.
Read 5 tweets
3 Mar
I was first introduced to Cummins’ work in my teacher education program. It provided the first justification I have ever seen for bilingual education and was hugely important in my professional trajectory. I would have never predicted that years later I would be debating him.
That said, the BICS/CALP dichotomy always rubbed be the wrong way. I remember pushing back against the description of certain language practices as “basic” and was told he didn’t mean it literally. I was like how did he mean it then?
But it was when I became a classroom teacher that I began to see the real harm of the dichotomy. I worked with students classified as “long term English learners” who I found myself describing as lacking academic language in either English or Spanish. I saw my job as to fix them.
Read 14 tweets
30 Jun 20
Over the years I have confronted a great deal of academic gaslighting from scholars in the field who constantly tried to get me to second guess myself. Some examples of this academic gaslighting are included in this thread of receipts:
1.) Scholars who insisted that "we already know that" when I sought to bring attention to how white supremacy shapes the concepts used to describe the language practices of racialized communities despite having never written the words white supremacy in any of their scholarship.
2.) Scholars who took personal offense at my critiques of their work with one prominent scholar going as far as sending me multiple e-mails questioning my intelligence without ever addressing any of the points I made in the article that they had clearly not read.
Read 7 tweets
23 May 20
It is interesting to see how comfortable many white liberals have become with Lisa Delpit's work since the 1990s when it caused many white tears. They often cite her in defense of the importance of teaching POC the codes of power. Yet, this was only one part of her argument.
Delpit’s main point was that white progressive educators were systematically silencing the voices of Black educators. In particular, she examined the ways that the race evasive discourse of progressive education ignored the racialized realities of BIPOC.
Delpit's point was that progressive education did not account for the importance of preparing BIPOC for the realities of white supremacy and positioned Black educators working to prepare Black children for a racist world as “traditional” educators (i.e as part of the problem).
Read 6 tweets
29 Apr 20
On the one hand, we need research WITH communities as opposed to ON communities

On the other hand, we need research ON researchers as opposed to WITH researchers.

They both decenter hegemonic modes of knowledge production in ways that are essential for imagining new futures.
The first I associate with qualitative methods such as PAR, feminist ethnography and/or critical race counternarratives. The second with genealogical methods connected to various traditions including poststructuralism, postcolonialism and/or critical race studies.

We need both.
The first without the second positions researchers as benevolent advocates in ways that fail to grapple with the colonial legacy of academia.

The second without the first positions researchers as the primary agents of knowledge production and erases local forms of resistance.
Read 6 tweets
1 Apr 20
Facebook reminded me of the time I assigned a reading from Gloria Anzaldua and a monolingual white teacher candidate told me she didn't understand any of it. I told her she were lying & insisted that she understood the message but didn't like Anzaldua's refusal to accommodate her
We looked through a paragraph of the text together and it turns out that I was right and that the student DID understand the message. So she HAD been lying about not understanding any of it. I asked what she thought that was about and she was like
We then explored her discomfort with the text. How had this discomfort shaped her sense that she didn't understand any of it? Had any other text elicited this type of discomfort from her before? What might have been Anzaldua's intent in crafting the text in the way that she did?
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(