In recent years, an indiscriminate use of the male and female gender has begun. A use that goes beyond the linguistic norm. Thus many see it as normal and correct to use both genders when they want to refer to the collective.
It is not unusual to hear that of "boys and girls", "all and all" or "many and many" to give a simple example. The RAE has communicated that the use of these expressions is against the linguistic norm and it must come to an end if its use is purely linguistic.
The RAE recalls that the norm indicates that in the case of referring to a group the collective generic noun must be used and not the individual one. In many of these cases, the collective generic coincides with the masculine form, hence the confusion of many when using it, but whether we like it or not, the generic noun is what it is and cannot be changed.
"You can use both genders when you want to highlight or talk about them", according to the RAE
The RAE also comments that only the two genders have to be used when you want to highlight or talk about them, for example: "the disease affects boys and girls of that age." In any case, the fight of the RAE will be difficult and arduous because we currently have many cases of misuse, both in areas with little cultivation and in areas where a high degree of knowledge of the language is expected and yet they prefer to skip the rule because "it is frowned upon."
The most striking example of the latter is found in the famous "AMPA" of schools. In this case, both genders are being used when the collective is "Parents". Yes, I know that it is also masculine and that it sounds macho, but we cannot change the words because we like them or not. And it is still striking that an organization so close to the educational world has changed without opposition from the teachers who should "teach."
There are many examples and the use is indiscriminate, so surely it is better for the RAE to change the rule than to try to make good use of itHowever, it is always positive to see how such an old institution continues to work in its functions: Clean, set and shine.
That's OK. I always knew that the use of the masculine plural monopolizes both sexes, and suddenly I find myself with high personalities making such a mistake. It's as if they didn't even receive Spanish at school.
Ummm but this "boys and girls" "citizens and citizens" "all and all" made visible to both sexes ... and appeared with Gender Equality in society ... we go back to the past then with that of which the female sex is understood.
Dear Selena,
The purpose of a language is to transmit abstract ideas among those who speak it, in the most efficient and least ambiguous way possible. By using both genders to refer to a collective, we obscure the meaning, and make it difficult to understand the ideas we express. In my country, Venezuela, the laws written in the last 18 or 19 years have adopted the redundant practice of stating "boys and girls", "all citizens, and all citizens", "workers" and similar expressions, many times chained one after the other. Even educated people end up having difficulty understanding what is meant, among so many unnecessary words that add nothing to what is expressed. It does not sound good, and it makes it difficult to understand what we say or write.
A different strategy, but more efficient, has been used by the Americans in their use of English. They simply use the feminine gender to refer to the collective. It sounds weird at first, but once we get used to it, justified aspirations for gender equality can be respected, without obscuring the meaning.
At the end of the day, it would be better to follow the rules of our language, and achieve gender equality through legislation and education, rather than elaborate language changes that do not guarantee real change. After all, we gentlemen are not offended or invisible when someone says that we belong to humanity, no matter how feminine.
Regards,
Charles Contreras.
Carlos, thank you for that comment, I agree with you, lately I have noticed with great sadness that it is the same women who discriminate against each other with comments like these; Yes, gender equality is better to seek with legislation, education and self-esteem.
Janeth Ma, I appreciate that you are an intelligent woman, a woman who did not fall into fashionable feminism that ridicules and does not justify anything. I hope other ladies think like you and don't make ugly mistakes.
In the Spanish language the plural in masculine refers to the two genders (feminine and masculine)
That is why saying students is wrongly said because student is the person who studies, whether he is a man or a woman and if we apply the rule of the masculine plural (the students) it refers to both women and men who study.
Well, the RAE also recommends not to use an accent in "only" and you use it. As the academy has said time and again, its job is not to impose the use of language, but to collect it. Therefore, when a mass of speakers who do not identify with the exclusive male stop using it, the RAE will have to pick up non-sexist uses. And it is not their job to impose speech on us. Or, at least, that's what they say when they are interested ...
The word "only" goes with an accent when it replaces "only", in other cases it does not have an accent ...
I am already fed up with "citizens" and "male and female deputies", to mention just two. Carlos, I suppose by now you will have realized that for those who do not want to understand, no explanation is enough.
If you are so interested in defending the language, learn to write. The text is full of faults of all kinds. To give an example: "The RAE also comments that the two genders should only be used when they want to highlight or talk about them", lack of agreement, that which worries them so much.
"In this case the two genders are being used," another mismatch. And I do not continue because I would run out of space.
«... however, it is always positive to see how such an old institution continues to work on its functions: Cleaning, fixing and giving splendor.»
Old your whole note. Old and pathetic to admire the function of cleaning, fixing and giving splendor as if it were something that language needed from such an obtuse institution.
Fortunately, the language does not care much about what the RAE says and it will continue on its way, fluctuating according to the cultural battles that take place in society.
Carlos I agree with you, that we use gender in one way or another does not mean that we want to take away rights or duties from people. And of course, all language tends to simplify by nature, so lengthening the phrases, ideas and / or expressions with the two genders does not make any sense. A greeting and thanks for reading.
Language is dynamic and we must be open to new uses of it. Either because there is syncretism as a result of a cultural fusion (a growing phenomenon as a result of migration) or simply because new events are not contemplated in the initial structure.
In addition, we are going through a period in which attempts are made to vindicate gender equality, and this norm does not live up to those ideals.
Language is dynamic, society is dynamic. Wanting to prevent that is unwise.
"Should it come to an end"? That "from" is unnecessary ... Unless you are doubting, but in that case it would be badly written. And it seems serious to me on a page that defends the proper use of our rich language. Hope you correct it. Thanks
I imagine that the exception is maintained for "person who practices prostitution" and for "person who takes care of the house", who will continue to be "prostitutes" and "housewives". We on our site and They on theirs, as it should be. Why are those two exceptions? Does it have to do with history, does it also have to do with history that the generic is masculine?
Now, when men begin to be "stewardesses" they are already made a "flight attendant" so that they do not have to go through that humiliation that consists of being a woman. According to the RAE, how do you call hostesses who are men?
Thank you very much for the link to the article "The unmarked gender", Álvaro. I liked it so much that I have printed it in pdf for future reference.
It seems to me personally that the use of inclusive language does not collaborate with the language because it makes it ugly and it is also unnecessary. The trend is to reduce, not increase. However I share with those who use it, that it is good to accentuate gender equality. For that alone I stopped criticizing him.
In my country, men who do stewardess work are called flight attendants.
Cool. Those with the macho "language" piss me off a lot. I have never felt discriminated against because they said "the teachers", and that's it.
I would like to know how the staunch defenders of the two endings talk when they are having tapas with friends. I can't imagine it, you little balls.
It is up to us language users to collectively create the language; and the academics of a language should accompany us to resolve the conflicts derived from that use. Nowadays, many speakers want the generic to include both genders. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Academy could offer a satisfactory solution.
My proposal is the generic in «e»: «teachers», «salesmen», «students», teachers »,« actors », artists», people ». In this way, all people will feel included, even transgender people.
I am sure that, if they are serious about listening to them, academics will be able to satisfy our demands in a creative and acceptable way for all speakers.
Please, enough of so much macho, discriminatory nonsense and other similar niceties!
Now it turns out that those who do not differentiate are sexists, that the RAE is a stagnant and expired institution and other similar expletives that have been said around here ...
Let's see when these pseudo-progressives want to find out once and for all that gender not marked, the use of masculine does not exclude anyone nor is it macho.
As Álvarez de Miranda says very well in his article, the masculine is not the only unmarked element of the language: so is the singular versus the plural (the enemy advances -the enemies-, the dog - the dogs and bitches- is the man's best friend…; so is the present, in front of the past and the future: Columbus discovers - discovered - America in 1492, tomorrow there will be no - there will be - class, etc, etc.
On the other hand, there are countless epicene names that are feminine: a creature, a person, a victim, a figure, an eminence; and many organizations / institutions that are also: the Navy, the Civil Guard, the Academy, etc. I have never heard anyone cry out to heaven for the "discrimination" that could mean that these nouns are feminine.
Many very bright women (Soledad Puértolas, Maruja Torres, Ángeles Caso, Carmen Posadas, Rosa Montero, Almudena Grandes, Soledad Gallego-Díaz, Carmen Iglesias, Margarita Salas, among others) have used the masculine as an unmarked gender in their discourses of collection of Planeta Awards, entry into the Academy of Exact Sciences, in their texts, etc., without feeling excluded.
But of course, it is more attractive and politically correct to mount a chicken on account of language discrimination in terms of unmarked gender.
An example is this one, taken from the Bulletin of the Royal Spanish Academy and cited by Ignacio M. Roca on the Constitution of Venezuela:
«Only Venezuelans by birth and without another nationality may hold the offices of President or President of the Republic, Executive Vice President or Executive Vice President, President or President and Vice Presidents or Vice Presidents of the National Assembly, magistrates or magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice , President of the National Electoral Council, Attorney General of the Republic, Comptroller or Comptroller General of the Republic, Attorney General of the Republic, Defender or Defender of the People, Ministers or Ministers of the offices related to the security of the Nation , finance, energy and mines, education; Governors or Governors and Mayors or Mayors of the border States and Municipalities and of those contemplated in the Organic Law of the National Armed Forces. "
Is this really how you want people to talk so as not to fall into discrimination? Do you really have nothing better to do? If so, I recommend that you read more, that you look at Ignacio Bosque's manifesto and be a little more open-minded to see if a little sense and coherence comes to you.
Just as the RAE incorporates colloquial terms that we never imagined would appear, why not incorporate more words with a gender perspective? because what is not named does not exist, the human being has evolved considerably from the appearance of language as we know it, of course it is important that women are named.
We have already solved the problem and no one is excluded.
It happened to me in 2010 at a La Salle school. Apama from the beginning thought it meant a parent-teacher association. After 10 months teaching there, it was that I knew what "association of fathers and mothers" meant.
If I could give a criterion to the RAE, I would suggest a step forward to the new trends and by virtue of shortening the speech, I would change the "A" and the "O" for "E", thus we would say: les niñes (instead of: The girls and the girls), the citizens (instead of: the citizens and citizens).
In this way we would achieve a balance between feminine and masculine without discrimination and we would save a lot of speech, especially from cheap politicians who spend hours unleashing their excessive verbiage.
Too bad my criteria is ephemeral and we continue to listen: Captain and Captain (even if both words contain the "A"), Admiral and Admiral (even if the degree title of both says "Admiral".