2

I just provided an answer to How should we address people in Spanish in a gender-neutral way on our site? in which I linked Are there any non-binary pronouns or neopronouns in Spanish?. Both questions (Meta and Main) are directly related to the new CoC and its FAQ, although I think this is something we eventually would have needed to address at some point in our language-learning site.

When I was thinking my answer and researching options, I studied cdlvcdlv's contribution about La x, la @, la -e. Ukemi has one about the neopronoun elle/élle.

I think that a year ago I wouldn't have had a second hesitation to change an "Alumn@s" for "Alumnos" or "Alumnas", depending on the context. Even a month ago I would had changed it, and with other forms like "Alumnxs", "alumn*s" or "Alumnes", depending on the need and context, I would had cited the RAE's stance about the so called inclusive language.

Thus said, if we are going to discuss how should we address people in Spanish in a gender-neutral way on our site to abide by the new CoC and users are going to start proposing or using "l@s trabajador@s", "lxs trabajadorxs" or "l*s trabajador*s" so their articles, nouns and adjetives can agree on gender neutral neopronouns, we might want or need to clarify the community's position about them.

Do the recent CoC changes mean that those forms are considered valid and I should not edit them?

Is it against the CoC to change "l@s trabajador@s", "lxs trabajadorxs" or "l*s trabajador*s" into "los trabajadores" or "las trabajadoras" depending on the context?

Same with the "-e" form as in "niñe", "todes", etc. Since the pronoun "elle/élle" will necessitate its use, as in:

Elle es mi amigue, se identifica como no binarie.

  • I understand that this is a sensitive and difficult question. Kind of the elephant in the room, but we were meant to have it sooner or later and it might be needed as we try to answer some of the other questions that will come from the new CoC policies. – Diego Oct 24 '19 at 3:03
  • 1
    Según mi interpretación, el código de conducta se refiere a la interacción entre usuarios, mientras que los ejemplos que ofreces se refieren a referencias 'externas'. No creo pues pertinente hacer una limpieza en este sentido, máxime cuando el propio SO ha dicho recientemente (6. How does this apply to languages other than English?) que va a ver cómo adapta el CoC a idiomas que no son el inglés. Desde Spanish.SE estamos ante una oportunidad de mostrar que pueden coexistir muchas denominaciones sin generar fricciones ni desencuentro. – fedorqui 'SO stop harming' Oct 24 '19 at 6:14
  • @fedorqui, Si el CoC no recoge este caso, significa entonces que sí puedo editarlas y cambiarlas a formas que propone la RAE? Hay una contradicción en tu comentario? No entiendo a qué te refieres con "limpieza". Si son interacciones entre usuarios, solo los mods podéis modificar comentarios. Si son otras contribuciones y es relevante (como una cita o un ejemplo expreso de ese uso) evidentemente debería quedarse. Si se ha puesto por pereza o conveniencia, puedo editarlas como se editan otras cosas o estaría considerado mala práctica? – Diego Oct 24 '19 at 10:49
  • Fijo pues el debate en las publicaciones y dejamos de lado lo referente a los comentarios. En las partes de las publicaciones que sean interacciones, si en una se dice "hola amigos", pues uno podría cambiarlo por "hola amigos y amigas", si bien seguramente sea un texto que no debería estar en la publicación. En las partes que sí sean relevantes (¿Cómo decís vosotros...? en lugar de vosotr@s, vosotrxs, vosotres) es donde me crea duda. – fedorqui 'SO stop harming' Oct 24 '19 at 11:26
  • @fedorqui Yo lo que quiero saber no es si puedo cambiar "hola amigos" por "hola amigos y amigas" o por "amiges, ami@s, amigxs". Yo lo que quiero saber es lo contrario. Si para poner un ejemplo en una explicación, un post contiene"amiges, ami@s o amigxs" y yo lo cambio (digamos a "amigos" porque entiendo que en el ejemplo se refiere a un grupo mixto), se considera ese edit superfluo e innecesario? Válido? Es una violación del CoC? Es cosas distintas según el origen del cambio (cambiamos los impronunciables "ami@s o amigxs", pero no "amigues")? A qué hay que atenerse? – Diego Oct 24 '19 at 13:17
  • 1
    Diego: a mí el sentido común me dice que habría que hacer lo que sugiere mdewey de respetar al máximo la escritura de cada uno. Ahora bien, como sabes Stack Overflow está cambiando las cosas y conduciendo hacia una nueva forma de hacer, que no está del todo clara. – fedorqui 'SO stop harming' Oct 27 '19 at 7:42
2

I am a reluctant editor so my view may be rather extreme but I would only edit if

(a) there is clearly a typo,

(b) to add new information from a comment,

(c) to add or delete a tag.

Many of my edits are to my own posts, I must be a careless poster. In the cases of the novel ways of writing in a gender neutral way the poster clearly intended to write what they wrote so I would leave it. Charlie has pointed out issues with screen readers so I suppose one might post a comment asking if the OP would consider using one of the other forms rather than @ but I would not edit it if they turned down the opportunity.

  • Aunque entiendo que tú no eres de editar posts de otros (apenas 7) es particularmente interesante ese "I would not edit it if they turned down the opportunity". Quiere esto implicar/proponer que el OP podría tener derechos exclusivos sobre qué edits se hacen en sus posts o quién puede hacer según qué cambios? Sería esto para cualquier caso o solo para estos neologismos en particular? Aunque entiendo que tu respuesta se resume en "No, puesto que quien usa esto neologismos lo hace con una intención clara y cualquier edit sería interpretado como un conflicto con la intención original del OP". – Diego Oct 24 '19 at 16:18
  • 1
    That's a fair summary of what I said. I do not think they have an exclusive right over their posts but I think in this case the damage done by leaving it (if any) is outweighed by the possible damage done by an edit war. People get very attached to their choice of language. – mdewey Oct 24 '19 at 17:14
1

In my opinion, the @ and x options are not academic nor standard and they pose a serious problem with the reading software for blind people. This was a question raised from the first days of the use of those options. Just imagine you can't see anything and your computer starts reading:

ele arroba ese trabajador arroba ese

Or:

ele equis ese trabajador equis ese

Could you understand what the software is reading? We cannot try to include a group of people by excluding another one. So my choice, if you want to stick to neologisms, would be changing the @'s and x's for e's, as

les trabajadores

sounds weird but any person can understand that. However, we have the more politically correct form:

los trabajadores y las trabajadoras

And the more academically correct form:

los trabajadores (using the masculine form as gender neutral)

Both forms would also be OK, but I think changing "l@s trabajador@s" for "los trabajadores y las trabajadoras" would change the intention of the original post, that's why I would change one neologism for another and change it to "les trabajadores". It keeps the intention of using a neologism and it's friendly with the reading software for blind people.

  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Charlie Oct 24 '19 at 9:11
  • To clarify: I understand that you are proposing that it's OK to change "l@s trabajador@s", "lxs trabajadorxs" for "les trabajadores". What if the change was to "los trabajadores" (not even "los trabajadores y las trabajadoras", if in the editor's opinion there was no need to split by gender in that context)? Would that change deface the original post? Should a neologism be changed only with another? (Again, I'm assuming that the usage of the neologism is not the main focus of that particular example). – Diego Oct 24 '19 at 13:32
  • @Diego if the original says "l@s trabajador@s" I understand that the intention was to say "los trabajadores y las trabajadoras" but in a shorter form. I say that it's OK to change it to "les trabajadores" in order not to mess with the reading software and keep the intention of including everyone. If the editor thinks in a more academic way, as stated in the answer it could also be OK to say "los trabajadores", but maybe we need to wait for the question about the non-gendered way to address people in Spanish to be answered. – Charlie Oct 24 '19 at 14:12
  • Como ya dije en alguno de los otros posts o hilos, creo que no vamos a poder resolver estas cuestiones si no las consideramos en conjunto. Para responder a la pregunta de "non-gendered way to address people in Spanish" habrá que considerar opciones que necesitarán más preguntas en Main (como la tuya de los neopronombres) y en Meta. No sé seguro qué discusión llevará la voz cantante (si alguna). Para hacer una recomendación de cómo hacer un "gender neutral in Spanish" habrá que conocer y discutir la postura del stack ante estos neologismos/neopronombres (y viceversa, sobre qué discutir). – Diego Oct 24 '19 at 16:40
  • 1
    Vaya. Yo, al leer "les trabajadores", habría pensado que fuera un feminino plural catalán usado por error. – Peter Taylor Nov 4 '19 at 15:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .