It seems to me that it is not necessary to give notice to the circumspect members of the Royal Spanish Academy; they are perfectly aware, they know it perfectly well. The tongue is living matter, it is dynamic and changing. Abide by rules, that is clear, because if not, it would not work; but the use is changing and it changes it in turn, to the point of sometimes even changing the rules themselves.
What the RAE tends to do, and personally I don’t find it foolish, is to wait for a certain time, until the changes settle down, take hold and last, to pass, then yes, to consign them (a dictionary that does not do that would result, like the much cited map of the empire that Jorge Luis Borges , entirely useless, and for the same reasons: because it would be useless if it assumed the vast expanse which is proper to its object).
So the question is not to opposer a static and rigid view of the tongue, compared to another that instead contemplates its fickleness, its historicity, its continuous state of transformation.
It is not really about that, but to assume that the language changes and consider how does it change, on what terms, under what conditions, based on what factors. That is, how to think about the relationship between the relative stability of the tongue as a system and the vector of movement (movement that enables changes) of the language put into use.
What is an O worth
An interesting case in this regard may be precisely that of the generic value of the o: the fact that, to refer to a group in which there may be both men and women, let’s say comprehensively “students”, “Companions”, “neighbors” or “citizens”.
And yet another aspect should be considered, that of the basic binarism (masculine / feminine) that persists in the tiring duplication of “male and female”, “male and female companions”, etc., and would not fail to imply the exclusion of other gender orientations (those of the acronym, which is open, LGBTT +).
That “o” would indicate, in its grammatical prevalence, the historical imprint of male dominance in society; of that which, to put it in a word, is designated as patriarchy.
Darío Sztajnszrajber shows the “Martín Fierro” in inclusive language.
Now, the language, it has already been said, is dynamic matter, it is concretized in use and through its own use it is transformed. For this very reason, precisely because it is not static and is modified, it is necessary to consider that that “o” has changed by the way.
Change its character and its function, was changed from the use itself. It was taken from the patriarchy to reconvert it in the sense of a inclusiveness indeed.
Semantic victory: while still displaying the marks of a predominance (history leaves marks also in language), veers towards a new state of things; because no one understands that by saying “students” or “companions” or “neighbors” or “citizens”, one speaks to a group more than anything male, and no one understands that they are going to exclude from the words those who, not being males, they may be taking a course or living in a neighborhood, sharing a space or wanting to vote.
The “o” has been conquered, from use, for inclusion and integration policies.
Ways to include
Other forms have emerged in the meantime in language: that of the X, that of the at sign, that of the e. Those that could be misleading to call “inclusive language”, if this implies that those of the “or” have not become so as well.
We would rather, today, different variants of inclusive language: with o, with e, with X, with at, etc. That of the X and the at is largely relegated to its use in writing, due to the difficulties it presents for its articulation in orality or because of the effects of hilarity that it causes (I have verified it) when said articulation is achieved despite everything.
Unlike inclusive language with or, which emanates from its own use and for that very reason reflects a historical course of domination and resistance, inclusive language with e seems to propose a break that establish the new from the boiling of a present, suppressing the historical trace.
Derision. In Comodoro Rivadavia, the carnage that uses inclusive language.
In this sense, it does not spring from a dynamic of the language in use, but from an exogenous determination, of a political premeditation, of something of the order of intention. This is what is pointed out when indicating that goes from standard to use, and not that it is supposed to be imposed or compulsory. It proposes, it does not order, that is clear; but it traces a movement that goes from the general formulation to the concrete use and not from the concrete use to the general formulation.
In employment, precisely, some things happen that may attract attention. For example, there are those who implement it in writing but not orally, as if they decided to fight the patriarchy when they write but refrained from doing so when they speak, a disparity to say the least.
In some youths That job is fluid and consistent, a true incorporation; but in a good part of the adults (and of the political leaders, for now), it looks as if it were in quotation marks, it works less as a language than as a metalanguage: not so much a resource to express itself with a criterion of inclusiveness, as a bulky resource to manifest: I am-using-inclusive-language.
There is another difficulty that appears frequently. In some of the places I work, the inclusive language with e was adopted on an institutional basis and is frequently used among colleagues as well.
I therefore receive some communications in which a cause for alarm surfaces: a text that goes on saying “you invite them”, “you are interested”, “you register them”, it can conclude with a fatal “We are waiting for you!”. What is there to understand, in that specific context? That they invite and enroll people of any gender identity whose interest they discount; but wait, what is said to wait, do they only expect cis heterosexual males? Or they come saying, for example, “the scholarship holders” and “you ascribed”, but suddenly they add “the graduates. And in this case, in this specific context, what is there to understand? That scholarships and enrollments are open to people of any sexual orientation, but it is anticipated that graduating, what is said graduating, will only graduate cis heterosexual men?
I know I know: they are errors that escape. But that take on significance where it is assigned combative tenor size to a letter, the letter E.
In the areas in which I work, with inclusive language in or, they did not circulate in general expressions of exclusion or segregation; But lately, with the adoption of inclusive language in e and those squeaky slips, the air has become thin and loaded with hostility.
It is to be hoped that the inclusion criteria will end up being oiled in the language, with one letter or another, and in relation to that, whatever that relationship may be, in the state of affairs of the social reality that we live.