The National Academy of Education ruled this Tuesday against the use of inclusive language, in accordance with what was previously said by the Royal Spanish Academy.
The declaration, signed by José María La Greca, Academic Secretary of the ANE, affirms that it clings to what has already been expressed by the Argentine Academy of Letters when it affirms that “the linguistic structures of Spanish should not be forced so that they become a mirror of an ideology, because the Spanish Grammar that we study does not restrict the freedom to express ourselves or to interpret what others express “.
“We affirm it with the conviction that a language that interrelates never excludes”, he adds, in relation to the aforementioned by the Academy of Letters.
In addition, the National Academy of Education highlights what was expressed by the Royal Spanish Academy in the detailed report it previously made on inclusive language and related issues.
“The so-called inclusive language supposes artificially altering the functioning of gender morphology in Spanish under the subjective premise that the use of the generic masculine makes women invisible since the use of the @ or of the letters ‘e’ and ‘x’ as supposedly inclusive gender marks, it is alien to the morphology of Spanish, as well as unnecessary, since the grammatical masculine already fulfills that function as an unmarked term of the gender opposition, “he quotes from the one expressed by the main reference of the Spanish language.
Also, remember that “in the case of the French language” the Academie Francaise and the French Ministry of Education have recently expressed themselves, pointing out that inclusive writing, “is detrimental to the practice and intelligibility of the French language“while its” complexity and instability constitute obstacles both for the acquisition of language and for reading. “
Having noted these statements, the ANE affirms that “it endorses the criteria set forth in the aforementioned documents” and that it considers “inclusive styles unnecessary that complicate both the language and its teaching in educational institutions “.
Likewise, he assures that they alter it “to ways that are uncomfortable for the healthy common sense of society” and that “do not contribute to the equality of the sexes rather, on the contrary, they suggest the existence of a rivalry and not of a fundamental and profound encounter between the two “.