Let me preface this by saying it is not my intention to be rude nor harsh with the following response, and I apologise beforehand if anything in this answer comes across as that, bear in mind I am simply addressing the points youâve brought forth.
The -o ending is âalready gender neutralâ because it has been established as such, which interestingly enough matches the gendered masculine ending. Masculine = gender neutral is whatâs known as gĂ©nero no marcado (unmarked gender) in Spanish.
Now, one doesnât have to forget that languages are not merely a means of communication, languages are a social semiotic as well. As Halliday said, â[âŠ] if we say that linguistic structure âreflectsâ social structure, we are really assigning to language a role that is too passive ⊠Rather we should say that linguistic structure is the realization of social structure, actively symbolizing it in a process of mutual creativity. Because it stands as a metaphor for society, language has the property of not only transmitting the social order but also maintaining and potentially modifying it.â*
The establishment of the masculine gender as the gender neutral in Spanish dates back to a time in which women did not have power, or a voice for that matter, in society. Â This is where the âalready gender neutralâ masculine form comes from. The use of masculine gender as the gender neutral is ideologically identified with the predominance of men in society; through its use women are erased and marginalised in and through language.
The issue with taking the masculine as the unmarked gender goes beyond whether or not itâs been established as the neutral and is considered correct proper. Languages change throughout time to meet the needs of their speakers and to answer to the socio-historical and socio-cultural conditions of their speakers. Languages can and do change throughout time.
Related to what Iâve pointed out, letâs take a look at an example of what was consider proper a handful of decades ago.
Esa mujer es una médico.
Esa joven es una ingeniero.
Now, in those sentences I am talking about two different women, and yet I am using the masculine ending on the nouns that signal their professions. Naturally, youâd read that and say, âwell, that is not correct, those nouns are marked for gender. You should have used mĂ©dica and ingeniera, using the masculine is wrong, they are women!â. Well, you see, this is connected to what I mentioned about language being a social semiotic and perpetuating and/or reflecting the power dynamics within a society.
There was a time in which women were barrelled from higher education spaces, a time in which women could not become professionals and follow a career in the way their male counterparts could. When the social conditions changed and women were able to study at higher education and university levels, the language still referred to this new professional women with the masculine gendered noun, the feminine reference only present in the definite and definite articles that pre-ceded those nouns. Why? Because women were not supposed to be able to pursue this careers, all doctors and engineers were supposed to be male, there was no place for women.
Then, with time, the language changed, answering to the new social reality and reflected the shift that had taken place in society. Thus, we got the feminine ending to words that had previously only had a masculine gendered ending.
Language does change. The only languages that do not change are dead languages.
RAE, the same institution that covertly or overtly regards Latin American Spanish varieties in a detrimental light when compared to Spainâs, throughout history has been reluctant to accept any changes to the language that their own speakers bring forth, is the same that says that the -e and -x are wrong⊠and they are also the same institution that merely a few years ago defined women as the weaker sex;
What I mean by this is a) speakers do bring forth changes to their own languages, b) the fact that something is established or regarded as correct does not mean such establishment is devoid of issues, or that it does not foster and perpetuate issues within the societies in which that language is spoken. Putting a set of rules before the need and wishes of speakers, and the way they use their own language, is a feature of linguistic prescriptivism.
The aforementioned issues and changes do take place in Spanish-speaking Latin America, sectors of society (feminist and lgbt+ groups especially) have been fighting this fight and fostering a change for years upon years.
Laura Rosingana, headmaster of the Aletheia School explained to Infobae that âto make room in school for the use of -x and other ways that look for a more inclusive language and are against sexist language is to recognise and tackle the complexity of education, to commit ourselves to achieve a fairer,more democratic and inclusive societyâ. In fact, Gustavo Zorzoli, headmaster of the Colegio Nacional de Buenos Aires explained that âthe use of -x and -e in writing allows for everyone to feel included, and this is slowly but surely getting reflected in interactions at school [âŠ] they may yet not be present in the academic school language (except when tackling themes related to gender identities) but they are present in trade-union communications and in social media.â
Moreover, when these changes in the language are brought forth, this does not mean the gender neutral -e will be forced on everyone, at no point the goal is to tell anyone to identify with a gender that is not theirs. Nobody is telling anyone to stop referring to themselves as latino or latina, or to stop using the masculine/feminine gender and masculine/feminine gendered words for themselves if they identify as such.
The change is on a collective, and specific individual, cases. The whole point of it is 1) achieving a neutral gender that is truly neutral, instead of equating masculine with neutral, and stop referring to a collective with the masculine; 2) allowing nb people, as well as those who donât conform to the gender binary, to have a gender that does not violate their identities when they use their own language, so they are included in their own language and can feel comfortable using it.
*Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. âAn interpretation of the functional relationship between language and social structureâ.
