Being taught at my son's school

[Uniquemom]

It’s distance learning. If I would have sent my son to in person school I would not have known that the teacher was bringing up these topics.

 

[TC3033]

It’s distance learning. If I would have sent my son to in person school I would not have known that the teacher was bringing up these topics.

Thank you for clearing that up. Online school and distance learning are far different things and would be two completely different paths.

First: I would contact the teacher and voice my concerns over the content.

Then: I would contact the school principal (and I would include at least one other school board member) to find out if this is indeed part of the approved curriculum for 3rd graders.

If it is, your issue isn’t with the teacher but with school district leadership (the school board). They approved the curriculum, if it’s something you don’t like then run for school board and be the change you want.

If it is not part of the approved school curriculum for 3rd graders then school leadership should know that a teacher is teaching out of curriculum and it should be handled appropriately.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

You’re lucky.

My Second Grade teacher used to go on and on about the evilness of Nixon. My parents didn’t hate Nixon. So I would go home and repeat what Teacher said and my parents would not be pleased and would try to tell a broader POV.
Confusing times.

(I was seven years old)

 

[skyglass]

No, Latinx is not the gender neutral form of Latina and Latino. It’s a made-up political term only used by people who don’t speak Spanish. There is no gender neutral form of Latino/Latina.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

. It’s a made-up political term

Technically, all terms are made up.

The closest thing we have to words that are not are those that imitate sounds (onomatopoeia). But even those vary by culture. The function of words is also defined by those that use them (descriptive view of language) instead of having some natural or platonic derivation (prescriptive). See this for details.

In English, some gendered words have been repurposed to lose their gender classification function. Though a few of those words are sometimes still used. English has evolved to using more words that don’t imply gender. Some of this was done through change that was being actively pushed by those promoting women’s rights. While this motivation may be classified as political, it’s had a change in how we speak today, even among those that may have disagreed with the motivation.

Examples of some gendered English words: Actor (male) and Actress (female). We still use Actor, but it now tends to not have gender implications unless used next to Actress. Actress (fem) is still sometimes used. Seamster (masculine) is almost never used. The word “tailor” appears to have replaced it. The feminine form, seamstress, is still used.

There have been a number of evolutions in word usage I disagree with. But they’ve happened. One is the tendency for words that mark something as truthfully and plainly stated as being emotional decorators. We’ve seen this with the word “literal,” which is now also used to mark exaggerations and has dictionary definitions that acknowledge this usage. But the word “very”, which was derived from “verily” (truthfully) had gone through the same evolution before I was born and I am fine using it. That makes for a somewhat inconsistent position.

I’m not a fan of the gender-neutral singular “they,” but that usage also goes back to before any of us were born.

But back to “Latinx.” It’s been used consistently enough to be recognized as an assemblage of morphemes that conveys a meaning.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Kory Stamper, a lexicographer over at Merriam-Websters, wrote a book with a title similar to “The Secret Life of Dictionaries” that talks about how language has evolved. John McWhorter, an English Professor over at Columbia University, also has written a few books on these changes too (for those that like to read about words).

 

[skyglass]

Yes, I’m aware of how words are formed. My point in using the term ‘made-up’ was to indicate that “Latinx” is a recent invention, which is true. Looking at your own source, the first known use was in 2007. My other point is that it is not used by Spanish speakers. In addition, it’s not used by very many English speakers either–only 3% according to the data I see. Just because it appears in Merriam-Webster does not mean it is actually the best term to describe Latinos. As a Latino, I find the term ridiculous and somewhat offensive. You can’t say that a specialized, recently created term borne out of academic and political circles is the gender neutral form of Latino–it is not.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

My point in using the term ‘made-up’ was to indicate that “Latinx” is a recent invention, which is true.

Ah. I’m afraid the term doesn’t communicate recency very well. There were a lot of words that were made-up by Shakespeare. He died some 400 years ago.

But we have no disagreement that it is a neologism.

My other point is that it is not used by Spanish speakers. In addition, it’s not used by very many English speakers either–only 3% according to the data I see.

It’s not popular. I don’t know if it will become so. It has worked it’s way into some academic writings, which sometimes has an influence on usage.

Just because it appears in Merriam-Webster does not mean it is actually the best term to describe Latinos. As a Latino

I can’t speak on it being best, worst, good, or bad. That comes down to value judgment. Presence in a dictionary indicates that the word is used in whatever sources that make up the dictionaries corpus in some consistent way over a length of time.

As a Latino, I find the term ridiculous and somewhat offensive.

For what it’s worth, nothing I’ve said about the word is intended to be personal. I also don’t think that those that use it necessarily seek to offend. But then again, there may be some that are.

That said, I am not unsympathetic. Motivated by this interaction with you I spoke to one of my associates of Latin culture. For her, while the word isn’t a problem per se, but she sees it as attached to something with which she takes issue. For her, the problem is in the suppression of being able to say who she is (her sex, her ethnicity, so on) in favour of making other people comfortable (primarily transgender people). She’s been in environments in which one was discouraged from using terms like “wife” or “sister” and instead encouraged to used “partner” and “sibling” as not to be discriminatory to people of any gender (but primarily transgender). She sees it as being forced to participate in someone else’s self self identity while not being able to assert her own.

Reminds me of an eye-roll-to-the-back-of-my-head moment I had at work. It wasn’t uncommon for someone to post promotional posters at work for some event or another. One day, while at the urinal, I noticed the poster that was there that week was one trying to raise sympathy for the lack of bathrooms that take men without penises (trans-men, or women presenting as men) into account. I have not problems treating the transgender person at work as a fellow human being, but I have no plans to get on board with that!