Breathe
By Sofía Guadarrama
In 1887 Matilde Petra Montoya Lafragua became the first woman in Mexico to graduate as a physician. She studied at the School of Medicine in Puebla. A large number of doctors published a newspaper article with the headline: "Impudent and dangerous woman pretends to become a doctor".
The harassment was such that Matilde returned to Mexico City, at the age of twenty-four and with a truncated career. Nevertheless, she applied for the entrance exam to the National School of Medicine. In Mexico City things were not much different: "The woman who wants to study medicine to see naked men's corpses must be perverse," said her opponents.
Matilde was dismissed with the argument that the high school subjects she had taken in private schools were not valid. Matilde requested to take those subjects in the afternoons at the San Ildefonso School, but they did not accept her, because the school's internal regulations were specific: "students". Although it did not say anything about "no students", this was enough argument to reject her outright.
Matilde did not give up and wrote a letter to President Porfirio Diaz. Some time later, the director of San Ildefonso received direct instructions from the Presidency to accept Matilde. History repeated itself when she wanted to take her professional exam. The internal regulations of the National School of Medicine stated "students". Matilde asked again for Don Porfirio's support. To the surprise of many, the president issued a decree immediately updating the statutes of the National School of Medicine and allowing women doctors to graduate.
On August 24, 1887, President Porfirio Díaz attended Matilde's examination with his wife Carmelita and a select number of society ladies and journalists. While detractors argued that Matilde had graduated by "presidential decree", the newspapers praised her: "Miss Montoya is the first Mexican Young lady to have completed a scientific career".
In my opinion, this is the most convincing proof that inclusive language is indeed inclusive.
In the case of inclusive language, the problem is not the proposal, but the minority that promotes it, one of the most repressed minorities worldwide by society. In Mexico, the life expectancy of transgender women is 30 to 40 years. Many are murdered. I know this is very difficult to understand from the heterosexual male view. Roles matter. They matter much more when you are a woman or have sex-gender discordance in a highly sexist and binary country. I am not one of those who intend to force the world to modify the language. But it would help a lot.
In 2021, a student who identified as non-binary demanded in her Zoom class that she be identified by the pronouns "elle" and "compañere". More than a tantrum, elle was giving the world a lesson in self-identification by refusing to join the binary gender. Seen from the outside, it looks like sheer stupidity. But it isn't.
Recently a person commented to me: that he did not agree that, if someone asked him to be called Your Majesty, he would have to do it. Sure, it's an absurd request. But it is very different to ask people to respect your gender identity, as in the case of this person who identified as non-binary. She does not identify as a man or a woman and the only thing she asked is not to be called he or she, friend or friend, partner or partner. Because she didn't feel good when she was treated as a woman or a man. That's all. It is not about imposing, but about respecting.
"Gender ideology" versus "gender perspective".
The term "gender ideology" is derogatory.
The term "gender perspective" is inclusive.
The "gender perspective" is a term coined by mostly progressive sectors that support the need to review the way in which we understand gender roles, and the possibility of non-binary genders and a more egalitarian society in matters of sex and gender.
The term "gender ideology" was used for the first time by Catholic authorities in 1995 at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China, in which they sought to hinder the liberalization of human sexuality, the right to abortion, homosexuality and gender equality. The term was established in 2002 in the Doctrinal Dictionary of the Pontifical Council for the Family. The term "gender ideology" is a pejorative term invented by homophobic, transphobic, sexist and sexist sectors that deny that human gender is an entirely social and cultural construction. The reality is that gender is optional and depends on people's self-identification, that is, on how we perceive ourselves.
Returning to inclusive language: I insist, the problem is not "todes", but comes from a minority that promotes the "gender perspective", inclusion.
There are those who argue that they do not agree with inclusive language because it destroys the Spanish language. At bottom, there is no desire to take care of the Spanish language. When Elon Musk announced the change of Twitter's name to X, the biggest concern of its users was what words they would use to conjugate the X. Since they would not be able to say tuitear.
I insist, deep down there is no desire to take care of the Spanish language. If it were true, there would be no massive use of Anglicisms: Casting, instead of "proof of interpretation". Hasgtag, instead of "tags". Light, instead of "light". Manager, instead of "manager". Marketing, instead of "marketing technique". Sandwich, instead of "sandwich". Spam, instead of "spam". Spoiler, instead of "spoil the ending". Test, instead of "test". Trending topic, instead of "trending of the moment in social networks".
Not to mention Mexican slang:
"No manches", "güey", that inclusive language with words like "todes", "las" and "los" is very "locochón", it even seems that they are "cantinfleando". The truth is not "está padre", "güero", they only destroy our Mexican language. Instead of "chingando", you'd better start "chambearing", "tetos", "vaquetones". What do you mean they want to "catafixear" us, the "todos por todes"? Not even if they were "chelas", and not even if we were "teporochos", "rucos", "sacatones". Already "estufas", with the destruction of our language with its exclusions. We are all of us, batos and batas.
And the todes is absurd?
It is not impossible for the world to accommodate the needs of minorities. What is lacking is willingness. For detractors of inclusive language, the problem is not todes, but the minority that promotes it.
The opinions expressed are the responsibility of the authors and are absolutely independent of the position and editorial line of the company. Opinion 51.
Comments ()