Spanish and other binary-gender languages have come under attack lately for a supposed “lack of inclusivity” since they work off a masculine/feminine gender paradigm. As a growing number of people no longer identify as male nor female and insist on using “them/they” pronouns, terms like “LatinX”, are becoming commonplace in English as they are purportedly more politically correct. Recently, a variety of optional pronouns and adjective endings have been proposed to substitute gender-specific ones in Spanish and other languages. As a certified Spanish-English court interpreter, I am sometimes asked how I address these issues in the context of my work within the judicial system. The short answer is “I don’t”. Without entering into the melee of how many genders there are or how far accommodations for those with gender identity issues should reach, permit me to explain the problem with such language, and at the same time present some simple solutions if and when a need arises.

Languages like Spanish have a governing body. The RAE, or Royal Academy of the Spanish language, sets the standard of what is correct Spanish grammar. As interpreters, we have an ethical obligation to adhere to these language standards. Deviating from them would be a dereliction of our duty. Even though there are frequent additions to acceptable vocabulary, the RAE has rejected the use of suggested “gender neutral” pronouns and alternative adjectives. Unlike other organic changes languages experience, the acceptance of non-binary terms in Spanish is unlikely to occur soon. Why?

Forcing change on a language is artificial. All languages undergo change. When a new word or expression is useful, it effortlessly enters a language’s vernacular, becomes popular, and is eventually accepted by the language academy. The register or meaning of existing words can also change with time. Decades ago, the word “gay” simply meant “happy”. As words fall into disuse, they begin sounding archaic. Others may even become offensive or vulgar. For example, few if any would now defend using the “R” word to describe a person with a developmental disability. However, accepting the natural evolution of vocabulary is a far cry from forcing a radical alteration to a language’s basic framework. Adding an alternative gender is too drastic a change to the fundamental structure of a language to be able to develop organically.

The need for a clear judicial record. The most common complaint about the legal system is “legalese”, or the use of complicated language that is unlikely to be understood by a layperson. There is a reason for it. The purpose of legal language is that court records need to be specific and unambiguous if they are to have force and effect. Legal terms have a specialized meaning that cannot be misconstrued. The record of what is said and decided in court needs to be clear and precise. Using words such as “they” and “them” to describe a single individual only muddles the record, and will likely be followed by the question, “When you say, ‘they’, to whom are you referring?” This is an issue we Spanish interpreters deal with more than we’d like. In Spanish, it is common for speakers to obviate the use of pronouns and just use the verb conjugation. To make the record clear, it first needs to be clarified who did what and to whom. For example, if a witness on the stand says “estaba comiendo” it could be interpreted as “I was eating”, “He was eating”, “She was eating” or even “You were eating”. While the context often helps, clarification is in order to avoid confusion or misinterpretation.

It discriminates against native speakers. While apologists tout that non-binary language is needed to “end discrimination”, it actually does the opposite. Far from being “inclusive”, it discriminates against those who do not have a working knowledge of English, and disregards how languages actually work. One advocate who taught language at a community college told me that she simply ‘puts an “x” at the end of words in Spanish to make them non-binary’. While the concept of a word ending in “x” as being gender-neutral is perhaps understood by a part of the English-speaking world, this is not the case with native Spanish speakers. The popular English contrivance “LatinX” is laughably unpronounceable in Spanish, and ignores the fact that the Spanish language already has a “catch all” gender. When the gender is unknown or undefined, the masculine is used. So, the correct term, “Latinos” , includes all genders.

Grammatical gender is unoffensive. For a group that adamantly promotes recognition of a difference between biological and identity gender, one would think it would be easy for proponents of “inclusive” language to understand that grammatical gender is also a distinct concept. For the native speaker of a binary-gender language, grammatical gender doesn’t necessarily translate to a person’s biological sex. “Roberto es una persona sabia” translates that Roberto is an intelligent person. However, since the noun for “person” is feminine, the adjective must agree and Roberto is called “sabia” (feminine) instead of “sabio” (masculine). But, don’t worry, Roberto won’t be filing a complaint for being “misgendered”. Grammatical gender doesn’t offend.

Handling gender identity issues as a court interpreter. On occasion, I have to interpret for people who identify as a gender different from their biological sex. The interpreter becomes aware of this situation as we are often privy to a person’s true name, and jail housing. It is not a problem for an interpreter to inquire and use an individual’s preferred pronouns and adjectives as long as they fall within the parameters of correct use of the target language. In Spanish, this would be either masculine or feminine. Another simple solution is to use a person’s name instead of pronouns. As stated before, this actually leads to a clearer record.

So, no matter where a person stands on gender ideology, people need to be cognizant that languages should not be targeted for not adhering to a school of thought. Artificially forcing a language spoken by hundreds of millions to be fundamentally altered in order to conform to the desire of a small group is not only the very definition of elitist (a label often thrown around by the proponents of such changes against their critics), some consider it tantamount to linguistic genocide. Treating people with dignity calls for respecting their native tongue, not criticizing it.