Ah, “Latinx,” the term that sounds like the name of a futuristic cleaning product designed to mop up all gender confusion. Twenty years ago, the academic world decided Latino needed a makeover—because who wouldn’t want to wrap their cultural identity in a flashy new package? But it turns out, it was less of a makeover and more like putting a neon dog collar on a cat, which, spoiler alert: just doesn’t work.
Now, let’s welcome in the Pew Research Center, who, bless their hearts, did us a favor by cranking out the numbers on this linguistic fiasco. Almost half of Latinos have heard of “Latinx.” Fantastic! That’s like saying half the people in England have heard of tea (and the other half are obviously traitors). However, when it comes to the actual usage of this snazzy term? A whopping 4% actually use it. That’s about as popular as a vegan at a Texas barbecue!
What’s even more bewildering is that while the term has been lovingly cradled by celebrities and progressive politicians—who apparently think they’re in an academic race to see who can sound the most inclusive—actual Latino individuals have given it a collective shrug. You know, kind of like how we all react to fruitcake at Christmas. These folks are more inclined to shout “¡Soy Latino!” than to roll their eyes and say, “I’m so Latinx.” But hey, who cares what the bulk of the population thinks, right? It’s cool! It’s hip! It’s a driving force in the Democratic party; at least it used to be, until they noticed a rather rude awakening at the polls!
In a shocking turn of events that left many scratching their heads, it seems that Democratic candidates are no longer the glittering figments of hope for the Latino community they once believed themselves to be. I mean, Kamala Harris dropped to 52% of the Latino vote this past election, a number that sounds more like a D+ than a roaring success. Meanwhile, Donald Trump—yes, that guy—sauntered away with over half the vote from Latino males. Can someone please pass the smelling salts? This is, quite frankly, madness! This is what happens when you think using a shiny new term makes up for deep-rooted issues like economic angst and immigration concerns!
Imagine this delightful juxtaposition: on one side we have Democrats pointing to their ‘progressive credentials’ and using terms that 75% of Latinos are asking to be filed under “never to be spoken again.” And on the other side, we have a Republican whose handling of immigration has ranged from cringeworthy to utterly chaotic, yet he comes in as the hero conquering the electoral hearts of Latino voters. If this doesn’t scream “disconnect,” I don’t know what does. Truly, it’s a political circus act where no one knows their role—except that they’re all apparently juggling chainsaws.
Now, to top all of this off, we have the graphic from ProPublica that shows how Latino votes have shifted in Texan counties near the border, akin to a magician pulling a rabbit from a hat while the audience is left confused and questioning their choices in life. At this rate, Democrats might want to consider a little heart-to-heart with the very demographic they thought they had in their pocket. Maybe it’s time to retire the term “Latinx” and start winning over the people with real issues, rather than just trendy rebranding. Let’s give a standing ovation to language that connects rather than confuses, shall we?
In summary, folks, amidst all this linguistic gymnastics, at least we can take comfort in one thing: when it comes to political identity, using the right term doesn’t guarantee you a ticket to the inner circle. Sometimes, it’s just worth asking the people involved what they actually prefer. Who knew? The more you know.
Twenty years ago, a neologism emerged in academic circles, designed to encompass the American population with roots in Latin America: “Latinx.” This term was introduced as a more inclusive, non-sexist, non-binary alternative to “Latino,” which its creator argued marginalized women and non-binary individuals. Over time, “Latinx” gained traction not only among scholars but also among influential celebrities and progressive politicians. Even certain media outlets considered adopting the term. However, it has consistently failed to resonate with the broader Latino or Hispanic populace, particularly among those who are aware of its existence.
Last September, the Pew Research Center released a revealing survey that highlighted this disconnect. It noted that nearly half of Latinos (47%) acknowledged having heard the term “Latinx” in reference to their identities. Shockingly, only 4% of those individuals actually used the term themselves, while a staggering 75% expressed that they believe it should not be used to identify anyone.
Democratic politicians have clearly understood this sentiment long before the survey’s release. Numerous Latino civil rights organizations began to distance themselves from the term in 2021. The symbolism is striking: these organizations, entrusted to represent Latino voices, utilized a term that the vast majority of their constituents had not embraced.
The widening gap between Democrats and many Latino voters has become increasingly evident. According to exit polls from the recent election, Kamala Harris garnered only 52% of their votes in the 2024 presidential race, a drop from the 61% received by Joe Biden in 2020 and the 66% that Hillary Clinton attracted in 2016. Barack Obama, during his presidency, had secured over 70% of Latino votes in 2012—a trend that now appears to be shifting.
In a surprising turn, Donald Trump polled 55% of the votes from Latino men, securing more support than any previous Republican presidential candidate, who had averaged 46% in earlier elections, according to exit polls. While these figures are not definitive, they signal a significant shift in voting patterns that could reshape political strategy moving forward.
However, these voting trends cannot be solely attributed to linguistic preferences. Latinos have demonstrated their dissatisfaction with economic conditions through their voting choices, particularly those favoring Trump. Additionally, many expressed frustration with a political party that seems increasingly out of touch with their concerns. This sentiment is particularly pronounced regarding the contentious issue of illegal immigration, where Democrats have often prioritized the sensitivities of specific advocacy groups over the realities faced by the majority of the Latino community, who are equally troubled by the situation at the southern border.
The graphic produced by ProPublica should serve as a wake-up call for Democrats. It visually represents the shifting political landscape in 18 predominantly Latino counties located within 30 km of the Texas-Mexico border, underscoring a growing disconnection between Democratic values and an increasing number of Latino voters.
**Interview with Dr. Maria Gomez, Sociologist at the Pew Research Center**
**Editor:** Welcome, Dr. Gomez! Thanks for joining us today to discuss the intriguing dynamics of the terms Hispanic, Latino, Latinx, and Latine. Your recent findings on the term ‘Latinx’ have sparked quite a conversation. Can you summarize the key takeaways from your research?
**Dr. Gomez:** Thank you for having me! Our research revealed a significant disconnect between the term ‘Latinx’ and the Latino community it aims to represent. While nearly 47% of Latinos in the U.S. have heard of the term, only about 4% actually use it to identify themselves. Furthermore, a striking 75% believe it shouldn’t be used at all. This shows that despite the term’s popularity among certain political and celebrity circles, it doesn’t resonate broadly with the Latino population.
**Editor:** That’s fascinating—and a bit surprising! Why do you think there is such a disparity between the term’s adoption in progressive platforms and its rejection by many in the community?
**Dr. Gomez:** This gap likely stems from a combination of factors. Many Latino individuals feel a strong connection to terms like ‘Latino’ or ‘Hispanic’ that resonate with their cultural heritage. Additionally, ‘Latinx’ can be seen as an imposition from outside communities—particularly those not primarily affected by Latinx identity issues. When a term is perceived as a top-down imposition rather than grassroots, it tends to generate resistance.
**Editor:** It sounds like we’re dealing with a classic case of cultural disconnection. How have political implications played out in light of this?
**Dr. Gomez:** The political consequences have been significant. For instance, as you mentioned earlier, the shifting support for Democratic candidates among Latino voters indicates a need for a more authentic and relevant connection. The term’s popularity among progressives hasn’t translated into electoral success, evidenced by Kamala Harris’s 52% approval among Latino voters—far from a glowing endorsement. There seems to be a broader issue at play, where community concerns about immigration and economic conditions outweigh terminological trends.
**Editor:** So, if the term ‘Latinx’ is falling flat, what do you think political leaders should focus on to better engage the Latino community?
**Dr. Gomez:** It’s essential for politicians to prioritize meaningful dialogue. Rather than relying on trendy terms, they should listen to what Latino voters truly care about. Addressing issues such as economic opportunity, education, and healthcare will resonate far more than adopting inclusive language alone. It’s about authenticity and genuinely representing the needs and voices of the community.
**Editor:** Thank you, Dr. Gomez, for shedding light on this complex issue. Your insights reveal the importance of not just the labels we use, but ensuring they truly reflect the identities of those they aim to describe.
**Dr. Gomez:** Thank you for having me! It’s crucial that in our efforts to be inclusive, we also respect and amplify the voices of those we wish to represent.
