The impact of the feminist movement in today's society is undeniable and its ideals -obvious but radical- are becoming more and more important. However, there are a whole series of issues that still deeply divided public opinion. Such as gender legislation or positive discrimination measures, and one of the most controversial ones, the so-called inclusive language.

As w mani oters, tis hipotetical mdfication in te way of taking doesnt make me feel so comfortabe, quite the contrary. There's a conservative in me who dislikes all these modern inventions. As a rule, conservatives do not like changes. This current trend for "trying new things" is going far too beyond.

What are the arguments of those who advocate for a modification in the language?

In my opinion, the main arguments - although closely related - are of two kinds: those I call symbolic and those I call consequentialist.

• It is not fair to take the part for the whole. If we are not all men then it cannot be that 'mankind' is the generic term. In the same way that in a class with blondes and brunettes we would not say "blondes, go to recess", in a class with boys and girls we should not say "boys, go to recess". We all deserve to be represented, and when we paint the world with our words, it is important not to leave anyone out. The masculine as a generic marginalizes (symbolically) those who are not particularly masculine.

• Current language influences the way women are treated and by extension how they are treated. For example, the use of the masculine as a generic - the voice carriers, the doctors, the engineers... - contributes to the fact that, unconsciously, we see the man as the protagonist and the woman as a simple secondary. Or, for example, the derogatory use of certain terms - feminine, girly, fresh... - contributes to the thought that it is better to be a man than to be a woman.

Are these arguments valid? dear feminist, or person considers any of these two arguments valid, who considers inclusive language valid, who considers masculine generic masculine, and so on:

Seeing male chauvinism in the language is something that can only be done from a feminist perspective. And this, being not an academic topic, but a mere social movement with no scientific basis does not have the strength to act as a support for your assertions. The fact that there are feminist professionals or book authors does not mean academic support, be careful with this. Books are not academic support, but papers published in indexed journals are. Feminist women with a profession do not validate the movement and its postulates, in the same way, that the presence of professionals in the ranks of Nazism did not make their movement valid.

The claims of male chauvinism in the language neither have the least scientific support nor a logic one. There are many languages in the world, and many of them are gender-neutral, like German. That or other societies have not been more kind to women. Language is a tool of communication, it does not carry any ethical-moral burden, just as it does not carry a hammer or a screwdriver.

The economics of language led to the reduction and elimination of many morphemes, including those related to the neutral grammatical gender of Latin, for example. That has nothing to do with male chauvinism, but with ease of speech. And no, you can't change the grammatical structure of the language at the point of feminism. Trying to change the deep structure of the language just because a small number of people have pain or discomfort, such as Spanish, has no head or feet. The subjective minority opinion does not force anything, nor is it sufficient to take into consideration anything that is said. No, everyone's opinion is not the same. One thing is all the language academies around the world; another thing is a handful of people whose opinion, with the same validity as that of any neighbor's child, is to refuse to speak properly. In fact, if someone needs to deform language to feel included and recognized, the problem is not language, but that person. That would normally require a visit to a mental health professional.

The rules of language are statistical emergencies of a biopsychosocial nature, since both the body is required for communication, whether by means of palatal, guttural, nasal or other sounds (and not forgetting that verbal communication constitutes only 25% of the total); of psychological characteristics (communication requires normal cognitive abilities within the framework of mutual understanding and the construction of a common code based on our physiological repertoire that can constitute an acceptable lexicon); and social (the ecological forces that shape our interaction that, through a high level of conscious processing, become the social conventions we use for everything, among which is based the principle of economics, which, applied to language, constitutes the economics of language).

Grammatical change has never happened by the imposition of a group of speakers, but by the natural evolution of these sociolinguistic forces in order to improve the practical interaction between speakers. In this sense, feminism or any ideological group cannot simply impose that, but at most try to popularize its use, although it would be useless, since it affects the economy of language, so it will not affect the population. Even if it were to stick, it would be grammatically incorrect, since it remembers that for centuries the neuter that Latin brought was eliminated, and at this point trying to import them would be an absurd use of cultisms that would continue to violate the economics of language. Moreover, unlike neologisms and meanings, which depend mainly on the speaker's jus reale or jus in re for their automatic validity, grammatical changes in the profound structure of language are not automatically valid.

It is absurd to discriminate against the generic male just because he is male. Assuming that male grammar is equivalent to male sex, something called a "categorical error fallacy" is committed. And as you must know, a fallacy nullifies the validity of any argument, thought or assertion. On the other hand, this would imply negative and hateful discrimination of the masculine, and that is misandry and sexism. As if that were not enough, if you talk about equality, and the masculine is thus denounced, you are being hypocritical.