Buenos Aires — More than a year into Javier Milei’s libertarian presidency, Argentina remains locked in a contentious cultural debate over gender-inclusive language, as the government continues efforts to ban the use of the gender-neutral “e” ending and the symbol “x” from official documents, schools, and public administration. The policy, originally announced in February 2024 by Presidential Spokesperson Manuel Adorni, has sparked sustained resistance from linguists, educators, and feminist organizations who argue the measure infringes on free expression and ignores how language naturally evolves.
The Origins of “Lenguaje Inclusivo”
Spanish, like many Romance languages, assigns grammatical gender to nouns and uses masculine forms as the default plural — a convention critics argue renders women and non-binary people linguistically invisible. In response, activists in Argentina and across Latin America began promoting alternatives such as replacing the masculine “-o” with “-e” (as in “todes” instead of “todos”) or with the symbol “@” or “x.” Argentina, with its strong feminist movement that propelled the historic 2020 legalization of abortion, became one of the regional epicenters of this linguistic experimentation, particularly in universities, government communications, and youth culture.
The practice gained official footing during the previous Peronist administration of Alberto Fernández, when several public institutions formally adopted inclusive forms in their communications. Public broadcasters, ministries, and even some judicial rulings began incorporating gender-neutral phrasings, drawing both praise as a progressive milestone and criticism from traditionalists who saw it as ideological imposition.
Milei’s Counter-Revolution
Javier Milei, who took office in December 2023 promising a sweeping cultural and economic transformation, has framed inclusive language as part of what he calls the “woke agenda” he intends to dismantle. His administration’s directive prohibits the use of gender-neutral forms in all branches of the national public administration and discourages references to “gender perspective” in official documentation. The government simultaneously dissolved the Ministry of Women, Gender, and Diversity, folding its functions into a smaller human capital office. Coverage from Reuters noted that Adorni justified the move by claiming inclusive language was “unnecessary” and a vehicle for political ideology.
The Royal Spanish Academy (RAE), the institution that oversees Spanish-language norms, has historically rejected the “-e” and “x” endings as grammatically incorrect, a position the Milei government frequently cites. However, sociolinguists point out that the RAE’s authority is descriptive as much as prescriptive, and that languages routinely change through usage rather than decree. The BBC reported that linguistic scholars across Latin America have criticized attempts to legislate language use, noting that such bans rarely succeed in stamping out organic linguistic shifts.
Why This Story Matters
The dispute is more than a quarrel over grammar. It reflects a broader ideological realignment in Argentina and the wider region, where right-wing and libertarian movements have increasingly targeted gender studies, feminist policy, and LGBTQ+ rights as symbols of what they characterize as cultural overreach. Anthropologists studying contemporary Argentina argue that language has become a proxy battlefield for deeper anxieties about national identity, economic precarity, and the role of the state. As The Guardian observed, the language ban arrived alongside steep austerity cuts that have hit women and marginalized groups hardest, suggesting the cultural and economic dimensions of Milei’s project are intertwined.
Universities have largely defied the ban. The University of Buenos Aires (UBA), one of Latin America’s most prestigious institutions, reaffirmed its faculties’ autonomy to use inclusive forms in academic settings. Teachers’ unions in several provinces have also issued statements rejecting the policy, framing it as an attack on pedagogical freedom.
What to Watch Next
As Milei’s government heads into critical midterm elections, the cultural-war dimension of his presidency is likely to intensify. Observers will be watching whether courts uphold challenges to the language directive, whether provincial governments — many controlled by the opposition — continue to permit inclusive forms, and whether grassroots usage persists despite federal prohibition. History suggests that languages shaped by millions of speakers rarely yield to executive orders, but the political symbolism of the fight may matter more than its linguistic outcome.
