The National Academy of Education has spoken out against the use of inclusive language

The National Academy of Education ruled on Tuesday against the use of inclusive language, in accordance with what has been said previously by the Royal Spanish Academy.

The declaration, signed by José María La Greca, academic secretary of ANE, affirms that it adheres to what has already been expressed by the Argentine Academy of Letters when it affirms that “the linguistic structures of Spanish do not must not be forced so that they become the mirror of an ideology, because the Spanish grammar that we study does not restrict the freedom to express ourselves or to interpret what others express “.

“We affirm this with the conviction that an interconnected language never excludes”, he adds, in relation to what was mentioned above by the Academy of Letters.

In addition, the National Academy of Education highlights what was expressed by the Royal Spanish Academy in the detailed report it previously made on inclusive language and related issues.

“The so-called inclusive language supposes to artificially modify the functioning of the morphology of the gender in Spanish under the subjective postulate that the use of the generic masculine makes the women invisible since the use of the @ or the letters ‘e’ and ‘x’ as supposedly inclusive gender marks, it is alien to the morphology of Spanish, as well as unnecessary, since the grammatical masculine already fulfills this function as an unmarked term of the gender opposition, ”he quotes -it from that expressed by the main reference of the Spanish Language.

Let us also recall that “in the case of the French language” the French Academy and the French Ministry of Education have recently expressed themselves, stressing that inclusive writing, “is detrimental to the practice and intelligibility of the French language“While its” complexity and instability constitute obstacles for both language acquisition and reading. “

Having taken note of these declarations, the ANE affirms that it “supports the criteria set out in the aforementioned documents” and that it considers “unnecessary inclusive styles which complicate both the language and its teaching in educational establishments ”.

He also assures us that they modify it “in ways that are uncomfortable for the sane common sense of society” and that “they do not help indicate gender equality on the contrary, they suggest the existence of a rivalry and not of a fundamental and deep meeting between the two ”.