there is no point to overcharge with moral meaning what is a linguistic process (well understood I would add) that happened over centuries. This particular phenomenon has to do with the optimization of the language (neutral in Latin had relatively few nouns for objects) and the loss of consonants at the end of the world (like -m) that were often not pronounced anyway in the spoken language already - so again simplification. It has to do with a moral stance not more than other linguistic phenomena that caused mutations in consonants etc.
changing the language is responsibility of the speakers, not of English-speakers that in addition to have language hegemony, pretend to change other languages they don’t speak, mirroring English’s quirks and working mechanisms.
In fact, what I mentioned above (about * and the schwa) are processes that exist among speakers to address what some perceive as a problem in the language. However this is something that for obvious reasons only applies to written language as both of them are not pronounceable.
Different languages also have a different prescriptive vs descriptive balance, hence changes happen differently.
You simply can’t transport English “solutions” to problems (I.e. neutral words) to Spanish (or Italian), because neutral for this language is the same as masculine. However, for speakers, gender is not perceived in the same way it is perceived in English. It is completely obvious (I can speak for Italian, but given the similarity I am sure the same applies to Spanish) that both “umani” (humans) and “persone” (people) include everyone, even if the first is a masculine word and the second is a feminine word, grammatically speaking. Nobody thinks of the gender of the word as the gender of the concept, because that’s not how the language works. When you want to do that, you add context that make it semantically obvious. This is apparently how English works instead, because gender has basically no other function, so you get things like the one in the screenshot, that doesn’t make any sense.
Sure, but my point is:
In fact, what I mentioned above (about * and the schwa) are processes that exist among speakers to address what some perceive as a problem in the language. However this is something that for obvious reasons only applies to written language as both of them are not pronounceable.
Different languages also have a different prescriptive vs descriptive balance, hence changes happen differently.
You simply can’t transport English “solutions” to problems (I.e. neutral words) to Spanish (or Italian), because neutral for this language is the same as masculine. However, for speakers, gender is not perceived in the same way it is perceived in English. It is completely obvious (I can speak for Italian, but given the similarity I am sure the same applies to Spanish) that both “umani” (humans) and “persone” (people) include everyone, even if the first is a masculine word and the second is a feminine word, grammatically speaking. Nobody thinks of the gender of the word as the gender of the concept, because that’s not how the language works. When you want to do that, you add context that make it semantically obvious. This is apparently how English works instead, because gender has basically no other function, so you get things like the one in the screenshot, that doesn’t make any sense.