In the vast, vibrant world of the Spanish language, a single vowel is sparking a revolution. It’s a quiet but seismic struggle, pitting centuries of grammatical tradition against a powerful, modern push for social inclusion. On one side stands the formidable Real Academia Española (RAE), the ultimate guardian of the Spanish language. On the other, a grassroots movement of activists, academics, and young speakers advocating for a more inclusive language. The battleground? The generic masculine. The proposed weapon of change? The humble letter ‘e’.
This is the story of “todes”, a word you won’t find in any official dictionary but will hear in protests in Buenos Aires, see in university emails in Mexico City, and read in social media posts across the globe. It’s a real-time linguistic standoff that asks a fundamental question: who gets to decide how a language evolves?
The Traditional Guard: What is the RAE?
To understand the conflict, you first need to understand the institution at its center. The Real Academia Española, founded in 1713 in Madrid, is the most influential body governing the Spanish language. Its motto is “Limpia, fija y da esplendor” (“It cleans, sets, and gives splendor”). For over 300 years, the RAE, in collaboration with 22 other national academies across the Americas and the Philippines, has worked to maintain the unity and integrity of Spanish.
The RAE publishes the definitive dictionary (Diccionario de la lengua española) and grammar guide for the language. For millions of teachers, writers, and speakers, its rulings are law. When the RAE speaks, the Spanish-speaking world listens. And on the topic of inclusive language, its voice has been consistently, and forcefully, traditional.
The Grammatical Rule at the Heart of the Debate
At the core of this standoff is a long-standing grammatical rule: the use of the masculine plural as the “unmarked” or generic form. In Spanish, nouns and adjectives have grammatical gender. When referring to a group of people, the form you use depends on the group’s composition.
- A group of all men: amigos
- A group of all women: amigas
- A mixed-gender group (even one man and 99 women): amigos
According to the RAE, this masculine plural is grammatically inclusive. “Los niños” can mean “the boys” or “the children” (boys and girls). “Bienvenidos” on a sign is meant to welcome everyone, regardless of gender. The Academy argues this is a simple matter of grammatical economy, not a reflection of a patriarchal worldview. It’s the default, the neutral, the standard.
The Rise of the Rebels: ‘Todes’, ‘Amigues’, and the Inclusive ‘e’
For a growing number of people, this explanation is no longer acceptable. Fueled by feminist and LGBTQ+ movements, the push for inclusive language (lenguaje inclusivo) argues that language isn’t just a neutral tool for communication; it actively shapes our reality. From this perspective, the constant use of the masculine generic renders women and non-binary individuals invisible.
If language makes our world, they ask, what world does it make when “everyone” is grammatically masculine by default?
Early attempts to solve this involved clunky typographic solutions like the at-symbol (@) or the letter ‘x’ (e.g., tod@s, todxs). While popular in writing, these forms are unpronounceable, making them impractical for spoken language. And so, a more elegant solution emerged: the vowel -e.
The proposal is simple: use ‘-e’ as a neutral third option for plurals and adjectives, specifically for referring to mixed groups or to individuals who do not identify within the male/female gender binary.
This creates a new paradigm:
- Masculine: Todos
- Feminine: Todas
- Neutral/Inclusive: Todes
This logic extends across the language. “Amigos” and “amigas” are joined by “amigues“. A welcome sign might now read “Bienvenides“. A teacher might address their students as “niñes“. This new morphology is a direct, audible, and systematic challenge to the old guard.
The RAE Fires Back: “Unnecessary and Artificial”
The RAE has met this grassroots evolution with staunch opposition. In 2020, it published a comprehensive report in collaboration with the other academies firmly rejecting these new forms. The Academy’s arguments are clear:
- It’s Unnecessary: The masculine generic already fulfills the function of including all genders. Creating a third form is a redundant and artificial complication.
- It’s Anti-Grammatical: The RAE insists that the “-e” ending is “alien to the morphology of Spanish”. It doesn’t fit the established patterns of the language and creates a cascade of grammatical problems with articles (los/las vs. the proposed les), pronouns, and adjective agreement.
- It’s Impractical: The RAE argues that forcing these changes would lead to confusion and chaos, disrupting the linguistic unity it has worked for centuries to preserve.
The RAE’s official dictionary includes a small, almost defiant note on its entry for the pronoun ‘elle’ (the proposed neutral alternative to ‘él’ and ‘ella’): “The pronoun ‘elle’… is a resource created and promoted in certain spheres to refer to those who may not feel identified with either of the two traditionally existing genders. Its use is not widespread nor is it established in the cultured norm”.
A Language in Flux
Despite the RAE’s institutional blockade, the use of ‘todes’ and the inclusive ‘-e’ continues to grow, particularly in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and among younger, university-educated circles in Spain, Mexico, and Colombia. It has become a political and social statement—a way to signal one’s commitment to gender equality and inclusion.
You can see this evolution in action. Argentinian universities have adopted inclusive language in official communications. Politicians have used “todes” in public speeches, sparking both applause and outrage. On social media, it’s a common identifier for progressive communities. This isn’t just a theoretical debate; it’s a living change happening in tweets, conversations, and classrooms.
The standoff represents a classic linguistic dilemma: prescriptivism versus descriptivism. A prescriptivist approach, like the RAE’s, dictates how a language *should* be used based on a set of established rules. A descriptivist approach observes and analyzes how people *actually* use a language, recognizing that the speakers themselves are the ultimate authority.
The battle over “todes” is more than a grammatical squabble. It’s a reflection of a society in transition, grappling with issues of identity, power, and visibility. While the RAE holds the keys to the official dictionary, language has always been a democratic, and sometimes messy, force. Whether “todes” will one day be “given splendor” by the Academy or remain a symbol of linguistic rebellion is a chapter in the history of Spanish that is being written, right now, by its speakers.