By Ana Gonzales Flores
As language evolves alongside society, inclusive language has become an increasingly important part of conversations about identity, grammar and representation.
However, advocating for inclusion becomes more complicated when languages follow different grammatical structures. What appears to be a simple change in English can require a much broader discussion in another language.
In English, using the singular “they” instead of “he” or “she” can offer a gender-neutral alternative. Yet, when non-binary people express their pronouns as “they/them” discussions can quickly shift from respecting individual identity to debating grammar.
The singular “they” has long been used in English, demonstrating that language can accommodate different ways of referring to people. Resistance to its use also reveals how unfamiliar linguistic choices can become controversial, even when they offer a more inclusive form of expression.
The challenge becomes more complex when considering languages with different grammatical structures.
Finnish, Hungarian and Turkish generally do not distinguish gender in their third-person singular pronouns in the way English does. By contrast, languages such as Spanish, French and Arabic use grammatical gender in different ways, affecting how words are formed and how sentences are constructed. In Spanish, for example, grammatical gender influences nouns, adjectives and other forms of agreement.
As a Spanish–English translator and interpreter in training, I recognise that inclusive language cannot always be translated word for word. While English can often accommodate gender-neutral expressions without changing the wider grammatical structure, other languages may require more extensive linguistic choices. These differences demonstrate that inclusive language is not simply a matter of replacing words; it also involves understanding the grammatical, cultural and social contexts in which those words are used.
In Spanish-speaking communities, debates about inclusive language also reflect differing views about tradition and social change.
Sara, a language advocate and Spanish-language linguistics student, observed that “everybody all of a sudden becomes the defender of RAE” — referring to the Royal Spanish Academy, an institution that publishes the Diccionario de la lengua española and contributes to the standardisation of Spanish alongside other language academies.
Her observation highlights how discussions about linguistic rules can become disputed when language is used to express changing social values.
Although institutions help establish linguistic conventions, language is also shaped by the people who use it. This applies across languages and cultures, where established grammatical rules, social expectations and individual identities can intersect in complex ways.
Conversations with fellow translators and interpreters Almendra Krainz and Aidan Briscoe further highlighted that some languages make gender-neutral translation easier than others. Such differences do not make inclusion impossible, but they challenge the assumption that a single approach will work across every linguistic and cultural context.
Inclusive language extends beyond grammar; it asks us to consider how our words represent people and whose identities they acknowledge or leave unrecognised. It does not require every language to change in the same way, nor does it mean abandoning the structures that make each language unique. Instead, it calls for a willingness to understand how language affects others and why familiar expressions may not always reflect everyone’s experiences.
Inclusion begins not with changing every word, but with recognising that the words we choose carry meaning beyond their grammatical function.
Featured image: Breaking from the chains of societal gender norms. Graphic: Feewiki/CC/Wikimedia Commons
