Viewpoint
In response to a study that found no consensus for a preferred label among people with Spanish and Latin-American origin, Carlos Rodriguez-Diaz provides guidance in a JAMA Network Open commentary on what these results mean for health research, policy, and practice.
From Hispanic and Latino/a, to Latinx and Latine, panethnic terms describing people with Spanish and Latin American ancestry have evolved over the last several decades in the US to become more geographically and gender-inclusive. Amid ongoing debates about identity, culture, and gender diversity, a recent study in JAMA Network Open sought to understand which of these terms was most preferred among sexual and gender minority (SGM) adults, and it found no clear consensus on one preferred label.
This lack of consensus on panethnic terminology reflects the complexity of identities among individuals, as well as the challenges of capturing lived experiences through use of broad labels, writes Carlos Rodriguez-Diaz, chair and professor of community health sciences, in an invited commentary about the findings, also published in JAMA Network Open.
In the 1970s, “Hispanic” became the dominant term to refer to populations with Spanish and Latin-American roots, both in US government documentation and in public communication, until “Latino/a” gained prominence in the 1980s and 90s, in an effort to shift away from Spanish-language heritage and better reflect broad cultural identities. “Latinx” and “Latine” emerged in more recent years as gender-neutral terms that include nonbinary and gender-diverse individuals, with “Latine” aligning more with Spanish grammar and pronunciation.
In the original study, led by Alexis Ceja of California State University, about 30 percent of respondents said they preferred the term Latina/o, followed by approximately 24 percent who preferred Hispanic, 17 percent who preferred Latinx, and 9 percent who preferred Latine. More than 10 percent of respondents didn’t identify with any of the listed panethnic terms, and instead wrote their own preferred label, which was often more specific to their heritage (such as Mexican or Cuban).
These findings are not surprising, writes Rodriguez-Diaz and—to quote Ana Maria del Rio-Gonzalez of George Washington University—they show that “gender neutrality does not equal gender inclusivity.”
“Simply removing gender references or treating everyone ‘the same’ does not necessarily ensure that all gender identities are recognized, respected, or supported,” Rodriguez-Diaz says in a separate comment about findings. “Policies, language, or environments are designed to treat people identically, regardless of gender. While this approach can reduce explicit bias, it may also ignore the realities of gendered experiences and inequities. Gender inclusivity goes further by actively recognizing, respecting, and accommodating diverse gender identities and experiences, including transgender, nonbinary, and gender-diverse people.”
Preferences for panethnic terms are shaped by individuals’ lived experiences, including migration histories, cultural traditions, language practices, and generational identities, he says. “These preferences are also influenced by broader sociopolitical contexts—such as activism, colonial histories, racialization, and debates about gender and inclusion—which shape how people understand identity, belonging, and representation.”
As language and preferred labeling continue to evolve, it is important for health research and public communication to similarly evolve to ensure that multiple and intersecting identities are acknowledged and reflected. In the commentary, Rodriguez-Diaz outlines several recommendations to achieve true inclusivity, including asking multiple questions to identify patients’ race/ethnicity and sexuality; explain or inquire about emerging labels; and, when analyzing data, contextualize information based on people’s sociocultural experiences and personal history.
“After all,” he writes, “when health science updates its language, it is not rewriting history; it is acknowledging that better evidence, deeper engagement with communities, and a clearer moral framework demand more accurate and humane ways of naming human experience.”
Click here to read the full commentary.
