How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?

Broad acknowledgement (though there remains some sharp and often violent denial, so while better than the best the current situation isn’t at the limit of this) that gender identity can differ from socially ascribed gender and that such a difference is cause for realigning socially ascribed gender to gender identity means that people whose gender identity differs from their socially ascribed gender both are likely to have:

(1) a framework for understanding the source of their discomfort that would not exist absent the degree of acceptance, and

(2) a license to identify their understanding of the source of their discomfort to others that woud not exist without the degree of acceptance, and

(3) a hope of relief that would not exist without the social norm of realigning ascribed gender to match gender identity.

Naturally, this means that more people aren’t just going to keep quiet and attempt to fit into the box society has assigned them at whatever pain it takes, as would previously have been the case because there was no visible alternative.

> but it was also a time when society encouraged the view of everyone being unique and mysterious and don't put labels on things.

I'm glad, for your sake, that you felt like this about society, but I can assure you that at no time that any living person grew up was it the case; and, particularly, the labels put on those who failed to outwardly conform to gender norms tended to be quite harsh.

> I appreciate it’s a bit of a stretch but in some ways it does feel now in society there is a growing pressure to box people’s identities in more.

That’s, literally, the opposite of the case.

Also, IQ is fundamentally flawed. Perhaps your innate abilities (and acquired prejudiced) aren't a substitute for following contemporary research on intelligence?

https://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20121218/iq-test-really-mea...

Disclaimer - personally, I'm sceptical about the concept and scientific grounds behind transgenderism and I expect my comment to be downvoted.

I see two issues in Spanish, one in English, and two in general.

The only viable way to read this word in Spanish would be /latinks/, and it's against the language's phonotactics. So if you must replace the gender mark with something else, you'd need to use a vowel (cue to "Latines").

It is not necessary though, simply because grammatical gender is not social gender. There are a thousand ways to conceal the gender of someone in Spanish - refer to "la persona" (always feminine, no matter if you're referring to a man), plurify (the plural will take the masculine for mixed groups), so goes on. Or even, you know, use the default grammatical masculine, like the RAE recommends? Granted the RAE is a bunch of pedants but they're spot on in this case.

In English it sounds even more spurious. There's "Latin" already, why the hell are you adding a gender mark that doesn't exist in the language and then replacing it with yet another?

While this, one of the general issues I see is that we Latin Americans don't really identify ourselves by this sort of catch-all label. We have a bunch of local identities - using an equivalent for "the other side", calling us "Latins" (with -o, -a, -x or whatever) is like talking about the ethnic Germanic culture of Canada, Suriname, Jamaica, USA and Belize, as if they had a lot to do with each other.

The other issue I see is related to the above: who are the people using that word to identify themselves? Dunno about you, but I think they're just a bunch of Americans conflating heritage with identity. Every time I see someone claiming to be "latino" on the internet, I'm almost tempted to say "you are not one of us, stop lying" because of that. It's the same deal as the "Italians" from New York, or the "Irish" from who cares.