"Latinx" might end up being a failed woke experiment, revealing the huge divide between identity-politics-obsessed progressives in seminar rooms and on social media and the Hispanics in whose name they purport to speak.

"Latinx" is a project that is a natural extension of LGBTQ, which is now more correctly and thoroughly expressed as LGBTQQIP2SAA as of this writing.

The gendered nouns in Spanish are said to be the difficulty that "Latinx" was established to solve. This implies that using the masculine descriptor "Latino" to identify men and women of Latin American origin, much alone transgender and nonbinary persons, is ostensibly discriminatory, cruel, and dangerous. "To default to the masculine gender fosters interpersonal violence against women and nonbinary persons," according to a manual on the language written by a Princeton academic.

“Latinx” rose from the ashes of its predecessor neologism “Latin@,” an attempted amalgamation of the -o at the end of the Latino and the -a at the end of “Latina.” But no one knew how to pronounce the word. It was deemed insufficiently woke because the -o was supposedly graphically dominating the -a. (Yes, this is how some people think.) And it caused confusion on social media where the @ sign is used to tag someone.

Then there's "Latinx," which is even more ludicrous.

According to Giancarlo Sopo of the Daily Wire, who has been on a one-man crusade against the term's spread, "Latinx" is unintelligible to any Spanish speaker who does not know English. Most Spanish people do not believe that their language is severely defective or that Spanish grammar is a proto–hate crime. The -x appendage has been rejected by the Real Academia Espaola, Spain's official organization entrusted with protecting the language's purity.

In the actual world, "Latinx" fares much worse than Joe Biden in terms of polling. According to a Politico poll, only 2% of Hispanics prefer the term, with 68 percent preferring "Hispanic" and 21% preferring "Latino" or "Latina." The term is offensive to 40% of respondents, and 30% say they are less likely to support a politician or group who uses it.

In response to the survey, Arizona Democrat Ruben Gallego tweeted that he prevents his staff from using the term "Latinx" in official correspondence. "When Latino politicians use the word, it's mostly to please white wealthy progressives who believe that's what we mean," he wrote. "Confirmation bias is a vicious loop."

Nonetheless, many elected Democrats, as well as elite media outlets and other institutions vulnerable to progressive influence, have obediently adopted the word. It's one thing if someone likes the term "Latinx" (or the much more avant-garde "Latina/o/x" or "Xicanx"). It's another thing to apply the phrase to a vast group of individuals who don't want to be termed something they don't understand.

The backlash is a reassuring evidence of elite cultural power's limits, as well as most Latinos' disinterest in becoming puppets in an increasingly more strained and esoteric progressive politics of continual victimology.

Becerra, Joe Biden’s pick for Health and Human Services secretary, chose to pursue this litigation even though it is completely meritless; even though it would, if successful, punish nuns who simply want to carry out their calling to care for the indigent elderly; and even though only ideological zealots intolerant of moral views different from their own can take any pleasure in its continuation.

There will be a lot of material for Becerra’s opponents to work with during his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, but this litigation, on its own, should be disqualifying.

It is an act of performative illiberalism that should be rejected by all people of good will who want to live in a society where nuns — living out their faith — can give succor to the vulnerable without the federal government harassing them to violate their deeply held beliefs.

The roots of the Becerra litigation, of course, are in the contraception mandate imposed by Barack Obama’s HHS as part of Obamacare back in 2011.

HHS provided only a narrow exemption to the mandate, one that did not include the Little Sisters of the Poor.

The Little Sisters sought a broader exemption, then relief in the courts, with the indispensable Becket Fund for Religious Liberty providing representation. Under threat of ruinous fines, the Sisters got emergency protection from the Supreme Court in late 2013 and a more lasting injunction a month later, but they kept losing in lower courts.

The so-called accommodation that the Obama administration offered involved the nuns’ signing a form stating moral objections to the coverage, which would then be included on the organization’s health plan anyway.

In a unanimous May 2016 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the lower-court rulings against the nuns and said the government should be able to find a better arrangement.

When Donald Trump got elected, his administration set about issuing a more complete exemption. It resolved the issue in late 2017 with a rule that no longer forced the Sisters to participate in a scheme they considered immoral while providing contraception coverage under Title X to anyone who, as a result, might lack it.

And there the matter should have remained, after five years of litigation up and down the court system, with a resolution that harmed absolutely no one. But Xavier Becerra had different ideas.

How radical is his litigation? Let’s count the ways.

First, Becerra sued after the nuns had already been through the wringer and promised, a little like the groundhog seeing his shadow, several more years of litigation.

Second, the HHS exemption has nothing to do with California. Obamacare isn’t a California law, and HHS isn’t a California agency. There is no harm to California if the federal government decides it must provide an exemption to the nuns. Indeed, it is probably unprecedented for one sovereign jurisdiction to sue to prevent another sovereign jurisdiction from changing its own rules to protect religious liberty. In a word, this is crazy.

Third, what Becerra seeks is a crushing burden on the nuns. If they don’t sign onto an arrangement that they believe violates their faith, Becerra wants them, in keeping with the Obama mandate, to be subject to daily fines that would add up to tens of millions of dollars annually. And, remember, these aren’t “corporate polluters,” they aren’t insider traders, they aren’t tech giants; they are an order of nuns founded by a saint who begged in the streets of 18th-century France so she could carry out her charitable work.

Fourth, his suit lacks all merit. There was no reason to think that a mandate created by an executive agency also couldn’t have a carveout created by an executive agency. Plus, there was never any plausible claim of any harm — Becerra has not found one alleged victim, not one actual woman, who has been prevented from obtaining contraception because of the religious beliefs of the Little Sisters. 

It is telling that the Supreme Court, at a time when it isn’t easy to get seven votes, ruled against this latest assault on religious liberty last July, 7–2 (the vehicle was a companion suit to California’s brought by Pennsylvania).

Still, Becerra hasn’t dropped his litigation, which is still ongoing, now on process grounds.

This is a disgrace. But it is incumbent on supporters of the Little Sisters to have a charitable attitude and allow for the possibility of redemption. All we should ask is that Becerra drop his litigation, apologize to the Little Sisters, withdraw his nomination, stay in California — and try to do better.