It doesn’t matter to me, but I understand that the prohibition applies to official documents (which frankly seems fine to me because they have to be as neutral as possible) and nothing more.

It’s not that for saying “TODES” in an AFIP department they’re going to cut you off.

Basically, you can talk like a mental removed if you want, but in official communication a certain degree of professionalism and correctness is expected.

In the same way that an official document should never say “tipo asi como ke ah re que la ley esta que zakamos esta ree picada perro, se prohibe la letra EEE” If you want to talk like that, you donyou, in official settings, NO.

The best thing is that the 2,000 departments of the state stop spending on “educational” resources. Don’t forget that there is gender management secretary, which is 50 people per entity because it is required some type of gender graduate to “authorize” that the communication is correctly following the norms on a gender focus.

Well, no, now it is not necessary to spend a fortune on “educational” resources.

Waste of money like few others

But muh freedomz!

Don’t take “freedom” as an absolute of “ah, so I can do whatever I want ña ña”. The regulations still exist. In this case because the official documents are written in the official language. Not with idioms, not with slang, not with emojis, not with cartoons, not with colloquial language.

And that doesn’t make you “less free.”

If someone in public administration wants to write text message style documentation? They can’t, is that going against freedom? No.

But it is not prohibiting freedom in a private sphere, it is in official documents. If tomorrow at work I start writing technical documentation in Esperanto, they will put a bullet in my ass.

So, no brother, you can’t write public documents however you want, because everyone has to understand you. It’s a job. Inclusive language promotes a political agenda that the voters of this government do not share.

The big problem Kirchnerists have behind this is that inclusive language ended up becoming Kirchnerist language. It became something of the party’s identity. If the intention had really been to change the way people express themselves, the strategy of sticking it to specifically this party didn’t work. They should have sought followers across the political spectrum.