Lucero, Rosario Cruz. “Ang Talinhaga ni Mariang Makiling: Isang
Panimulang Makapilipinong Teoriyang Feminista (The Trope of Mariang
Makiling: Toward a Filipino Feminist Theory).” Ang Bayan sa Labas Ng
Maynila (The Nation Beyond Manila). Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University Press. 2007. 22-40. Print.

see, this is why i have a lot of beef with the whole “pilipinx”/”filipinx” label: philippine languages aren’t gendered. look at our pronouns (siya as opposed to he or she or ellos or ella) or our adjectives (matapang or matahimik as opposed to bella or corto or pequeña) there is no need to create a new term, affix a new letter, for something that wasn’t gendered in the first place. this is definitely not the case with latinx people, given that the european languages that have dominated their linguistic sphere (primarily spanish and portuguese) are heavily gendered. so let the latinxs have “latinx”, that is valid in accordance to their linguistic habitus. but we are coming from a completely different linguistic context (yes, spanish and english have influenced our languages, but not to an extent of near or complete erasure or replacement), thus we are filipino.

i cite the above example to point out the fact that there are things that aren’t as rigidly gendered as we think, especially when we take them by face value with regards to the letters that make up their names or labels. because of our fixation on the genderedness of names as introduced to us, concepts in our consciousness such as the diwata or tamawo changed over time and “gained” gender simply because of an outsider orthographic rule.

another thing: f for the language, p for the people (at least within the philippine language, filipino: wikang filipino, taong pilipino). in english, you have philippine and filipino. also, please do not blindly make the assumption that the use of p over f “decolonizes” the term! there are, in fact, philippine languages that have been using the letter f (like ivatan and ibanag) before the spaniards set foot on our land and “introduced” the letter to our orthography! the basis of this assumption is primarily tagalog-centric. the philippines is definitely comprised of more than just the tagalogs.

there are also a couple of pilipinx-spawned labels such as “ilocanx” or “cebuanx” going around. if the above arguments aren’t enough, take into consideration that not all ethnic identities follow that naming pattern that we quickly assume to be rigidly gendered: what about the kapampangan people? the ivatan? the waray? the pangasinense? heck, the tagalog? where does the x go? tagalxg? t’bolx? yakxn?

it is impossible to completely decolonize the word “filipino” as a term, if at all, since the demonym is in itself a colonial invention, and the philippines as we know it the didn’t exist until the islands were arbitrarily united by the spaniards. if you’re going to criticize or problematize the label “filipino” or “pilipino”, do not do so by the axis of gender, because within the context of the term, it is not a pressing—daresay relevant—concern. instead, you may want to focus on how it attempts to encompass and speak over the numerous ethnic identities of millions of people from batanes to tawi-tawi for the sake of a collective national identity. but the notion of gender with regards to the label “filipino” is not a very significant issue to raise. the use of “filipino” does not erase or speak over women or people of indigenous genders. so there is no need to make a big deal about it.

plus, note the word she uses to describe her feminist theory: filipino. it doesn’t take away much from her argument, does it?

edit: fixed some typos in the quote hehe (12/22/15 23:49 gmt+8)

Added by @anitoanum: This is a really fascinating discussion for me as I recently discovered the term “pilipinx” and embraced it as a diasporic term to encompass beyond “pinoy” or “pinay” because I am neither. I mainly use it with other non-binary self-identified pilipinx people. However, among folks in the homeland, I am fine identifying myself with the already gender-neutral terms of a Tagalog and Bikol person. I can see how problematic “pilipinx” can be when placed on whole categories of people non-consensually, especially if it’s used more as an ethnicity than a nationality, let alone a race. I’m quite astonished that the OP contends that “the use of ‘filipino’ does not erase or speak over women or people of indigenous genders”– is the OP a woman or of an indigenous gender? Can the OP speak for all women and tawo with indigenous genders? What a bizarre assertion, since I choose to embrace the term “pilipinx” so as to find other diasporic peoples from the islands colonially known as the Philippines who have similar nonbinary genders but are removed from the indigenous and/or pre-colonial traditions of genders outside of male or female. I do this so I can find a sense of community– and I have, finally, online, once I found this term, after going so long bereft, misunderstood, and facing violence and harassment outside of and within Pilipino communities within Canada. Thoughts on this, @thisisnotpilipinx? @austro-nesian?

(via anitoanum)

just jumping in to discuss a few points, some phrases bolded for easier reading: first, yes, the fact that the term f/pilipinx even exists does indicate a need to fill a gap that extant terminology does not. however, it is a very specific term confined to the sociolinguistic groups that employ a very specific type of discourse that is concerned with 1) diasporic identity politics, and/or 2) gender discourse framed within western, and often usamerican, contexts. the point of @sumbungero’s original post is that it is a term that can, and— in the context of the wider philippine/philippine-aligned tumblr community— must be problematized because the extension of its use beyond the specific sociolinguistic group in which it originated, to the wider audience of philippine tumblr, raises several issues. specifically, its use as a referent for all of philippine tumblr, and sometimes for philippine or philippine-aligned communities beyond, can be inappropriate because the particular needs that led to the creation of the term do not necessarily extend to a wider community. many points of concern regarding this umbrella use— issues with linguistics, cultural contexts, and gender frameworks, etc— were raised in the original post.

second, building upon one of @sumbungero’s points, f/pilipinx does not necessarily “decolonize”, because it does not challenge the original ‘filipino’, which, as mentioned, is a colonial imposition that reduces almost 200 ethnolinguistic groups into a monolith. in fact, the discussion of decolonization that is associated with f/pilipinx centers around a very western framework of gender, one that is popular within tumblr but is not exactly culturally appropriate for all contexts. filipino feminist and gender discourse already exists, and is itself rooted within the material and cultural context of both the philippines and the philippine diaspora. although the discourse that happens outside the academic sphere— itself also exclusive in a number of ways— can be equally valid, this validity must be rooted in the historical, social, political, cultural, and economic contexts of its communities, and it is this lack of rootedness that makes the use of f/pilipinx as an umbrella term contentious. though it works as a diasporic term, as an umbrella it is a top-down concept and uses a framework that is inaccessible and removed from the experiences of average filipinos.

third, the umbrella use of f/pilipinx does not take into the account the relationship of many filipinos with the term ‘filipino’. i am well aware that i come from a country with a long history of colonial, imperialist, and neoliberal violence. to identify as filipino is, for me, to claim and connect with the history of struggle and negotiation with colonization, and to recognize as well the ways that the filipino identity reinforces state power and violence, and excludes peoples within the archipelago. i am not comfortable being referred to as f/pilipinx simply because i do not exist within the f/pilipinx cultural context; to have that framework applied wholesale to a nation struggling with the imposition of other culturally imperialist ideologies is unfair and violent.

basically, f/pilipinx is a term that fills a need for a very specific sociolinguistic group both within and without the diaspora, but the experiences and framework that it is based upon are not universal and are not free from critique. it works within the diasporic context, but it cannot be used an umbrella term for all philippine and philippine-aligned communities. i am a filipino woman; i will not be referred to as f/pilipinx.

(via roadhouss)

fantastic critique, @roadhouss!

(via sumbungero)