Tunghayan natin ang pagbabago, sa paglipas ng mga dantaon, sa imahen ng diwata sa ating mga mito’t alamat. […] Maaari noong unang panaho’y walang kasarian ang mga ito, ‘di kaya’y hindi makabuluhan ang kanilang kasarian. Sa wikang Espanyol, ang kasarian ng tao’y binabatay sa huling titik ng pangngalang tumutukoy dito. Kung a ang huling titik ay nilalapatan ng kasariang pambabae, kung o ay kasariang panlalaki. Ito marahil ang dahilan kung bakit nagkaroon ng kasariang babae ang diwata. Sa wikang Hiligaynon, ang katumbas ng diwata ay tamawo. Tulad ng paglapat ng kasariang babae sa Tagalog na diwata, gayundin nilapatan ng mga Ilonggo ng kasariang lalaki ang tamawo. Dagdag pa, sa guniguni ng karamihan sa mga Ilonggo sa kasalukuyan, pareho lamang ang kapre at ang tamawo. (26)

—

(Loose translation c/o me for those who can’t read Filipino) Let us examine the change, throughout the centuries, of the image of the diwata in our myths and legends. […] It is possible, that in earlier times these had no gender, or alternately, their gender was not significant. In the Spanish language, a person’s gender is based on the last letter of the name that signifies them. If the final letter is a, then a female gender is ascribed to them, if o, then a male gender. In the Hiligaynon language, the analogue of the diwata is the tamawo. Just as a female gender was ascribed to the Tagalog diwata, the same process of ascribing—this time, of a male gender—was done by the Ilonggo to the tamawo. Additionally, in the imagination of most Ilonggos at present, the kapre and tamawo are one and the same.

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)

We’ve been tagged in this post and I was fine with what they were saying up until the “women/ppl of indigenous gender identities aren’t excluded so there’s no point in the -x” too. -x is definitely a diaspora identifier and this post feels like its almost policing identities.
-admin K

(via thisisnotpilipinx)

magandáng umaga @thisisnotpilipinx ! op here. i think the point of what i’ve been trying to assert (see the disclaimer in this post) is within the local context, in our understanding of the “genderedness” of language, adding the -x label doesn’t make much sense. however, if the term must be used then it has to exist with the caveat of diaspora. who i’m addressing primarily in this post are filipinos living in the philippines who are misusing the term. if the term is valid for those living outside the geopolitical scope of the philippines, if the term is valid for you as a new identity from the margins, then by all means use it (i like how @liminal-loss brings up anzaldúa here), but never, never let it serve as an umbrella term nor let it speak for filipinos back home.

as for the point raised about women and indigenous gender, if ever there should be a site critique or contention over an identity marker, then it does not exist in the “-o/-a” ness of the label, since that is a highly simplistic way of examining the mechanics of gender and identity in the philippines—it relies on a outsider framework of “gendering”. like i’ve been saying, the means by which gender operates locally is not a one-to-one correspondence with the discourse of gender in the west/usamerica. my good friend @roadhouss illustrates it further in her reblog of the post over here in ways more concise and coherent than i ever could, haha. anyway, thanks for taking part in the conversation! i’m glad there’s been discussion about this :~)

It’s actually really interesting hearing that some filipinos in the philippines are using the term and i can definitely understand how troubling that is. The term should definitely not be used as an umbrella term. I think its interesting how so many people are confused (with their identity/roots even those in the philippines) and how the -x speaks to them. But you’re right, -x to include all filipinos/to pertain to all of us with -x erases identities and cultures.
Your thoughts on the issue are a great read.
-admin K

(via thisisnotpilipinx)

errr, at the risk of looking like That Person, it isn’t actually all that surprising that the use of f/pilipinx has spread to filipinos in the philippines because it has been frequently mobilized as a catch-all term here on tumblr. there has been a lack of interrogation as to the ways it has been deployed, and because of the nature of tumblr discourse, f/pilipinx both as a term and an ideology has been assumed– and propagated– as the best/most appropriate term for all of philippine tumblr, when in reality it has caused confusion and distress. there is so much conflation of discrete terms and concepts (indigenous is not the same as filipino; western conceptions and analyses of gender are taken to be universal; ideas of “modernization” and “tradition” regarding aspects of filipino language and culture are shared with no research or critique; the power dynamics between indigenous communities and filipinos part of the state/other outsiders esp in terms of traditional knowledge and cultural materials are not problematized, etc), on your blog and on others. but i am hopeful that the critique and discourse on this will continue in the future, and the use of terms like f/pilipinx will be more clearly outlined and done with more care.

(via roadhouss)

^^^^^ reblogging again for @roadhouss‘s comment and the links/examples she pointed out

yeah this is where my critique was coming from, @thisisnotpilipinx. i thought it was pretty obvious that your use of pilipinx (is your stance really filipinx or pilipinx? there’s also been a strain of inconsistency) was a catch-all for everything filipino and philippines-related? i’m not gonna lie, but this blog, given the use of the term, seems to speak for and above all that. which is the point of the argument in the first place. again, i believe that it can still but valid to a certain sector, but if it must be used, it should only be with the caveat/disclaimer of diaspora and the intersection of western thought.

so that’s where i stand. you can keep it with you if you like, but please be clear about the limits of the term, and do not demarcate it as an umbrella terminology. i see your need to create such a term, and that’s valid, but the way it is being mobilized is doing more harm than good for a significant number of people. so please be careful about that. hopefully we can tackle and process this phenomena with more care and scrutiny from here on out.

no, “pilipinx” does not speak for me or my culture or my language or my historical narratives nor the cultures nor languages nor historical narratives that have taken place and are taking place in the geopolitical space that is the philippines. i am not pilipinx/filipinx, i am a filipino person.

(via sumbungero)