i'm not a spanish speaker but christ -e just seems so obviously the best choice, it looks normal and seems to fit as well into the language as you can expect a new not 100% organic thing to do.

-e is common in LatAm. I've never seen the -@ used. X just pisses me off because it only "works" in English, but sounds idiotic as well.

-x makes no sense as it breaks like every rule about the Spanish language

But every single change does that?

Over here in Germany conservatives keep yelling about similar efforts. As it stands, the most popular gender inclusive variant for referring to a group of people has become "[masuline form]*innen"

Take the word "student" for instance

• Student - singular, male
• Studentin - singular, female
• Studenten - multiple male students OR multiple male and female students
• Studentinnen - multiple female students

Since the generic masculine doesn't acknowledge non-binary or female people, the following variant has started to spread:

• Student*innen - multiple students of ambiguous gender

When talking, you can differentiate it from the term "Studentinnen" by replacing the * with a short break. You'd basically say "Student...innen".

Neither the *, nor this break is adhering to any established rules. But the main - or only - reason reactionaries oppose it is because they don't want to acknowledge non-binary people.

I wonder whether linguists and others will gradually adopt calling them noun classes instead of genders.

I hope so. It would also help when explaining the grammar of a few languages to laypeople. Such as the Bantu ones - people treat their noun classes as if they were something completely alien, even when they speak a language with M/F noun classes.

Especially in Spanish where "verb classes" already exist and have distinct, if subtle, rules (-ar, -er and -ir)

Filipinos ignore Spanish grammar entirely and only use Spanish words as roots. Their languages have nothing in common with Spanish and Spanish words only remain because they were occupied for 300+ years by Spain.

For example, "pants" in Tagalog (official dialect of the Philippines) is "pantalon" like Spanish, but the plural is "mga pantalon" due to Tagalog grammar, not "pantalones" as in Spanish (see also "oras," which doesn't indicate plural) #. They spell things differently because they don't have a V sound (so vaca - > baka) and they conjugate with Tagalog rules, not Spanish (e.g. "intindi" meaning "understand" becomes "maintindihan" instead of "entienda/entiendas/entendamos").

Spanish words are merely loan words in Tagalog, Filipinos don't generally speak Spanish. Most don't even know which words came from Spanish and which came from native Tagalog (or other Filipino languages) because they're treated the same. If a word is not clearly understood, they'll use the English, not Spanish, because most speak passable English and few speak Spanish.

Also, Filipino has no genders in grammar, the only gendered words are Spanish loan words. For example, uncle/aunt are tito/tiya from Spanish, but son/daughter is "anak," and pronouns are "siya" (he/she), "niya" (his/her), "sila" (they/them), "nila" (they/them), "sa kanya" (to him/her), and "sa kanila" (to them). You have to go out of your way to specify gender in Tagalog, which awesome.

Because not all the words that are gendered refer to a single gender. I understand when we change the last vowel to an e to add a non gendered version of a word that has both male and female forms (e.g. nosotros/as, spanish for "we", would do great with a nosotres). But when the word itself is already non gendered (as persona, which although is considered female, refers to any person of any kind, because there is no male alternative) I don't see a reason to do it.

There is no discrimination in referring to someone as a persona, since there is no "persono" word, so saying persona no binaria will offend only who wants to be offended.