Latinx is a term created and imposed by American anglophones on hispanophones and lusophones and doesn’t make sense in these languages. Both Spanish and Portuguese are gendered languages (even words like chair, or bottle, or whatever, have a gender), and on top of it if you want a gender neutral term there are better ones that work better in these languages, like Latine or just simply Latin American. Less than 5℅ of Latin Americans have even heard of the term, and even less approve of it. It’s not adopted by the community it’s imposed onto to, to “represent”. It’s patronizing and a bit ironic. Also, there’s the whole linguistic activism side to the whole thing. Latin Americans are perfectly aware of inequalities between the genders, without having this term externally forced upon them in a misguided attempt at inclusion.

That’s at least how I understand it as an outsider from a different continent.

Thing is just that “Latinx” is usually a moniker created by people on the spectrum of liberal identity politics — people who essentially think that critiquing and controlling language will fix racism and other ills by ‘changing the way people think about experiences and identities’, which is of course something Marxists identify as counterproductive as language is not the driving force behind social dynamics.

There’s nothing wrong with the word per sé except that it can even seem a bit patronizing towards actual Latine people, but not much. It just usually symbolizes a certain adherence to made up respectability language that is meant to fix racism with words instead of actions. It’s not like Latino/Latina or the better gender neutral Latine were in any way offensive anyway.