María Patiño shocked by RAE's rejection of inclusive language

The Royal Spanish Academy (RAE) rejects the systematic duplication "todos y todas" as unnecessary and contrary to linguistic economy. TV presenter María Patiño stated on air that she had not known this until now.

Presenter **María Patiño** affirmed on a television program that she was unaware that the **Real Academia Española** (RAE) rejects inclusive language using duplications like "todos y todas." The clip went viral on social media and drew a comment from writer **Juan Soto Ivars**, who noted she was arriving "fifteen years late" to a debate closed five years ago.

## What the RAE says about duplication

The RAE does not prohibit the feminine form or inclusive formulas in specific contexts, but it rejects the systematic duplication "todos y todas" as unnecessary and contrary to linguistic economy. This stance is outlined in reports and the *Diccionario panhispánico de dudas*, remaining unchanged for years.

Public debate on this issue peaked in Spain around 2018 and 2019, when institutions and parties began adopting inclusive language guides. Since then, the Academy has reiterated that the generic masculine remains valid in Spanish for mixed groups.

## A delayed debate

Soto Ivars' reaction suggests the discussion on inclusive language no longer occupies the center of public debate as it did five years ago. The presenter admitted she had not previously known the academic position, turning the anecdote into an example of how certain topics continue circulating outside the circles where they were debated.

The episode also reflects the gap between academic consensus and media conversation. While the RAE has maintained its criteria for years, part of the audience is discovering this stance through television.

## Why the academic position matters

The RAE lacks authority to impose usage, but its criteria guide media, publishers, and administrations. Its rejection of duplication does not prevent many companies and public bodies from adopting it in internal communications.

This divergence between academic norms and institutional practice explains why the issue still causes friction. The TV anecdote does not change the Academy's criteria, but it shows the topic is not settled in public conversation.