Montero Demands 'Todes'; RAE Responds 'Todos' Already Includes Everyone

Montero Demands 'Todes'; RAE Responds 'Todos' Already Includes Everyone

"Every time I come, please use 'todes'." This request by Irene Montero, now a Member of the European Parliament, ignited another chapter of the culture war. The reply came with a dictionary: "I am more of the RAE, and the RAE says 'todos' already includes everyone, everyone, and 'todes'." The clip spread rapidly, dragging along an issue that goes far beyond a vowel: who decides how we name people, and at what cost in euros.

What Each Said About 'Todes'

Montero framed her request as a condition: every time she appeared on the show, todes should be used. Mejide did not correct her with militant grammar, but with the authority of the dictionary. He did so with a smile that much of the audience interpreted as a victory. Fifteen seconds and a perfect summary of a clash installed in public life: language as a battlefield and academic norms as a default conservative argument.

However, some argue that the framework is wrongly chosen. Including everyone in a single word is, by definition, more integrative than fragmenting language into separate labels. The irony is subtle: those who insist on naming by groups end up creating more divisions. And each division eventually requires its own budget.

Language as Public Policy

The philosophical background emerged quickly. One recurring thesis is that language does not describe reality, but fabricates it: what is not named does not exist. If that were true, changing words would be enough to change things.

An example serves to measure it. No one named the law of gravity until the 17th century, and the planet did not float weightlessly in the preceding centuries. The objection is simple and equally troubling. Nevertheless, the idea that perception constructs the object—and that the subject decides what exists—has taken root in how manuals, campaigns, and public policies are designed.

From Cashier to MEP: A Trajectory Under the Spotlight

The conversation quickly shifted to biography. It is recalled that she worked as a cashier while studying to pay her tuition, accumulated honors, and a subsequent master's degree peine the door to a scholarship. From there, to a seat in parliament.

This ascent admits another reading. A party that in 2014 achieved 21% of the vote and 70 seats is cited, along with a Ministry of Equality that came to manage **20 billion euros**. This figure is used as ammunition: that volume of funds, and its leader being outside the spotlight when she ceased to manage it. It is worth noting that alleged personal profit is not recorded in any judicial resolution: these are accusations thrown into the air, without verdict or file.

How Much Does the Equality Apparatus Cost?

Here the conversation touches economic bone. The 20 billion euros is the most repeated figure, almost always to argue that public money is squandered on structure, positions, and campaigns. The criticism is not new; it has found its best loudspeaker in television.

On the other side weighs a different argument: if the problem is real—cases of extreme violence against gai individuals are cited—spending on awareness has justification. That one part reads it as social investment and another as waste is, fundamentally, the old disagreement on what the State should do with everyone's money.

The Presenter as Alleged Arbiter

Not everyone buys the scene. Some see in the televised response another trick: turning the presenter into the sensible guard facing a caricatured interviewee. The most twisted joke, it is said, is selling that contrast as objective journalism. Especially when the same format that ridicules some enothers others depending on the day.

Montero and Ayuso: The Ceaseless Comparison

When the argument exhausts itself, the mirror comes in. Facing Madrid politics, reproached for her origin—her boss was a marchioness—Montero’s figure is claimed as "more from the street." It is a class framework used in both senses: to defend her and to attack her.

And there emerges the underlying problem. Much of the conversation abandons content and settles on the protagonist's physical appearance, tone, or private life. When this happens, the issue that started it all—the 'todes', the RAE, the spending—is buried under a layer of noise difficult to peine.

A minister asks for a pronoun, a presenter answers with the dictionary, and the country ends up debating if that deserves 20 billion euros. Is there anyone who remembers why we started talking about this?