Gender-inclusive textims: How spanish-speaking educational communities promote linguistic innovations on Twitter

1 GENDER-INCLUSIVE TEXTISMS: HOW SPANISH-SPEAKING EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITIES PROMOTE LINGUISTIC INNOVATIONS ON TWITTER Francisco Núñez-Roman, University of Seville Alejandro Gómez-Camacho, University of Seville Coral I. Hunt-Gómez, University of Seville Abstract Any linguistic reform aimed at gender equality benefits from teacher’s capacity as spreaders, and literature has shown that Twitter can be used as an excellent channel for the dissemination of good practice in language use. In a mixed-methods study based on public data mining and semantic content analysis, we examine how teachers use gender-fair language (GIL) in their digital communications on Twitter, what GIL procedures they use and, if Spanish digitalk incorporates specific textisms for GIL. Results confirmed that teachers make a widespread use of GIL procedures, prefer the use of collective nouns as a GIL mechanism, and intentionally incorporate GIL into digitalk through specific textisms, what we have named gender-inclusive textisms (GIT). The findings indicate that teachers are at the forefront of gender-inclusive language activism in educational virtual communities, and that, although Twitter may contain messages that infringe upon individuals’ dignity, it is also a privileged space for linguistic innovations oriented towards gender equality. Keywords Twitter, gender-inclusive language, textisms, linguistics innovation, educational communities, teachers 2 GENDERINCLUSIVE TEXTISMS: HOW SPANISH-SPEAKING EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITIES PROMOTE LINGUISTICS INNOVATION ON TWITTER Introduction Twitter, gender equality and language Social networks have become a modern public square where many debate, discuss, and share their experiences and opinions (Wojcik and Hughes, 2019). Twitter enjoys a unique position among the most popular social networks as it has more than 436 million users a day (Tankovska, 2022), which makes it one of the favourite spaces for public dissemination of opinion. Twitter is a platform where different opinions and points of view are expressed, and where gender roles are portrayed; it perpetuates inequality, and fosters sexism and homophobia (Fox et al., 2015; Frenda et al., 2019; Ging and Siapera, 2019; Piñeiro-Otero and Martínez-Roldán, 2021). Still, Twitter can also be a space for feminist activism and, further, for promoting gender equality (Baer, 2016; Baker-Plummer and Baker-Plummer, 2017; Mendes et al., 2019). One example is for ‘hashtag feminism’ (Clark, 2016), used strategically for identity-claiming, and to call for solidarity and awareness in social media communities (Alingasa and Ofreneo, 2020). In this regard, the impact of movements such as #MeToo (Clark-Parsons, 2021) or #TimesUp (Garrido and Zaptsi, 2021) has proved the efficacy of hashtag feminism. For instance, the #MeToo movement has developed a new approach towards sexual violence un media and society (Eckert et al., 2022; Li et al., 2021; Noetzel et al., 2022), as it has ‘helped build communities capable of political mobilisation, shaping memories, and leaving their mark in the context of collective struggles for women’s rights” (Loney-Howes et al., 2021, p. 10). Simultaneously, it has raised awareness among young adults: ‘the more awareness of the movement that individuals have, the more willing they are to be involved in such actions’ (Armstrong and Mahone, 2021). 3 Along with the hashtag feminism, it is possible to promote gender awareness on Twitter through the use of language. As Zimman states, ‘language is one of the primary fonts on which gender is negotiated’ (Zimman, 2017, p. 90). From this point of view, previous research defined the use of Gender-Inclusive Language (GIL) as an efficient tool against gender discrimination, since linguistic change can function to support social change (Gabriel et al., 2018; Horvath et al., 2016; Koeser et al., 2015; Stout and Dasgupta, 2011). Starting from Butler’s poststructuralist feminism notion of performativity (Butler, 1990), we understand GIL as the ‘use of language -verbal and writtenin social, work and educational spaces that aims to represent and make visible groups and communities that have generally been excluded, marginalized or discriminated against throughout history’ (Parra and Serafini, 2021, p. 145), such as women, members of LGBTIQ+ communities, people with disabilities or communities of color. The use of GIL is considered one of the main acts of feminist activism, nevertheless on Twitter the ‘conservative dimension of language, which comes over as being sexist and promoting stereotypes’ (Iranzo-Cabrera and Gozálvez-Pérez, 2021, p. 13), is still a great challenge to be overcome if gender equality is to be achieved. Gender-Inclusive Language Language policies encouraging GIL have furthered a more egalitarian view of society (Bengoechea, 2011; Lomotey, 2015; Nissen, 2013; Winter and Pauwels, 2006), despite the challenges and obstacles that still need to be overcome (Formanowicz and Hansen, 2022; Lomotey, 2018; Maldonado García, 2015; Nissen, 2002). For example, Lomotey (2018) points out the difficulties encountered by GIL when trying to implement it in non-official contexts such as ordinary texts (books, newspapers) in contrast to official documents (forms and letters from the public administration), due to beliefs linked to language and how it should be used. Jiménez Rodrigo et al. (2011) underline the influence of habit in the use of 4 generic linguistic forms and the dominance of androcentric culture as the main factors that hinder the dissemination of GIL among young university students. In this regard, Formanowicz and Hansen (2022) warn of a rejection caused by the introduction of new linguistic forms, which ‘might lead to hasty conclusions about the effects of language reform’ (2022, p. 139). Despite traditions associated with grammar, a progressive openness towards more inclusive linguistic mechanisms has been observed in some languages. For example, in the Swedish language, a new neutral pronoun (hen) with generic and transgender value has been introduced (Gustafsson Sendén et al., 2015, 2021; Lindqvist et al., 2019). In English, the use of the traditionally plural pronoun they to refer to one person is increasingly prevalent among speakers with more experience of non-binary people (Bradley, 2020). Despite a certain degree of opposition due to sexist motives often packaged up as grammatical concerns about clarity of communication, the use of they in certain contexts ‘could advance the goals of the gender-inclusive language movement’ (Saguy and Williams, 2022, p. 26). Similar examples can be found in other languages, such as Portuguese (Auxland, 2020), where the use of the -e morpheme is encouraged as a gender-neutral marker instead of the -o/-a dichotomy; French (Knisely, 2020; Kosnick, 2019), where there is a consistent and tenacious boost for the use of new non-binary pronominal forms such as the pronoun iel or the direct object pronoun læ; and German (Körner et al., 2022), with the inclusion of the gender star form (Die Apotheker*innen) which consist of the masculine form, followed by an asterisk, followed by the feminine ending. These linguistic innovations lead the way in making the realities of those societies visible. In the case of Spanish, a language used as a first or second language by more than 600 million around the world, texts published by the Spanish Royal Academy (RAE) and by the Associations of Spanish Language Academies (ASELE) were considered to offer a sexist 5 view of the academic norm due to ideological motivations (Cárdenas Sánchez, 2015; Medina Guerra, 2016; Peris Vidal, 2013). Some of these GIL mechanisms, such as pair forms or the use of -@ as inclusive morpheme, are considered redundant, unnecessary, contrived, ridiculous or even dangerous by Spanish linguistic authorities (Toche, 2019). They have even been labeled as impositions coming from some social and governmental sectors (Real Academia Española, 2020). As a counterpoint to this patriarchal and conservative view of language, a great deal of GIL material has been created (Guerrero Salazar, 2007, 2013), of an openly innovative character and including mechanisms to combat linguistic sexism. Table 1 lists the GIL procedures in Spanish classified according to their acceptance or non-acceptance by the academic authorities in Spanish (Gómez-Camacho et al., 2022): Table 1: GIL procedures in Spanish Normative procedures Non normative procedures Graphical level Slash Estimados/as compañeros/as. “Dear [male and female] colleagues” Use of -@ *Estimad@s compañer@s. “Dear [male and female] colleagues” Use of -x *Estimadxs compañerxs. “Dear [male and female] colleagues” Use of -e *Estimades compañeres. “Dear [male and female] colleagues” Grammatical level Pair forms Las chicas y los chicos esperaban al equipo a las puertas del hotel. “The girls and boys were waiting for the team at the hotel entrance.” Muchas y muchos congresistas mostraron su desacuerdo con las propuestas de la oposición. “Many [female and male] members of Congress disagreed with the Opposition's proposals.” Syntactic change Double article *Las y los ciudadanos deben saber cuáles son sus derechos. “[Female and male] Citizens must know what their rights are.” Abbreviations in fixed expressions *Médicos y Médicas sin Fronteras “[Male and Female Doctors without Borders]”. Mixed groups with explicit components Marta Alberola y Antonio Brizna son el coordinador y la coordinadora de los cursos del Instituto Cervantes de Roma. 6 Durante diez días [los candidatos tienen la opción a] es posible adjuntar la documentación. “For ten days [male candidates have the option to] it is possible to attach the documentation.” “Marta Alberola and Antonio Brizna are the [male] coordinator and the [female] coordinator of the courses at the Cervantes Institute in Rome.” References to unespecific persons El nuevo administrador o la nueva administradora se incorporará al centro la próxima semana. “The new [male] administrator or the new [female] administrator will join the center next week.” References to representative persons No se invitó a ningún actor ni ninguna actriz al estreno de la película. “No actors or actresses were invited to the film's premiere.” Lexical level Colective nouns el público [los espectadores], la gente, el personal, las personas, etc. “the audience [viewers], the people, the staff, the persons, etc.” Abstract nouns la abogacía [el abogado], la judicatura [los jueces], la adolescencia [los adolescentes], el electorado. “the advocacy [the male lawyer], the judiciary [the male judges], the adolescence [the male adolescents], the electorate.” Metonymy la dirección [el director], la clase política [los políticos]. “the administration [the male director], the political class [the male politicians].” Gender-inclusive language and digitalk From a linguistic perspective, digitalk (Turner, 2010) holds a prominent position on Twitter. Digitalk can be defined as a written code that appears in online communications and is characterized by uses that differ from the standard writing code. Textisms are one of its main resources. Textisms are ‘contractions and nonstandard spellings specifically developed 7 to reduce the length of words for fast and cost-effective text messaging’ (De Jonge and Kemp, 2012, pp. 49-50). In Spanish, the main textisms consist of the omission of graphemes or syllables (toy instead of estoy), the simplification of diagraphs (k instead of qu, w instead of gu), and the use of numbers or symbols with a homophone function regarding certain phonemes (x instead of por/para, + instead of más, to2 instead of todos) (Gómez-Camacho et al., 2018). Other innovative procedures that can be classified as digitalk-representative textisms and which are used as GIL mechanisms are -@ or -x as a mark of genderinclusiveness. These textisms, especially the ones using -@ or -x as a mark of inclusive gender, have been emphatically rejected by advocates of standard writing procedure (Real Academia Española-Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española, 2009). However, online communication in Spanish seems to share a broader vision of the linguistic procedures. For example, Bengoechea and Simón (2014) report the acceptance of -@ as an inclusive mark in the communities of students. This trend is also confirmed by Lomotey (2020), who examines the use of the @ symbol among teachers and students of Spanish as a second language and concludes that it was not only accepted but also frequently used in their communication. More recently, Salinas (2020) analyzes the use of the -x mark to indicate inclusive gender in a group of university students of central or southern American origin in the United States, where the use of the term Latinxs has spread as an indicator of inclusiveness. Also, Bonnin and Coronel (2021) highlight a positive attitude toward new non-binary forms among Spanish speakers, especially the use of the -e morpheme as a mark of inclusive gender. These results have been corroborated by other studies, for example, Kalinowski (2020), which shows a positive perception among Spanish speakers as regards more innovative GIL procedures. Likewise, Gómez-Camacho et al. (2022) and Núñez-Román et al. (2021) also evidence that Spanish speakers displayed a greater degree of tolerance of textisms related to GIL 8 procedures in their online communications than in their non online ones, since some GIL mechanisms contrary to the Spanish normative grammar and orthography are widely accepted, ‘such as using the at symbol as a gender morpheme including masculine and feminine forms’ (Gómez-Camacho et al, 2022, p. 519). Gender-inclusive language and teachers’ online communications Several studies conducted in different languages and educational contexts examine the role of teachers in the dissemination of GIL as a tool for fighting gender discrimination, as students look to them as linguistic models (Garnham et al., 2012; Sarrasin et al., 2012). Works such as those by Pauwels and Winter (2006) or Valiente (2002) highlight the crucial role of teachers when adopting GIL procedures in their classes, since it promotes positive attitudes among students regarding inclusion and diversity. Pauwels and Winters’s study (2006, p. 138) confirms the teachers’ role ‘as linguistic reformers or at least as implementers or ‘spreaders’ of linguistic reform’ (italics by the authors). Therefore, teachers’ use of GIL in educational spaces becomes a key asset in the fight against homophobic language (Poteat et al., 2019) in a gentle and unspoken manner (Sczesny et al., 2016). Similarly, Dessel et al. (2017) confirm that the language used by teachers determines the perception of the LGTBQ+ community, together with the terms students use when addressing or referring to the latter. As Poteat et al. (2019, p. 32) state ‘having conversations about homophobic language use could provide opportunities for teachers to establish norms in their class about this [homophobic] behaviour’. Lomotey (2018) highlights the role of young people as key agents in the dissemination of linguistic innovations, since ‘GIL recommendations that might presently be considered as novelties will have a higher potential of being adopted once they ‘catch on’ with this group of language users [young people] and become a habit, or, in linguistic terms, a language practice’ (2018, p. 395). Other studies, such as those of Tordoff et al. (2021) or 9 Patev et al. (2019), establish that using GIL in different educational contexts helps to overcome negative attitudes towards gender inclusivity. Tordoff et al. (2021), for example, emphasize that ‘transgender-inclusive language is critically important” to describe “TNB [transgender and non-binary] bodies, experiences, and identities’ (2021, p. 163), because its use helps reducing the negative impact of non-inclusive language and favoring LGTBQ autonomy in relation to their decisions about their bodies and sexual health. To date, several studies have explored face to face teaching spaces as GIL disseminators (Castillo et al., 2014; Jiménez Rodrigo et al., 2011; Parra and Serafini, 2021; Mitton et al., 2021; Vervecken et al., 2015). However, much less is known about teachers’ use of GIL in virtual communities such as social networks. Modern technologies have created more opportunities for ‘learning, affiliation, and identity’ (Gee, 2004, p. 81) in the context of Gee’s ‘affinity spaces’, understood as spaces —physical, virtual, or blended— in which people interact on the basis of a common interest, regardless of ethnicity, social class, gender, age or level of expertise, in order to gain individual knowledge and contribute to distribute knowledge. Among these virtual affinity spaces, Twitter plays a key role among teachers, who consider it a powerful channel for collaborating, sharing experiences, and acquiring knowledge and new professional contacts (Donelan, 2016; Carpenter and Krutka, 2015; Rosenberg et al., 2016). In effect, Twitter ‘plays an important role in engaging educators in informal, just-in-time professional learning’ (Xing and Gao, 2018, p. 388). Staudt Willet (2019) examines why teachers used Twitter and he reachs the conclusion that they wanted to explore new ideas and offer tips and advice. Other studies highlight the technological benefits of the platform (Rehm and Notten, 2016), and its flexibility for professional development (Brit and Paulus, 2016). Also, there is the possibility of sharing educational resources and avoiding loneliness (Macià and García, 2016) and the sense of belonging to a community (Carpenter and Krutka, 2014). Additionally, Twitter offers emotional support (Luo and 16 Gómez-Camacho et al. (2022), which show that the use of collective nouns reached a higher degree of use and acceptance among the study participants. Other distinctive writing standard procedures appearing in the sample are pair forms (8.3%), double article (1.3%), or the –e morpheme as a non-binary mark (0.2%). Despite the positive effect of pair forms on women’s visibility (Gabriel et al., 2018), the Real Academia Española-Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (2009) still consider them unnecessary and redundant. However, the results indicate that teachers prefer to use this procedure. In this regard, Sarrasin et al (2012), Nissen (2013) and Núñez-Román et al. (2020) obtained similar results. It is interesting to note that the data revealed the limited propagation of eas a non-binary morpheme (0.2%), despite being an innovation with a deep social influence in terms of representation of the non-binary gender as shown in the works of Kalinowski (2020) and Bonnin and Coronel (2021). Concerning the second research question, the presence of textisms characteristic of digitalk, such as -@ or -x, is relevant. These textisms represent 23.4% of the GIL procedures in the sample. This is a substantial percentage given that the Spanish linguistic academic institutions emphatically advise against the use of such textisms. Results indicate that they are readily accepted as elements included in digitalk, and, what is more, they are intentionally used as they are highly efficient in GIL. Thus, these two procedures are widespread in the digital context, as argued by previous studies (Parra and Serafini, 2021). Furthermore, these findings not only broadly support but also widen the conclusions reached by Bengoechea and Simón (2014), Lomotey (2020) and Gómez-Camacho et al. (2022), whose studies established that the -@ was generally accepted by preservice teachers as an inclusive mark if that entailed a more equitable use of language. These results place Spanish in a situation similar to that of other languages (Bradley, 2020; Gustafsson Sendén et al., 2015, 2021; Lindqvist et al., 2019) regarding the creation of more innovative and inclusive GIL procedures. 17 Ultimately, results offered by the keyness index confirm the social relevance of those textisms used as GIL procedures in Spanish digitalk, explicitly the expressions lxs, todxs, nuestrxs, niñxs, maestrxs, chicxs, alumnxs and nuestrxs alumnxs. These data are in line with those collected by Kalinowski (2020), who reduces the occurrence of textisms with GIL function to a restricted set of terms coinciding with those obtained in our corpus. These data seem to confirm that this GIL procedure starts with particular ‘emblematic interventionreceiving words’, with a high frequency of use that function as ‘neological discourse markers’ (Kalinowski, 2020, p. 254), and then moves on to other terms that are less frequent or that appear syntactically related to those words. Conclusion The current study found that there is an ongoing use of Gender-Inclusive Language among teachers participating in online educational communities on Twitter. GIL is intentionally incorporated in their digital communication through specific textisms. Twitter, therefore, seems to be a privileged space for gender-oriented linguistic innovations, as it appears to be less constrained by academic restrictions. Data show that teachers widely use GIL in their interactions in virtual communities on Twitter. This makes teachers an essential group for GIL dissemination, and not only in the classroom but also in intraprofessional contexts involving other teachers. Thus, the repeated and intentional use of GIL by teachers on Twitter normalises GIL and can trigger a positive perception of it in other users, even though it might be argued that it could provoke a backlash from other users who are against such inclusive language procedures. As Sczesny et al. (2016, p. 7) put it: ‘a subtle and implicit way of promoting the use of GIL’. When using GIL, teachers use collective nouns as the main procedure so as not to refer to or represent women in the masculine form on Twitter. The main conclusion to 18 emerge from this study is the identification of what we have named gender-inclusive textisms (GIT), with a social relevance indisputably confirmed through the SE keywords’ keyness index. It was not possible to assess the social relevance of the use of -@ as a GIT, since -@ is not a letter of the Spanish alphabet and does not appear in the SE reference corpus. Even though further research is still to prove whether the use of -@ as a GIT is of higher social relevance than that of the -x, as a mere speculation, it is reasonable to suppose so. In summary, the digitalk used in educational communities, especially when dealing with GIT, indicates that Twitter is a privileged space for linguistic innovations oriented toward gender equality. References Alingasa, A. P. T., & Mira Alexis, P. O. (2021). “Fearless, powerful, Filipino”: grammar identity positioning in the hashtag activism of# BabaeAko. Feminist Media Studies, 21(4), 587-603. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2020.1791927 Armstrong, C. L., & Mahone, J. (2021): #Metoo in practice: revisiting social media’s influence in individual willingness to mobilize against sexual assault. Feminist Media Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2021.1944258 Auxland, M. (2020). Para Todes: A Case Study on Portuguese and Gender-Neutrality. Journal of Languages, Texts and Society, 4, 60-83. Baer, H. (2016). Redoing feminism: digital activism, body politics, and neoliberalism. Feminist media studies, 16(1), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2015.1093070. Baker-Plummer, B, & Barker-Plummer, D. (2017).Twitter as a Feminist Resource: #YesAllWomen, Digital Platforms, and Discursive Social Change. In J. Earl & D. A. Rohlinger (Eds.), Social Movements and Media (Studies in Media and 19 Communications, Vol. 14) (pp. 91-118). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2050-206020170000014010 Bengoechea, M. (2011). Non-sexist Spanish policies: an attempt bound to fail? Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(1), 35-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2010.541389 Bengoechea, M., & Simón, J. (2014). Attitudes of University Students to Some Verbal Anti- Sexist Forms. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 4(1), 69-90. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2014.41008 Bonnin, J. E., & Coronel, A. A. (2021). Attitudes Toward Gender-Neutral Spanish: Acceptability and Adoptability. Frontiers in sociology, 6, 629616. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.629616 Bradley, E. D. (2020). The influence of linguistic and social attitudes on grammaticality judgments of singular ‘they’. Language Sciences, 78, 101272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101272 Britt, V. G., & Paulus, T. (2016). “Beyond the four walls of my building”: A case study of #Edchat as a community of practice. American Journal of Distance Education, 30, 48- 59. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2016.1119609 Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge. Cárdenas Sánchez, N. S. (2015). El género, los hombres y las mujeres [Gender, Men and Women]. Revista Grafía, 2(1), 21-31. https://doi.org/10.26564/16926250.533 Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2014). How and why educators use Twitter: A survey of the field. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 46 (4): 414-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.925701 20 Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2015). Engagement through microblogging: Educator professional development via Twitter. Professional Development in Education, 41(4), 707-728. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.939294 Carpenter, J. P., Tur, G., & Marín, V. I. (2016). What do U.S. and Spanish pre-service teachers think about educational and professional use of Twitter? A comparative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.011 Castillo Andrés, O. d., Romero Granados, S., González Ramírez, T., & Campos Mesa, M. C. (2014). Gender equity in physical education: The use of language. Motriz: Revista de Educação Física, 20(3), 239-248. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1980-65742014000300001 Clark-Parsons, R. (2021). “I see you, I believe you, I stand with you”:# MeToo and the performance of networked feminist visibility. Feminist Media Studies, 21(3), 362-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2019.1628797 Clark, R. (2016). Hope in a Hashtag: The Discursive Activism of #whyistayed. Feminist Media Studies, 16(5), 788–804. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2016.1138235 De Jonge, S, & Kemp, N. (2012). Text-message abbreviations and language skills in high school and university students. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(1), 49-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01466.x Dessel, A. B., Kulick, A., Wernick, L. J., & Sullivan, D. (2017). The importance of teacher support: Differential impacts by gender and sexuality. Journal of Adolescence, 56, 36- 144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.02.002 Donelan, H. (2016). Social media for professional development and networking opportunities in academia. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(5), 706-729. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2015.1014321 21 Eckert, S., Metzger-Riftkin, J., Albrehi, F., Akhther, N., Aniapam, Z., & Steiner, L. (2022) #MeToo Academia: News Coverage of Sexual Misconduct at U.S. Universities, Journalism Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2022.2077807 Firoozeh, N., Nazarenko, A., Alizon, F., & Daille, B. (2020). Keyword extraction: Issues and methods. Natural Language Engineering, 26(3), 259-291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324919000457 Formanowicz, M., & Hansen, K. (2022). Subtle Linguistic Cues Affecting Gender In(Equality). Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 41(2), 127-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X211035170 Fox, J., Cruz, C., & Lee, J. Y. (2015). Perpetuating online sexism offline: anonymity, interactivity, and the effects of sexist hashtags on social media. Computers in human behavior, 52, 436-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.024. Frenda, S., Ghanem, B., Montes-y-Gómez, M., & Rosso, P. (2019). Online hate speech against women: Automatic identification of misogyny and sexism on Twitter. Journal of intelligent and fuzzy systems, 36(5), 4743-4752. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS- 179023. Gabriel, U., Gygax, P. M., & Kuhn. E. A. (2018). Neutralising linguistic sexism: Promising but cumbersome? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(5), 844-858. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218771742 Gabrielatos, C. (2018). Keyness Analysis: nature, metrics and techniques. In C. Taylor & A. Marchi (Eds.), Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A critical review (pp. 225-258). Routledge. Garnham, A., Gabriel, U., Sarrasin, O., Gygax, P., & Oakhill, J. (2012). Gender representation in different languages and grammatical marking on pronouns: When 22 beauticians, musicians, and mechanics. Discourse Processes, 49(6), 481-500. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.688184 Garrido, R., & Zaptsi, A. (2021). Archetypes, Me Too, Time’s Up and the representation of diverse women on TV. Comunicar, 29(68), 21-33. https://doi.org/10.3916/C68-2021-02 Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: a critique of traditional schooling. Routledge. Ging, D., & Siapera, E. (Eds.) (2019). Gender hate online: Understanding the new antifeminism. Palgrave Macmillan. Gómez-Camacho, A., Hunt-Gómez, C. I., & Valverde-Macías, A. (2018). Textisms, texting, and spelling in Spanish. Lingua, 201, 92-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.09.004 Gómez-Camacho, A., Núñez-Román, F., Hunt-Gómez, C. I., & Corujo-Vélez, M. C. (2022). Preservice Spanish teachers’ perceptions on linguistic sexism: towards the integration of norm and GIL. Language and Education, 36(6), 509-522. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2021.1981926 Guerrero Salazar, S. (2007). Esbozo de una bibliografía crítica sobre recomendaciones y guías para un uso igualitario del lenguaje administrativo [A critical bibliography outline on guidelines and recommendations for an egalitarian use of administrative language]. In A. M. Medina Guerra (Ed.), Avanzando hacia la igualdad (pp. 109-122). Diputación de Málaga-Asociación de Estudios Históricos sobre la Mujer. Guerrero Salazar, S. (2013). Las guías de uso no sexista del lenguaje editadas en castellano por las universidades españolas (2008–2012) [Spanish Guides for the use of nonsexist language published by Spanish Universities (2008-2012)]. In R. Palomares Perraut & P. Pezzi Cristóbal (Ed.), Historia(s) de mujeres en homenaje a M. Teresa López Beltrán (vol 1, pp. 118-132). Perséfone. 23 Gustafsson Sendén, M., Bäck, E. A., & Lindqvist, A. (2015). Introducing a gender-neutral pronoun in a natural gender language: the influence of time on attitudes and behavior. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 893. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00893 Gustafsson Sendén, M., Renström, E., & Lindqvist, A. (2021). Pronouns beyond the binary: The change of attitudes and use over time. Gender & Society, 35(4), 588-615. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432211029226 Horvath, L. K., Merkel, E. F., Maass, A., & Sczesny, S. (2016). Does gender-fair language pay off? The social perception of professions from a cross-linguistic perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02018 Iranzo-Cabrera, M., & Gozálvez Pérez, V. (2021). Professional activism in journalism and education in gender equality through Twitter. Feminist Media Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2020.1847158 Jiménez Rodrigo, M. L., Román Onsalo, M., & Traverso Cortes, J. (2011). Lenguaje no sexista y barreras a su utilización. Un estudio en el ámbito universitario [Non-Sexist Language and Barriers Used. A Study in the University Area]. Revista de Investigación en Educación, 9(2), 174-183. Kalinowski, S. (2020). Lenguaje inclusivo en usuarios de Twitter en Argentina: un estudio de corpus. Cuarenta Naipes, 2(3), 233–259. Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2018). Public Internet Data Mining Methods in Instructional Design, Educational Technology, and Online Learning Research. Tech Trends, 62, 492-500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0307-4 Knisely, K. A. (2020). Le français non-binaire: linguistic forms used by non-binary speakers of French. Foreign Language Annals, 53(4), 850-876. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12500 24 Koeser, S., Kuhn, E. A., & Sczesny, S. (2015). Just Reading? How Gender-Fair Language Triggers Readers’ Use of Gender-Fair Forms. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34(3), 343-357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14561119 Körner, A., Abraham, B., Rummer, R., & Strack, F. (2022). Gender representations elicited by the gender star form. Journal of Language and Social Psycology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X221080181 Kosnick, K. (2019). The everyday poetics of gender-inclusive French: strategies for navigating the linguistic landscape. Modern & Contemporary France, 27(2), 147-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639489.2019.1588869 Li, M., Turki, N., Izaguirre, C. R., DeMahy, C., Thibodeaux, B. L., & Gage, T. (2021). Twitter as a tool for social movement: An analysis of feminist activism on social media communities. Journal of community psychology, 49(3), 854-868. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22324 Lindqvist, A., Renström, E. A., & Gustafsson Sendén, M. (2019). Reducing a Male Bias in Language? Establishing the Efficiency of Three Different Gender-Fair Language Strategies. Sex Roles, 81, 109-117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0974-9 Lomotey, B. A. (2015). Language reform: A critical look at its chances of success in the Spanish context. Gender and Language, 9(3), 435–460. https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.v9i3.18506 Lomotey, B. A. (2018). Making Spanish gender fair: A review of anti-sexist language reform attempts from a language planning perspective. Current Issues in Language Planning, 19(4), 383-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2017.1403217 Lomotey, B. A. (2020). Exploring the Adoption of Gender-Fair Spanish Alternatives in School Domains: An African University in Focus. Sexuality & Culture, 24(4), 1082- 1106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09746-0 25 Loney-Howes, R., Mendes, K., Fernández Romero, D., Fileborn, B., & Núñez Puente, S. (2021). Digital footprints of #MeToo. Feminist Media Studies, https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2021.1886142 Luo, T., & Clifton, L. A. (2017). Examining collaborative knowledge construction in microblogging-based learning environments. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 365–390. https://doi.org/10.28945/3869 Luo, T., Freeman, C., & Stefaniak, J. (2020). “Like, comment, and share” professional development through social media in higher education: A systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1659-1683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09790-5 Macià, M., & García, I. (2016). Informal online communities and networks as a source of teacher professional development: A review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.021 Maldonado García, M. I. (2015). Spanish ‘politically correct’ movement: Reasons for failure. Journal of Political Studies, 22(1), 237-252. Marcelo, C., & Marcelo, P. (2021). Educational influencers on Twitter. Analysis of hashtags and relationship structure. Comunicar, 68, 73-83. https://doi.org/10.3916/C68-2021-06 Margolis, E. (Ed.) (2001). The Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education. Routledge. Medina Guerra, A. M. (2016). Las alternativas al masculino genérico y su uso en el español de España [The alternatives to the generic masculine and their use in Spain’s Spanish]. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada, 64, 183–205. https://doi.org/10.22201/enallt.01852647p.2016.64.693 Mendes, K., Ringrose, J., & Keller, J. (2019). Digital feminist activism: Girls and women fight back against rape culture. Oxford University Press.