I recall the Soyfather doing a vid about how American media are really pushing 'Latinx' as a gender-neutral term, which was concocted by college sjws and pretty much nobody who is Latino uses it. It's stupid because English already had gender-neutral terms to refer to these people in the form of 'Latin Americans' and 'Hispanics', but the woke chose to ignore these, appropriate the Spanish variant, and then try to bastardize it into something that doesn't work in the original language.
It's doubly stupid because Spanish (in Spain at least) already has a gender-neutral suffix, by using '@' in written language. So 'Latin@s' would be a preferable alternative that at least has some precedence in the Castillian tongue. But the regressive again choose to avoid this like the plague, opting for their own donut steel, personally-approved word that is far more awkward to use. I suspect part of this is that 'latinx' could theoretically entirely replace gendered language, whereas the @-convention explicitly acknowledges it. You can now refer to a Hispanic man or woman with the same, ungendered suffix.
It kinda reminds me of the academic push to secularize BC/AD and replace it with BCE and CE, which works alright in English but is awful to translate in most other languages, revealing just how uncommon this 'Common' terminology is. The difference being that that push was generally well-intentioned, whereas this one is far more intrusive, maliciously and (amusingly enough) culturally insensitive.
