The conversation with Manuel Estevies was long, intense and detected. More than just an interview, it was in front of the moment when the political correction and the diversity of identity begin to face their own borders. With the background of the last Mario Vargas Llosa – the author and intellectual and strong defender of the Castilian language as we met – the conversation of comprehensive language, sexual identity, positive, feminist procedures, and legal use of minorities for purposes already touched fraud.
We start talking about Mario Vargas Losa. From his amazing laugh in an interview with Jorge Ramos when asked about the use of “Todes”. From his idea – very simple like strong – that Spanish is a beautiful language, with a comprehensive and sufficient male. “There are ways to include them without deformation,” he said. Estévez takes it firmly: “You cannot force society to adapt its language with individual whims.”
The interesting thing is that Manuel does not start from emotional rejection, but from legal effects. Because what happened, warns, is that the legitimate claim of rights has been kidnapped by the business schedules that seek to open cracks in the law. Cases like Oaxaca, where men were registered as women to occupy sexual shares, or the case of the dietary debtor in Jalisco that changed their sexual identity to evade their responsibility, are more than stories: they are alerts.
The language stopped being just a communication tool. It is now a power strategy, “he says. In that strategy, there was one complaint – such a girl who asked not to be called” she “or” he “, but” he ” – was sufficient to launch a wave of entire structures.
But it seems that the tide begins to support. On April 16, the UK Supreme Court issued a strong decision: legally, it was the woman who gave birth to a woman, the man is the person who was born a man. No, no less. It was based on the 2010 Equality Law and was characterized by a clear extent.
We are talking about the United Kingdom, not a country without a global weight. It is the cradle of modern parliament. Estévez says, the discussion has ended. He says: “Sex as a social building has a biological limit, and this limit has already begun to impose it again.”
There is a tone of comfort in your voice, but also warning. Because this wave, as he says, was born from good intentions, but it has grown without control. “We get out of the toxins”, it is repeated several times. This tolerance has brought the consequences: women about 50 years, without children, without an emotional network, wondering whether all they embraced is really liberated.
The conversation jumps to new generations. Manuel has four children, and he clearly sees the emptiness left by the Utiper culture, from the influencer, for the activity of the screen. “There is a full generation that will receive orders than younger, but more prepared. They waste time in the situation, not in the material.”
And again the language. “How will we know French, English, or German for children who no longer know whether they will say the student, study or student?” He asks. Learn a language that is really difficult. Imagine that you should also learn your ideological copy, as it makes it ridiculous.
In the end, the conversation enters the percentage of the fetch and in how the term politics is politicized. “The idea that there has been a systematic slaughter for women because of the fact that it is. It has very dangerous legal consequences. Not all murder in a pesticide woman,” he says. It states that this is another discussion that urges Dakiki.
We said goodbye to the feeling that we hardly open a box full of hot problems. But with certainty: the pendulum begins to return. Biological, verification, measurable, ground recovery. Perhaps this does not mean return, but rearrange.
The document referred to by Manuel Estévez in the interview is April 16, 2025, issued by the UK Supreme Court at Women Scotland Ltd against Scottish ministers. In this decision, the court decided that the terms “women”, “men” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Law must be interpreted exclusively on the basis of biological sex for childbirth, and thus excluding transgender persons, even those who have a certificate of sex recognition, from these legal definitions.
This ruling led to a major debate in the UK and had repercussions on various institutions and institutional practices related to gender equality and transgender rights.
