Abstract
Use of the word "Latinx" has risen in popularity among both academics and nonacademics to promote a gender-inclusive alternative to otherwise linguistically gendered terms of "Latino/a." While critics claim the term is inappropriate for populations without gender-diverse individuals, or those of unknown demographic composition, increasing usage and among younger communities signals an important shift in centering the intersectional experiences of transgender and gender-diverse people. Amid these shifts, what are the implications for epidemiologic methods? We provide some brief historical context for the origin of the word "Latinx" along with its alternative "Latine" and discuss the potential consequences of its use for participant recruitment and study validity. Additionally, we provide suggestions for the best use of "Latino" compared with "Latinx/e" in several contextual circumstances. We recommend using "Latinx" or "Latine" in large populations, even without detailed data on gender, since there is likely gender diversity in the population, albeit unmeasured. In participant-facing recruitment or study documents, additional context is needed to determine which identifier is most appropriate.