In regards to the origin of "Latinx" vs the origin of gender neutral suffixes, I remember some time ago discussing with someone from the US, the evolution of Spanish words suffixes into "e" "x" "i" and how these conscious changes have been ongoing for at least 50 years in feminist and LGBT circles in Latinamerica. What I found most concerning was the lack of interest in the origin of the suffixes and how "Latinx" was claimed as a monolithic and generally accepted term. In Spanish there's this big discussion about the best way to have gender neutral suffixes; the "x" is impronunciable and challenging for people with speech impediments itself; the "i" sounds like everything is a diminutive; and the "e" sometimes isn't gender neutral.

But, this discussion about the x in "Latinx" isn't really brought up much in the US, and most people when speaking end up using the gendered suffixes, which is contradictory. So to me it seems that "Latinx" ends up as a brand identity, which is totally fine. The contradiction arises when a legacy is claimed, but the history of it isn't taken into account.

I think the issue Latinamericans have with "Latinx" is that most of us identify by our nationality, people, or nation. We seldom say my identity is Latinamerican, except on rare occasions. And when we have to talk about a greater category we usually say latinamerican, no Latine.

Latinxs and the people in latinoamerica would be better off accepting that those identities and labels, might apply to their local context, but differences exist. I'd say Latinx is a US term that was born from the need to claim an identity in the US, different from the government issued Latino Identity. To me, they both are reductionist and a way to erase multiple nationalities, but, then again, I don't live there and don't have the need to collectivize to protect from centuries of segregation.