The Valencian parliament, Les Corts Valencianes, has recently approved a new regulation that has generated strong controversy.The measure, promoted by the Popular Party (PP) and Vox, not only restructures the internal functioning of the chamber, but also eliminates the parliamentary Commission on LGTBI rights and outlaws the use of inclusive language in its official publications.
For the reader who follows us, it is important to understand that this decision is not a mere bureaucratic change, but rather it directly affects how diversity and recognition policies are addressed in the Valencian Community.
Integration or invisibility: the fate of the LGTBIQ+ commission
One of the most notable modifications is the disappearance of the specific LGTBI rights commission. From now on, issues related to the LGTBIQ+ community will be integrated into the Family Commission.
The Vox parliamentary group argues that eliminating “commissions with names and surnames” seeks to avoid what they consider “privileges” for some groups and “contempt or oblivion for others.” Its ombudsman, José María Llanos, defended the new rule as something based on “common sense.”
However, for the community and human rights defenders, the question is unavoidable: Does this integration mean a dilution of priorities and an invisibility of the specific needs of the LGTBIQ+ group? The concern of activists and opposition groups is that a dedicated space, designed for the discussion and promotion of specific policies, loses its focus and relevance as it becomes subsumed in a broader structure.
Language under the magnifying glass: The RAE as the only guide
Another crucial aspect of the reform focuses on language. The new Les Corts regulations establish that the chamber’s official publications must be governed by the recommendations of the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE), which implies the cessation of the use of inclusive language. The argument is that the grammatical masculine “already includes everyone because it is unmarked.”
This measure raises a debate that goes beyond grammar. For many, inclusive language is a fundamental political and social tool to name and make visible women and non-binary identities, which have historically been marginalized or subsumed under the generic masculine. By eliminating it, is a message being sent about the priority of inclusion in the Valencian political sphere?
The reform eliminates, in addition to the LGTBI, other commissions:
- European Affairs.
- Human Rights.
- Citizen Participation.
The budgetary implications and the “fascist” procedure
The reform of the regulations has also touched on economic aspects, opening the door to possible cuts in relevant statutory bodies, such as the Valencian Academy of Language (AVL). The modified text allows parliamentary groups, through partial amendments, to make changes to the amount allocated to these organizations in the Generalitat’s draft budget.
But, beyond the substance, the approval process has been the focus of intense criticism. The proposal was processed through the single reading procedure, a mechanism that accelerates its adoption, but prevents the opposition from presenting amendments and prevents it from passing through the Regulations Committee.
The opposition groups, the PSPV and Compromís, have described this way of proceeding as “fascist” for limiting debate and trampling on the rights of the opposition to contribute. They have announced that they will take the regulatory change to the Constitutional Court for what they consider a “violation of fundamental rights.” The socialist ombudsman, José Muñoz, reproached the lack of dialogue promised by the president of the Generalitat, Juan Francisco Pérez Llorca, while the deputy spokesperson for Compromís, Isaura Navarro, regretted the setback in rights, especially for women and the LGTBIQ+ group.
From the PP and Vox, the changes are defended as an adaptation to what “the Valencian people demand,” rejecting the accusations of the left as “tambourine feminism.”
As a reflection
These movements in Les Corts Valencianes invite us to reflect: What message does a parliament send when it decides to dismantle the structures dedicated to diversity and inclusion? Is it enough to integrate an issue into a broader commission, or does there run the risk of minimizing its real importance? Can “common sense” justify a reform that limits democratic debate and raises suspicions of regression in rights? We read your thoughts in the comments.
