One: The forms totis, ellis, fillis are not normative. Two: Splitting may be relevant as long as there is no abuse. And three: The unmarked gender, as happens in all Romance languages, is masculine.
Following the multiple consultations and declarations on the uses of inclusive language, where each group has opted for solutions to their measure, the Philological Section of the Institut d'Estudis Catalans has issued a statement with various considerations on this issue. The document, entitled "Inclusive language: compatibility of the stylistic resources of non-sexist uses with the linguistic regulations", addresses bluntly which solutions adhere to the IEC regulations and which do not.
Taking a step beyond the document that the RAE once published, the IEC's considerations do not prohibit duplications, as long as they are done in moderation and in response to stylistic considerations.
Yes, it calls out of both lexical and grammatical regulations forms like totis, ellis I remember that the unmarked gender is masculine, so the use of the feminine gender as unmarked responds to political and social criteria, but non-linguistic
The IEC, which is the high institution that ensures the good use and regulation of the Catalan language in all the territories where it is spoken, expresses through the Philological Section that "recently, it is usually gathered under the name of inclusive language a set of linguistic resources that aim to avoid discrimination in language, be it for reasons of gender, race, language, age or sexual orientation, among others".
The Philological Section of the IEC recognizes that "social changes, when they are important and create lasting situations, usually cause modifications in the language", and that is why the document sets out in a very cautious way what the current situation is and points out solutions, always normative, for those speakers who do not feel comfortable with the exclusive use of masculine as an unmarked gender.
The third point of the document addresses some strategies in favor of women's visibility, such as measured splits and collective names. Likewise, he recommends the use of the word vós, which has the same form for the male and female genders, as well as the use of the pronoun totós, instead of a split such as totos and totes.
In conclusion, the Philological Section states that "these resources are acceptable as long as they are used appropriately and do not create problems of ambiguity, fluidity or complexity".
Read the entire document at this link
