Dysphemisms used by both parties expressed disparaging attitudes towards the other side; thus Javier Marias called the people who requested that certain definitions or words be removed from the dictionary, “current inquisitors” and “francoists” whose characters are “intolerable and censorious “and their demands are “fussy demands”(e.g. 54).Pérez-Reverte called them “cheeky” and “illiterate and arrogant” that the only thing they did was “to behave ridiculously”:

Pérez-Reverte calls those who denounce that ‘ easy woman’ is featured in the RAE “illiterate” and “cheeky” (Publico.es, 9-II-18).

Advocates of feminism labelled the Academy sexist, misogynist, anachronistic, refractory, elitist ... the result of which the dictionary definitions and, by extension, the dictionary, were evaluated by adjectives such as male chauvinistic, sexist, androcentric, disrespectful, impertinent, shameful, surprising, obsolete and even dangerous:

“Sexist” dictionary of the language (elpais.com, 10-XI-04).

Impertinent dictionary (elpais.com, 25-VI-06).

Sexism persists in the dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy (prensalibre.com, 6-III-17).

In view of the assessments expressed in the examples, we agree with Llamas Saiz (2015: 208-209) in that “the humiliation and offense are presented in the press as attitudes that certain groups feel towards the Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy DRAE) and, therefore, to those who make up the institution which compiled it”. These assessments are not only derived from the nouns and adjectives, but the verbs used denote very strong attitudes. Thus, the advocates of the Academy believed that the others (feminism) intended to correct, censor or mutilate the dictionary. The defenders of feminism rebelled (e.g. 15) against the Academy to which they demanded the change of definitions (e.g. 6 and 26). The verb lash out was used by both parties.

In the denunciations of sexist biases in dictionaries, the arguments used are very relevant. As van Dijk (2010b: 182) pointed out: “The discursive structures of an argumentative kind -those that are organized around the defence of certain points of view- include not only opinions but also biased (partisan)representations of reality, that is to say, knowledge.

The Academy, as an institution, almost always through its director, reiterated mainly two arguments. The first was that the dictionary is a neutral product that merely reproduces the uses:

“The Dictionary cannot be blamed for the uses that society makes” (20minutos.es, 13-XII-13, José Manuel Blecua).

“[...] and the Dictionary, as it is a reflection of a society, contains social visions that are inevitable, that form part of our history” (Heraldo.es, 16-X-14, José Manuel Blecua).

“[...] it is a mere neutral record of what speakers say and write or said and wrote in the past” (elpais.com, 11-VI-17, Javier Marías).

Therefore, the dictionary has no ideology and cannot be “politically correct” (an expression reiterated by different academics and in different years):

“It is reality that shapes the new dictionary, the RAE does not create ideology” Professor and academic Salvador Gutiérrez explains the criteria that has illuminated the work of the Academy (diariodeleon.es, 26-X-14).

The RAE “The Dictionary cannot be politically correct, language serves to love and insult” (20minutos.es, 31-VII-11).

The director of the RAE does not believe in “a politically correct dictionary” (Diariovasco.com, 14-III-12).