definitions outraged a group of philologists, parliamentarians and experts in equality who requested that the institution rectify this in the 2014 edition, as “it validated a stereotype and consolidated an unreal vision of the world”:

Experts demand that the RAE rectify the sexist definitions of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ (europapress.es, 7-XI-13)

In this case voice was given to three women: Teresa San Segundo, director of the Centre for Gender Studies at UNED, who considered these definitions to be “disgraceful” because of the importance that the dictionary of the Royal Academy, the highest authority in the Spanish language, had; Carmen Quintanilla, president of the Equality Commission in the Congress of Deputies, who said “the Royal Academy had to consider drafting another definition much more in line with the social reality of women today in Spain”; and Yolanda Besteiro, president of the Federation of Associations of Progressive Women, who explained that “the danger” was that “through language, thought was being defined” and “stereotypes defined what a woman and a man are” so that if the RAE “defined what each one should be with a stereotype” it would contribute to ”making this a reality”.

The news, which referred to a fact (the demand made to the RAE to change these definitions), involved a series of commented facts, that is, a set of newspaper articles that delved into the reason for the issue through diverse points of view, as happened in the following article.

Is the RAE dictionary sexist? (20Minutos.com. 14-XI-13).

Different voices of authority came face to face in it. Those who denied sexism in the dictionary, namely four male voices: firstly, the academic Pedro Alvarez de Miranda, who justified the definitions because of the anachronism of the dictionary, heritage of the Dictionary of Authorities (the problem “is not what is missing, but what is superfluous”). Secondly, Jesús Riquelme (doctor of Hispanic Philology and honorary academic at the International Academy of Sciences, Technology, Education and Humanities), who in addition to the anachronism of the dictionary, argued that it merely collected usages. Thirdly, the Fundéu (Foundation of Urgent Spanish), which believed that “mutilating” the dictionary by claiming sexist or biased intentions was “ not serious”, because by “changing one term involved changing many others” since the words in the Dictionary “are interrelated”; what the dictionary had to do was to “label the words more efficiently”. Finally, the RAE defended itself against the accusation of being sexist by alluding to the modification of the definitions to be carried out; what’s more, it added: “The Academy doesn’t set fashions and trends, it only collects what is being used. [...] Because the Academy removes a word or a concept, this doesn’t mean that its usage is going to disappear”.

The feminist philologist Eulália Lledó, who defended that the dictionary maintain a sexist ideological bias intervened by stating that “academics were in favour of this way of defining. They found these definitions adequate, correct”.

In view of the debate generated, a collection of news items that announced changes in the 2014 edition appeared in the press and, from the headlines, already revealed an ideological standpoint, since they took sexism in the dictionary for granted, as happened in the following example:

Less sexism in the new Dictionary. The Royal Spanish Academy suppresses definitions contested for its sexism in 2014 (elpais.com, 24-XI-13).

The two sources of authority confronted were Pedro Álvarez de Miranda (as a representative of the Academy) and Eulàlia Lledó (as a representative of feminism). The philologist insisted that the Academy “was reluctant to incorporate