Spread of "inclusive x"

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary entry for folx defines it as a re-spelling of folks "used especially to explicitly signal the inclusion of groups commonly marginalized".

The etymology is given as "respelling of folks, with x after MX., LATINX".

The entry also notes that the first known occurrence was in 1833, without clarifying that older uses (and many recent ones) are examples of eye dialect rather than inclusionary reference.

Obviously Latinx (like Filipinx and …) was created as a gender-neutral version of Latina/Latino, and Mx. is a gender-neutral version of Mr./Ms. In both of those cases, the 'x' substitutes for other gender-associated letters, whereas in folx the 'x' has been generalized to mean something like "inclusion of whatever kind" — though the 'x' still has its usual /ks/ pronunciation. In another example, namely womxn, "inclusive x" becomes even more abstract. On that model, any word could be orthographically transformed.

All of these re-spellings are controversial. Some negative reactions come from linguistic conservatives, and some from the "anti-woke" folx. But there are also objections from the other side, such as the complaint that Latinx is "an example of linguistic colonialism — U.S. speakers of English trying to impose new norms on another community" (quotation from this article).

And Kells McPhillips ("What You Need To Know About the Letter ‘X’ in Words Like Folx, Womxn, and Latinx", Well+Good 8/31/2020) reports an informal Instagram survey by Nina Kossoff, which registered a variety of negative reactions to womxn:

Kossoff reports that in terms of the survey findings, "womxn" was, by far, the most contentious use of the letter "x," with more than 70 people responding to that particular question sticker—largely in the negative. Thirty of these respondents felt "womxn" acted as a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist (TERF) term, which describes feminists who purposefully exclude—and often actively other and oppress—trans women. "Nearly as strong was the sentiment that, in its effort to be inclusive of genders beyond cisgender women, the term 'womxn' left many community members feeling as though their trans and/or non-binary identities were being erased, or lumped in with their assigned gender at birth."

Many responders also felt "womxn" gave off the idea of being a "woman-lite," meaning "an individual's assigned gender at birth still dictated the spaces they are seen and recognized in," says Kossoff. "This is detrimental for those who don't wish to be associated with wom(e/x/a)nhood in any way."

Overall, the future of "inclusive x" seems to be uncertain. In particular, Folx is used in the name of the start-up FOLX HEALTH, which has been in the news recently.  If that company is broadly successful, it might make generic use of the word less common.