 Why not pluralism, allowing for different construals of the scope and content of Latinx philosophy? In everyday discourse, we are prepared to allow that any number of terms admit of multiple meanings, picking out different, if sometimes overlapping things. In Southern California, “Mexican” can refer to both Mexican nationals and to nth-generation US citizens descended from Mexican  nationals.[21]  Given the fact that many terms have multiple meanings, perhaps there is room for both a source-based and subject-based account of Latinx philosophy? Perhaps there is. Still, there is reason to plump for a single privileged meaning in disciplinary contexts: labels and characterizations of a nascent subject matter are the public face of the field. When a field is more mature and there are plenty of familiar and undisputed exemplars of it, the precise characterizations of a field is less pragmatically significant and more a matter of taxonomical fussiness. In light of this, there seems to be at least some reason to prefer to think of Latinx philosophy in terms of its subject matter, i.e., as philosophy concerned in some substantive way with Latinxs.