have you used the gender-neutral title Mx.?

[MillieDynamite]

The question is, have used the the gender-neutral term Mx. for a non-binary or other LGBTQ character in any of your stories? Mx and Ms were coined in the 1970s, but I only learned about them recently. And to answer my own question, No, not yet I haven't.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

01:10 mark

 

[MillieDynamite]

Not the MX missle LOL

 

[MillieDynamite]

Mx. could be used with a transgender, I think. Not positive about that. I've always used Miss or Ms or Misstress.

 

[lovecraft68]

No, my characters are male/female and he/she and are straight/Bi/gay/lesbian.

I stay with reality and don't kowtow to the 37-and counting-gender/pronoun crowd.

I also continue to piss off word's 'inclusivity' feature by using horrible terms like coed, housewife, woman(gasp) and spelling Blonde with an E for a female character.

Its so awful that...no one has ever commented on it one way or another.

 

[MrPixel]

"Mx."? No. I have little patience for contrived language corruptions like that. Like "Latinx", which runs roughshod over the important gender distinctions built into Spanish. It's already falling out of favor, thank goodness.

Now "Ms." I get along with just fine. It solved a problem in not making it necessary to know whether a woman to be addressed formally was married or not. As if it would matter in a business or other day-to-day transaction.

 

[MillieDynamite]

The totally odd thing about the Mx title is that it predates the current concept of the Queer & non-binary lifestyle.

 

[ElectricBlue]

A trend just started here in Australia, in business correspondence and email signature blocks, is to put "Name Name (he/him) (she/her) (they/them)".

It's not mandated. Yet.

 

[Rustyoznail]

A trend just started here in Australia, in business correspondence and email signature blocks, is to put "Name Name (he/him) (she/her) (they/them)".

It's not mandated. Yet.

It's a recommendation for us, but I can't get past "they/them" referring to one person.

Haven't heard of Mx before, but I like the concept.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Well, it is either they or them. It works in science fiction (think Stargate gods, Star Trek Trill).

It's a recommendation for us, but I can't get past "they/them" referring to one person.

Haven't heard of Mx before, but I like the concept.

 

[Bramblethorn]

"Mx."? No. I have little patience for contrived language corruptions like that. Like "Latinx", which runs roughshod over the important gender distinctions built into Spanish. It's already falling out of favor, thank goodness.

Now "Ms." I get along with just fine. It solved a problem in not making it necessary to know whether a woman to be addressed formally was married or not. As if it would matter in a business or other day-to-day transaction.

At the time when "Ms." became popular, a woman's marital status did matter very much in a wide range of day-to-day transactions. Its popularity arose not from a recognition that marital status was no longer relevant, but as a way of asserting that it should not be relevant - the whole point was to run roughshod over a distinction that many still considered important.

The origins of "Ms." go way back, but it took off around 1971, the year "Ms." Magazine launched. At that time, a woman's marital status could affect all kinds of day-to-day transactions, e.g.:
- buying contraception: a pharmacist could refuse to sell to an unmarried woman
- banking: banks could (and often did) refuse to allow unmarried women to open bank accounts or take out credit
- employment - women who continued to work after marriage were often seen as taking jobs from those who "needed" them more, leading to various forms of discrimination.

Many of those practices were made illegal later in the seventies, but only after "Ms." became popular, largely as a way of protesting against them.

 

[Rustyoznail]

Well, it is either they or them. It works in science fiction (think Stargate gods, Star Trek Trill).

Well, the Trill and the SG gods are two beings, so that works. For one human, not so much. Unless they have a sentient tape worm.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Mx (usually pronounced /mɪks/ MIKS or /məks/ MəKS) is an English-language neologistic honorific that does not indicate gender. Developed as an alternative to gendered honorifics (such as Mr. and Ms.) in the late 1970s, it is the most common gender-neutral title among non-binary people[3] and people who do not wish to imply a gender in their titles.

Etymology
The word was first proposed in the late 1970s. The x is intended to stand as a wildcard character, and does not necessarily imply a "mixed" gender.

I looked on YouTube, and it's pronounced Mux. With a hard x sound, not z sound.

 

[Zootonius]

I dunno, I have MiXed opinions on it.

...I'll see myself out, thanks

 

[alohadave]

Now "Ms." I get along with just fine. It solved a problem in not making it necessary to know whether a woman to be addressed formally was married or not.

Why do women need honorifics that specifies marital status? An argument could be made that men are able to use an honorific that is a reflection of their status as a man, while women use honorifics that reflect their marital status.

Seems kind of sexist.

 

[Bramblethorn]

A trend just started here in Australia, in business correspondence and email signature blocks, is to put "Name Name (he/him) (she/her) (they/them)".

I thnk I started seeing it in signatures about ten years ago, though back then it'd mostly be from people who were specifically involved in diversity and inclusion work; it's become much more widespread since then.

LGQTI issues aside, it's handy in other situations where a person's gender might not be obvious from name alone. It comes up with names like "Lee" and "Pat", and it's particularly common with some non-Western cultures that favour unisex names.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I thnk I started seeing it in signatures about ten years ago, though back then it'd mostly be from people who were specifically involved in diversity and inclusion work; it's become much more widespread since then.

LGQTI issues aside, it's handy in other situations where a person's gender might not be obvious from name alone. It comes up with names like "Lee" and "Pat", and it's particularly common with some non-Western cultures that favour unisex names.

True, it might have started earlier - I've only noticed it in "big corporate world" and government in the last couple of years.

 

[MillieDynamite]

That was what the Ms was for, so martial status wasn't specified.

Why do women need honorifics that specifies marital status? An argument could be made that men are able to use an honorific that is a reflection of their status as a man, while women use honorifics that reflect their marital status.

Seems kind of sexist.

 

[alohadave]

That was what the Ms was for, so martial status wasn't specified.

Do many people use it that way? IME, it refers to unmarried women when they start using Mrs after getting married.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Miss is unmarried, Mrs. is married, MS is unidentified.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Do many people use it that way? IME, it refers to unmarried women when they start using Mrs after getting married.

Most married women I know use Ms, especially in corporate environments where marital status shouldn't matter.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Mixed Opinions aren't as enjoyable as mixed nuts.

I dunno, I have MiXed opinions on it.

...I'll see myself out, thanks

 

[MillieDynamite]

From the Garmmarly Blog

Use of Ms.

Unlike Miss and Mrs. but like Mr., Ms. (pronounced miz) doesn’t indicate marital status. The title, first suggested as early as 1901, came into limited use in business contexts in the 1950s for women whose marital status was unknown. It didn’t really take off, however, until the women’s liberation movement of the ’60s and ’70s, when feminists embraced it as a suitably marriage-status-neutral equivalent of Mr.

Like Miss and Mrs., Ms. can precede a woman’s name or be used on its own as a form of address.

Use of Mx.

The gender-neutral Mx. (pronounced miks or muhks) appeared in print as early as the late ’70s. It was originally devised as a title for people who didn’t want to be identified by gender and now is also embraced as a title for people whose genders fall outside the binary. In addition to its gender-neutrality, Mx., like Ms.—also doesn’t indicate marital status. As with the other titles included here, Mx. is typically used in conjunction with a person’s name, as a sign of respect.

This is Mx. Schaffer, and they head up the financial department.

Like the other honorifics described here, Mx. is not a one-size-fits-all title—some people may dislike it or prefer no title at all, while others fully embrace it—so it’s best to ask, just as you would for a person’s pronouns.

 

[Zootonius]

Mixed Opinions aren't as enjoyable as mixed nuts.

'Nuts' itself has mixed meanings.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

The only time I've used titles in a story was one chap who hadn't completed his PhD being embarrassed about still being a Mr. Titles are mostly dying out here - the US business culture seems more formal - and it's quite common for me to get official letters addressed to Firstname Surname.

I know a few people who use Mx as a title - I'll even tick that box myself if given the choice when signing up for electricity or whatever, because why does my electricity provider need to know what sex I am?

One friend of mine was the first gender-neutral person to get an MBE, addressed to Mx (their name). If the Queen and all could cope with it, so can everyone else.