You should all take a class in linguistics before commenting on this. From the point of view of descriptive linguistics, the "correct" word is "they." The word "they" is already used by native English speakers around the world as a gender neutral pronoun. You're fighting a fight that was already won the moment English speakers started using "they" as a gender neutral pronoun which (by the way) was several hundred years ago. Take some linguistics classes in the future, they're really fascinating.
5
Thank you, Philip B. Corbett and the NYT, for unintentionally providing lighthearted relief from the weightier issues of war, refugee isolation, homelessness, etc. by posing the style problems of gender-neutral titles and pronouns. Regardless of any future solution the Times adopts, the posing and disclosing today made me laugh, and right now, that's no easy trick!
2
I have just one question: how do we pronounce "Mx."?
1
I strongly urge the style keepers at the Times to not merely run but sprint away from the trend toward using "they" a gender neutral singular pronoun. While this usage may be comfortable for many who are not bothered by the construction "Someone left their umbrella in the conference room" it causes confusion in enough situations that a singular gender neutral pronoun should be adopted.
2
I have no desire to defend the use of pejorative language, and I reject the use of hostile words with the intention of insulting or lowering the social or economic status of someone else.
The real issue, however, is what people think about each other, rather than what generic pronouns they use to refer to each other. Either people view each other with respect, or they don't -- and the use of generic pronouns is neither dispositive nor necessarily indicative in that respect. Inventing a synthetic pronoun, and insisting that all people use it or face opprobrium, will neither make people of good will any more respectful, nor make hateful bigots any less hateful or bigoted.
Prior attempts in other contexts to invent new language and insist upon its usage have merely substituted new forms of contention for old. Consider, by analogy, how one views a partially inundated inland area. It is a natural feature of the environment and ecology, and supports aquifers and beneficial fauna and flora such as waterfowl. It also supports less universally admired fauna, such as disease-carrying mosquitoes, poisonous snakes, and alligators. Both are true at the same time. Whether one calls this area a swamp or a freshwater wetland does not change either its inherent characteristics or how people view it.
Insistence upon new phraseology merely diverts people into arguing over linguistic usage, rather than discussing personal attitudes and public policy productively.
The real issue, however, is what people think about each other, rather than what generic pronouns they use to refer to each other. Either people view each other with respect, or they don't -- and the use of generic pronouns is neither dispositive nor necessarily indicative in that respect. Inventing a synthetic pronoun, and insisting that all people use it or face opprobrium, will neither make people of good will any more respectful, nor make hateful bigots any less hateful or bigoted.
Prior attempts in other contexts to invent new language and insist upon its usage have merely substituted new forms of contention for old. Consider, by analogy, how one views a partially inundated inland area. It is a natural feature of the environment and ecology, and supports aquifers and beneficial fauna and flora such as waterfowl. It also supports less universally admired fauna, such as disease-carrying mosquitoes, poisonous snakes, and alligators. Both are true at the same time. Whether one calls this area a swamp or a freshwater wetland does not change either its inherent characteristics or how people view it.
Insistence upon new phraseology merely diverts people into arguing over linguistic usage, rather than discussing personal attitudes and public policy productively.
3
On second thought, let's just use first names. We often do that now, anyway (not that I'm a big fan of children under 12 calling me "Cynthia" (my first name)) If there are two people named, say, Sam (because I want to pick something gender neutral), we can use Sam (first letter of last initial) to differentiate (like they do on the Bachelor(ette)). Now, if there's a Sam Jones and a Sam Johnson, then we might be in trouble.
1
I don't see the issue with adopting Mx. to provide an "opt-in" option for the percentage of the population who cannot find a comfortable place in the existing norms. Ms. was still relatively new when I was coming of age and I remember how thrilling it was to transition from Miss to Ms. symbolically achieving adulthood while not identifying myself in the context of my relationship to another human being (i.e. a husband) to the world. I suspect the vast majority of society will continue to identify with a male or female title but adding Mx. to the mix surely won't hurt anyone.
3
The Times has always led the way.
By changing the heading of "Wedding and Celebrations" the Time included gay couples years before it was popular to do so.
The Times included more articles (almost daily) on gays because of a pledge by Punch Sulzberger more than a decade ago to do so.
The Times has been a leader in support of Palestinian goals and a severe critic of Israeli policies.
The Times dares to go where angels fear to tread in its support of transgenders and other supposedly deviant behaviors.
The Times has been on the forefront of liberal agendas.
Bravo!
By changing the heading of "Wedding and Celebrations" the Time included gay couples years before it was popular to do so.
The Times included more articles (almost daily) on gays because of a pledge by Punch Sulzberger more than a decade ago to do so.
The Times has been a leader in support of Palestinian goals and a severe critic of Israeli policies.
The Times dares to go where angels fear to tread in its support of transgenders and other supposedly deviant behaviors.
The Times has been on the forefront of liberal agendas.
Bravo!
4
Using "Mx." or "M." would accomplish the same goal as a woman writer, researcher. and... whose name is Jane R. Jacobs in otder to use a gender neutral name like J. R. Jacobs. This usage is quite common in fields where sex bias is known to exist.
1
A few years ago my University of Cambridge summer session application offered a laundry list of honorifics to choose from, including His Royal Highness,
His Grace, Lord, The Honourable, Ambassador, etc., etc. It went on and on.
The Institute of Classical Architecture has a similar list as well. Speaking of Brits, some time ago they dropped the periods in Dr, Mr, Mrs, Ms, etc.
His Grace, Lord, The Honourable, Ambassador, etc., etc. It went on and on.
The Institute of Classical Architecture has a similar list as well. Speaking of Brits, some time ago they dropped the periods in Dr, Mr, Mrs, Ms, etc.
I do think it is a little silly, but at least you'll know that "Mr." refers to men, "Ms." refers to women, and the occasional "Mx." will typically refer to people who were (or still are) confused about their sex, and, of course, to people who know which sex they inhabit, but are radical in their political correctness.
4
Actually, most people who will use Mx. are nonbinary, and are quite sure of their gender.
3
Wow. Until I read these posts I would not have imagined that it could be such a big deal to address people as they prefer to be addressed.
How about you use the full name of the individual initially in the article and then use terms like they or them. Then the issue of gender no longer is an issue. That wasn't hard was it? Unless of course the Times has an agenda in its "news" coverage...
As many others have said, the NYTimes should just get with the times and do what almost every other newspaper in the country has and get rid of courtesy titles. Adopt AP style and just use the last name of the person after first reference. All the Times Mr./Ms./Mx. is ridiculous to being with. It is obviously not needed for good journalism as almost no other paper does it.
2
If you absolutely have to have a gender-neutral pronoun instead of "he" and "she", please don't use "they". That's plural, so it could be misleading. "Xe" or "ze" may be okay if it's pronounced as sort of a cross between "he" and "she". But will this ever come up often enough to have to create a new pronoun? Can't you just refer to the person by name four or five more times in an article instead of substituting a pronoun? Or maybe borrow a gender-neutral courtesy title from a language that already has one, like the Japanese "-さん" ("-san").
Maybe we should just not bother to referring to them at all.
1
Why should the accomplishments of nonbinary people be swept under the rug?
3
Can't you find something better to spend time and ink on? It's no wonder we never get anything accomplished - chasing every possible piece of minutia possible!
5
While you are at it, please explain the use of the comma in the first sentence of the front page editorial this past Saturday.
"All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of
innocents, in California."
"All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of
innocents, in California."
3
"The latest slaughter of innocents in California" without the comma would allow that entire phrase to be the indirect object of the auxiliary verb "feel". The adjective "latest" would modify the rest of the phrase, implying that there has been a series of "slaughters of innocents in California" that is significant enough to discuss all on its own, without reference to any slaughters in other states, and probably that the author doesn't intend to discuss any such slaughters in other states. Inserting the comma means that "in California" is no longer part of the nominal phrase "series of slaughters of innocents" that is modified by "latest", so the "series" at issue isn't limited to California. When offset by the comma, the phrase "in California" modifies only the "latest slaughter", not the series of "slaughter(s) of innocents." Dunno if that makes sense. It's better to diagram a sentence with an actual diagram instead of a narrative.
4
I'm not the writer of this piece, but I am a copy editor, and I'll take a stab at your question.
Without the comma, the sentence "All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents in California," implies that the other incidents of slaughter also took place in California. With the comma, the sentence conveys that the previous incidents took place in other locations, and the latest slaughter took place in California.
Without the comma, the sentence "All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents in California," implies that the other incidents of slaughter also took place in California. With the comma, the sentence conveys that the previous incidents took place in other locations, and the latest slaughter took place in California.
6
I've noticed that the Times is inconsistent in using Dr. to refer to individuals who hold doctorates, both within the same article (using Dr. in one place and Mr. or Mrs. in another) and across articles (and this doesn't seem to be related to whether the person is being discussed in the context of their profession or not). What gives?
4
As to the proper pronoun, why not use "one" and "one's". It's simple; it works in every conceivable usage; it's a correct usage (something that our millennial friends could care less about, and understand even more less about!)
Also, since the issue really only affects millennials, who are rather absurdly interested in themselves (that is, a narcissist sees oneself as the only important "ONE"), the use of "one" in place of he or she or it or him or her offers an additional advantage. Unless someone can offer a better alternative, I think we should adopt my suggest by unanimous consent!
Also, since the issue really only affects millennials, who are rather absurdly interested in themselves (that is, a narcissist sees oneself as the only important "ONE"), the use of "one" in place of he or she or it or him or her offers an additional advantage. Unless someone can offer a better alternative, I think we should adopt my suggest by unanimous consent!
1
"Could not care less"? ;)
"I was talking to Jay, and one said that one's going to the party tonight." ???
And yet you still refuse to call we PhDs (and other doctors) "Dr." unless we have an MD?! While we're talking about dignity in titles, perhaps you might consider giving the rest of us the respect we've earned?
10
Agree.
But: "it's US PhDs."
But: "it's US PhDs."
1
Perhaps the Times would show more respect for PhDs if more of them knew that in the sentence "And yet you still refuse to call we PhDs 'Dr.' " the pronoun called for is "us," not "we." For me the greater mystery is why, when the Times refers to even convicted murders as "Mr. So-and so," it ran a photo caption the other day that referred to the President twice as simply "Obama."
3
Well, if it makes you feel better, most of the Times articles about him refer to Ben Carson as "Mr.," not "Dr."
Welcome to the mickeymouse world of trans or no gender!
1
30 years ago this year I hung out for a week at a hostel in Copenhagen. There I met "Xris" male or female I couldn't really tell but I just thought "Xris" was the perfect embodiment of this charming individual.
2
An earlier comment was that we are in a "brave new world" (lower case xis). This editorial might have been entitled "Brave New Word."
Beyond our little world of "oprima el dos" the planet's most populous continent gradually anoints English as its "reserve language." English already solves "the MX problem" for a pencil or a potato. It is tempting to fill a few more potholes before the ribbon is cut.
Beyond our little world of "oprima el dos" the planet's most populous continent gradually anoints English as its "reserve language." English already solves "the MX problem" for a pencil or a potato. It is tempting to fill a few more potholes before the ribbon is cut.
1
Let us also debate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
3
Wouldn't it be better to just drop these usages entirely?
1
Why don't we just simplify it to "comrade" for everyone?
11
If you say it backwards do you get deported back to the Fifth Dimension?
6
I am quite willing to refer to anyone by any honorific or title they prefer as they are willing to do the same in return. I am a man. Anyone who doesn't use Mr. in formal when referring to me in a formal setting is insulting me. Not everyone is caught up in this new "gender-free" world.
16
So now that Ms is established, and Mx is rearing its confused head, perhaps married women who aren't ashamed of their status could try going back to their former honorific title: Mrs.
7
Disagree about Mrs and Miss, unless there are similar distinctions for married and unmarried men. Otherwise, it's none of anyone's business.
6
I've never heard the interesting yet bizarre idea that women who prefer "Ms." are somehow ashamed of their marital status. That's a pretty sweeping assumption about a large segment of the female population! We could just as easily say that people who use "Mrs" must be so insecure about themselves that they have to assert their marital status upfront to validate their desirability. Equally silly premise, but just as plausible. I suggest you consider that as a male, you might not need to have an opinion on this topic, as it doesn't actually have anything to do with you or others of your gender. I doubt that the use of "Mrs" will survive more than another generation or two anyways. I wonder, if we gave married men the option of using "Mrr." to denote their marital status, how many would use it? I will say that I've been married for 25 years and have never once felt "ashamed" of this fact. And I think I would just giggle if someone called me a "Mrs." I'd look around for the old lady behind me! (Except that the old ladies whom I know also prefer "Ms.")
3
Seems to me the proper gender neutral pronoun is s/he.
6
"S/he" would work for gender neutral in writing, but how to pronounce it?
Regardless, "s/he" always seemed to make more sense to me than "he or she"--it's shorter.
Regardless, "s/he" always seemed to make more sense to me than "he or she"--it's shorter.
How would you pronounce that?
1
"sh-he"?
Use "Mx" all you want. Just stop with gibberish like "pre-planning", "narrative" and "back story".
6
Please explain the problem with "narrative."
For those concerned about the NYT becoming too PC, I suggest that they read the article again. The Times used the honorific preferred by the subject. It was not making a political statement. It was simply following the policy of the paper which is to refer to people by the title they choose. Many people who are transgender do not currently use Mx. and instead adopt the title of the gender they have transitioned to. As the article mentioned, there is no danger of this term coming into wide use throughout the paper unless and until it comes into greater usage.
6
"Transition" is a noun, not a verb. Once we get that straight, we can move on to other more controversial issues.
1
Except that, these days, it is often a verb. Usage and all that, you know.
2
For those of us in academia, how to refer to the first-person singular without the sometimes unwieldy "he or she," "she or he," "he/she," "she/he," or "s/he" has always been an issue.
While I think "they" is perfectly adequate and serviceable, it is a no-no in academic writing (as are words like "no-no"). I have long wished we could adopt "se" (but pronouncing it "see") instead of like its Romance roots, but I think "ze" and "xe" work very well for everybody, regardless of what gender se/ze/xe identifies with.
Oops. I ended my sentence with a preposition; the stuffy word police are bound to track me down. Rock on, New York Times.
While I think "they" is perfectly adequate and serviceable, it is a no-no in academic writing (as are words like "no-no"). I have long wished we could adopt "se" (but pronouncing it "see") instead of like its Romance roots, but I think "ze" and "xe" work very well for everybody, regardless of what gender se/ze/xe identifies with.
Oops. I ended my sentence with a preposition; the stuffy word police are bound to track me down. Rock on, New York Times.
5
Uh...
I think we are entering an Orwellian dimension.
Hang on to your hat!
1
I tend to have my nonbinary friends refer to me using ce/cir/cirs/cirself (I was talking to cir, and ce said that ce'll do it cirself). For non trans or binary trans folks, I just let them use ce or they, which ever is easier.
I can't help you on the honorifics, but how about dropping all pronouns and refer to the person (or being) as "the subject"? I can hear it already:
"Sorry I'm late, but Pat's mother took a fall and the subject had to drive them to the hospital. The subject asked me to cover their desk for a while."
Do we really want to go down this alley?
"Sorry I'm late, but Pat's mother took a fall and the subject had to drive them to the hospital. The subject asked me to cover their desk for a while."
Do we really want to go down this alley?
6
I am an old fashioned sort. I used "Miss" well into my 20s - until I was almost 30, in fact. I got engaged at 29 years and nine months. That was when I started using "Ms." I still use "Ms." if I use my maiden name or when both my maiden name and married name are used and "Mrs." when I'm only using my married name. I tried to use "Master" for my nephew (he five), but my sister-in-law and her husband thought I was crazy.
1
Let's bring back "comrade". It's nice and friendly.
19
Maybe it should be Mx. for female identifying and My. for male.
3
In Venetian dialect, an X is pronounced as a Z, so MX comes out as Miz.
4
I've always agreed with the old adage that ends with "just don't call me late for breakfast".
2
Brave new world indeed...heaven help those who need help.
2
If people want to be addressed in a gender-neutral way, that's their right and their call. But it's also their responsibility to make that clear and not lay a guilt trip on people who haven't been informed of their preference since - surprise - there are no mind-readers. For the record, "Mister" is just fine with me. Always has been, always will be.
5
Laws are now protecting gender identity. That's not gender assignment or a rejection of gender. It's identity, which means subjective and subject to change without notice. All the while with the protection of the DOJ, EEO and state enforcement agencies behind it. So, especially at the workplace where these laws achieve their fullest expression, the titles will need to be dropped altogether.
2
Just ask whoever you're interviewing what title and pronoun they'd like to be used. That doesn't seem that hard to me.
3
I am concerned that a policy of using "Mx" for those who are confused about their own gender, adds an additional burden upon a writer. Now, instead of looking up a subject's gender in order to be accurate - we have to check with that person directly, to ascertain their gender-preference of the day? !
On the other hand, a gender-neutral pronoun *is* badly needed, for one thing because of animals who should be included within the "person" category. The problem there, is I often do not know what their gender is. "It" is one choice: I used that to refer to Jenner, and to situations wherein the name fails to convey the gender, but.. it is awkward. Yes, a new set of pronouns are warranted, I think.
On the other hand, a gender-neutral pronoun *is* badly needed, for one thing because of animals who should be included within the "person" category. The problem there, is I often do not know what their gender is. "It" is one choice: I used that to refer to Jenner, and to situations wherein the name fails to convey the gender, but.. it is awkward. Yes, a new set of pronouns are warranted, I think.
Refering to trans people as "it" is actually incredibly dehumanizing.
1
A person without a gender? That sounds inhuman to me.
4
Starting a few years ago, I began all missives to women of unknown marital status with "Dear M. (Surname)" No potentially offensive Ms for me!
The recipient was then free to attribute whatever value she wished to the "M," and I was never questioned about its use.
Perhaps they were puzzled, perhaps I was lucky.
The recipient was then free to attribute whatever value she wished to the "M," and I was never questioned about its use.
Perhaps they were puzzled, perhaps I was lucky.
4
In French, you are saying "Mister."
1
Using "they" as a gender neutral, singular pronoun is not new. Such usage dates back hundreds of years, and is only seen as improper by the same sorts of people who insist on not splitting infinitives. If the subject of an article has no objection to "they" then it would seem an easy solution.
1
I still have a problem with "they" as a singular pronoun, and would welcome something both singular and pronounceable, but maybe I'm just old and stodgy. In a letter I wrote to the Times, the editor insisted on splitting an infinitive I quite properly had left UNsplit, because "people talk that way." Sigh.
2
Really? We've got this nonsense printed in a major paper as news "that fit to print?" No. This is self-pleasing nonsense from those in academia that have to produce papers to get their degree or keep their tenure.
The rest of us in the real world can go on without such labels.
The rest of us in the real world can go on without such labels.
9
Why do you find it so difficult to be respectful of nonbinary individuals?
1
As in Mxyzptlk?
4
I should add that I could not have asked Corbett for a more thoughtful article on the subject. It (Corbett, not the subject) is in a difficult spot, and it (not he) seems to me that the article reflects the vectors (traditions, movements, manners and deadlines) impinging on Times writers. If in a troubled world we must eliminate such articles, then should we not also eliminate vacation, hobby and sport? Times articles are silly at times (not the Paper) in this person's (my) opinion, but this (artlcle, not me) is not one of the silly ones. I am.
3
Why does everything in our techno-dystopia need an "X?"
Let's borrow from the butterfly.
It's free.
M.
Let's borrow from the butterfly.
It's free.
M.
2
I get that some people might not gender-identify, and that language must be tricky to navigate for them. But for whatever reason, I really don't like "Mx."
Safest just to call everyone 'mate', I think.
4
What about "Good," as in Good John Smith or Good Jane Smith? It can be abbreviated as Gd Smith. It sounds a bit Salem Whitch Trial-ish (without the final "y," please!), but it just sounds right to me; it's an honorific and shows not only respect, but calling that person's sexuality or preference/identity as good. Minors can be referred to as "Young" or Yg, as in Yg Johnny or Yg. Janie.
It may be a bit old fashioned but we could use a bit more civility these days; it's civil and gender neutral.
"He" and "she" can be changed to Ish (pronounced eesh, which is Hebrew for "person," I think - well, we can keep it non-biblical because not many Americans speak Hebrew.
Here's another thought: Doctre for Doctor, Actre for actor, Mastre for Master (of the house) or by adding "n" at the end to signify neutrality, Doctren, Mistren, Actren, Carpentren, Plumbren.
"Is there a doctre(n) in the house among the audience membre(n)s? One of the actre(n)s has fainted," yelled the House Managere(n). "Gd Bernhardt is ill." "Ish' copmplained ish didn't feel well."
It'll take getting used to. Any takers? Well, the "Gd" and "Yg" ideas at the top are good.
It may be a bit old fashioned but we could use a bit more civility these days; it's civil and gender neutral.
"He" and "she" can be changed to Ish (pronounced eesh, which is Hebrew for "person," I think - well, we can keep it non-biblical because not many Americans speak Hebrew.
Here's another thought: Doctre for Doctor, Actre for actor, Mastre for Master (of the house) or by adding "n" at the end to signify neutrality, Doctren, Mistren, Actren, Carpentren, Plumbren.
"Is there a doctre(n) in the house among the audience membre(n)s? One of the actre(n)s has fainted," yelled the House Managere(n). "Gd Bernhardt is ill." "Ish' copmplained ish didn't feel well."
It'll take getting used to. Any takers? Well, the "Gd" and "Yg" ideas at the top are good.
1
A basic question is simply one of definition. How does The Times define the word transgender in a rational, science-based manner? All else follows, or not.
2
If I don't call him 'Mx' will he suddenly flex
his rhetorical muscles and plead
he's just on a bender of ambiguous gender
and didn't earn anyone's screed.
his rhetorical muscles and plead
he's just on a bender of ambiguous gender
and didn't earn anyone's screed.
2
The article's title had me Mxed up, but now I believe I have some mastery of the concept.
The article says, "Our guidelines on transgender references have long advised Times writers to use the names, pronouns and courtesy titles preferred by the subject."
Give me a break. Say I want you be called Lord but I am not a member of the peerage. Would you go along with that?
Give me a break. Say I want you be called Lord but I am not a member of the peerage. Would you go along with that?
9
Lord Black acre I agree with you.
1
The comments are getting better and better and funnier and funnier.
Comic relief in harrowing times.
By the way, please call me "La Contessa" in the future - sounds so much better than MLMJ
Comic relief in harrowing times.
By the way, please call me "La Contessa" in the future - sounds so much better than MLMJ
2
Pretty much every newspaper in America has done away with courtesy titles and simply uses the last name on second reference. The Times needs to get with the times -- in this case, maybe 30 years ago. It's archaic to use courtesy titles in the 21st century. Fuggedaboudem.
2
An apple that identifies as an orange still is an apple.
4
Yes but apples are not sentient, complex beings.
As a person of a certain age, I note that one of the earliest "he-man" cowboy heroes of screen and radio was Tom Mix. I don't want to mix things up but doesn't that give Mx a strongly masculine persona? And I think that some of my Irish friends would rightfully object to being called Mx!
2
Consistent with the journalistic adage "Get the story, don't be the story", the NYT should consider how disruptive it would be for them to bring in an alien and heretofore unknown fragment such as xe, se, or Mx. For the microscopic fragment of our world which does not identify with current genders to dictate generalized usage is silly on its face; Ms., on the contrary, has about 50% of the population as an identified entity. In truth: doesn't the New Yorker's insistence on using a diaeresis stick in your craw? These alien fragments would be far worse.
2
Why don't we start on ending the Miss and Mrs. thang first? Why does a woman's marital status have to be so pronounced? In Switzerland, ( & other countries), ALL women over a certain age are regarded to as Mrs. When can we start this here? Then maybe move on to the Mx. title. Or possibly let's just eliminate these labels altogether.
1
While it's quite trendy these days to "look past" gender in the interest of egalitarianism, I personally like my maleness (different from my masculinity, which is the manifestation of my maleness and which I enjoy as well) and wouldn't want to give up Mr., he, his, etc. I like being a man. I like being identifiable as a man. If anyone ever referred to me as Mx., I'd probably feign deafness until I was addressed as Mr.
3
That's fine, but that's also how trans people feel. We just want to be referred to with the correct pronouns and titles. For instance, it's never comfortable when people refer to me as "she" instead of "they". No one's asking that you give up your gender, we're asking that you respect other people's.
My God, there are quite a few people out there whose dignity and social acceptance aren't implicated in ANY way who are nonetheless QUITE certain that somehow "Mx." (used upon request) is an affront to civilization. Please. I don't find "Mx." aesthetically appealing, but it erodes no intellectual standards, impairs no one's reading comprehension, and grants some long-trampled-on people some recognition of a fundamental aspect of their identities.
People, I know this is hard, but sometimes, you really aren't required to pass judgment on something.
People, I know this is hard, but sometimes, you really aren't required to pass judgment on something.
5
This seems to be an effort to deny, obscure or otherwise conceal reality. Maybe it works for the Internet, where nobody knows you're a: 1. Dog 2. Woman 3. Man 4. You name it.
When you meet someone in person, all is revealed, so this exercise is basically an exercise in denial - n'est pas?
When you meet someone in person, all is revealed, so this exercise is basically an exercise in denial - n'est pas?
4
Off topic, but related, and perhaps the subject of a Times article:
I remember a time when the proper form of address for a married couple--when Mr. and Mrs. + husband's first and last name were not used --was husband's first name + wife's first name + last name. Often I now see wife's first name + husband's first name + last name, which previously had been considered incorrect. Am I the only one who has noticed this? Why has this happened?
I remember a time when the proper form of address for a married couple--when Mr. and Mrs. + husband's first and last name were not used --was husband's first name + wife's first name + last name. Often I now see wife's first name + husband's first name + last name, which previously had been considered incorrect. Am I the only one who has noticed this? Why has this happened?
1
I can remember when Ms. started being seen more frequently (in the early 70s) and stating with certainty it would never catch on. It had a period, but was not an abbreviation. It had no vowels and was hard to pronounce clearly. I saw the need for a non-judgemental female pronoun, but was sure this was not it.
Obviously I was wrong, and in the decades since we've also seen newspapers curtail the practices of reporting the ages of all the subjects of their articles or mentioning their racial identities (for non-white subject) other than when their race or age are germain to the story.
Changes like these often appear like challenges to the reader. They impede our ability to visualize the people in the stories. In truth, they actually free us to focus on the actions in the story and not prejudge them base on the race and age of the participants. The same will one day be true for gender. People will be described as people and their gender will be indicated when it is relevant.
We are moving toward a world where gender is not so more fluid as much as being recognized as being more fluid than we once realized. This is a good thing. But for now, we're in the awkward transitional phase.
Obviously I was wrong, and in the decades since we've also seen newspapers curtail the practices of reporting the ages of all the subjects of their articles or mentioning their racial identities (for non-white subject) other than when their race or age are germain to the story.
Changes like these often appear like challenges to the reader. They impede our ability to visualize the people in the stories. In truth, they actually free us to focus on the actions in the story and not prejudge them base on the race and age of the participants. The same will one day be true for gender. People will be described as people and their gender will be indicated when it is relevant.
We are moving toward a world where gender is not so more fluid as much as being recognized as being more fluid than we once realized. This is a good thing. But for now, we're in the awkward transitional phase.
1
Why not just M.? Let's try M, F, T! Or, how about no salutation at all? This may offend some in the medical profession. But they have been offending us for years!
No titles please unless earned. Thus Hardwick or Jenner, but President or Dr. or Congressperson or Senator or both first and last names as in Meryl Streep.
1
Oh, brother! (Or should I say, "oh, sibling"?)
2
Some decades ago, on a visit to a scientific trade show in Frankfurt, I was introduced to "Herr Doctor Professor Heinkle". (I may not have the name right, my attention span was exhausted by the time it was spoken.)
2
In the early 1970s, I and about a dozen students, wholly ignorant of transgender identification, were employed in Cambridge, Mass. to write term papers, dissertations, a variety of scholarly reports by a delightful, friendly, brilliant loving person whom we all addressed as "Aristotle." Not one of us knew with certainty if Aristotle was male or female. Mx might have been the perfect title. Mx might have approved. Mx would surely have laughed. Mx died homeless in Boston or NYC.
Why not refer to the transgendered as TBD?
5
The writer correctly notes that neither "Ms" nor "Mx" is an abbreviation, therefore, it is incorrect to follow them with a period.
1
I'd like to see an in-depth article exploring why, psychologically, people have such a need to divide--and rank--humanity by sex.
1
How often is mx used in common conversation? How about giving more consideration to your readers.
2
I and a good deal of folks in my social circle all use they/them pronouns - it isn't strange, it takes about two days to get completely acclimated to, and I expect it'll travel to the rest of society as normal within a year.
yawn
3
Mx is my abbreviation for Mexico, and i used it first, so get off it.
2
MX is the designation for Missle-Experimental
As in: the MX Missle system.
As such, the designation MX is phallocentric and toxically masculine.
Now I need a safe space because this article should have had trigger warnings for gender-based social warriors living in gender fluid, sexual binary, intersectional spaces. Or something like that.
(As parody approaches reality, we are reaching a pivot point. I hope we wake up from this lunacy, soon.)
As in: the MX Missle system.
As such, the designation MX is phallocentric and toxically masculine.
Now I need a safe space because this article should have had trigger warnings for gender-based social warriors living in gender fluid, sexual binary, intersectional spaces. Or something like that.
(As parody approaches reality, we are reaching a pivot point. I hope we wake up from this lunacy, soon.)
4
This would be a good real world example to cite when reading Donald Davidson's "A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs."
Which is to say that there is philosophical meat on these journalistic bones.
Which is to say that there is philosophical meat on these journalistic bones.
I'm not sure it is accurate to say that Ms. was not a contraction as Mr. and Mrs. are. I seem to recall that it was simply an outmoded alternative contraction of Mistress, the same word that Mrs. and Miss. derive from. I believe if you check you will find it simply an obsolete courtesy title smartly recalled and repurposed for a changing world.
The bulk of comments here appear to be prodding the Times to take the long-overdue step of dropping honorifics entirely. I agree. In addition to solving the gender-nonpreference problem, this would also eliminate the dutiful honoring of barbaric mass murderers like Mr. Farook and Ms. Malik with the respectful references.
3
Beginning immediately, a worldwide name registry should be established by the United Nations. Each newborn person will then be assigned a single eight-letter name in sequence beginning with AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAB, AAAAAAAC, etc. No ambiguity, no assumptions, no meaning, no humanity. Done!
1
bubba works for me.
2
How one prefers to be addressed has been fascinating for quite some time. In the 1980s, I knew an Asian-American women who was married to a European-American, and she went by "Ms. [obviously Asian family name]-[husband's obviously European family name]" (e.g., Takahashi-Jones). I couldn't help snickering a little bit. She preferred the title Ms. even though her preferred name made it patently obvious that she was married. Let's do like the Indonesians and use just one name. No problem there, right?
Too old to change and not going to. If someone is confused about their own biology or wants to change genders fine. Don't confuse the rest of use with silly new titles. This is totally ridiculous and thought up by someone with way too much education and time on their hands. Trying working on world peace!
5
The headlong rush to erase gender markers from our language is surely as wrong-headed as canonizing Kaitlyn Jenner as Courageous Person of the Year.
8
Why not "M?!"?
It is, as demanded, neutral and impossible to guess, that's what the question mark signifies.
An the exclamation mark? It is a protest, demand for recognition, amendment of past injustices, etc.
It is, as demanded, neutral and impossible to guess, that's what the question mark signifies.
An the exclamation mark? It is a protest, demand for recognition, amendment of past injustices, etc.
1
"M" = monsieur in French.
How does the NYT very specifically define the term transgender? Any fact-based, scientific/biological reasoning will be appreciated.
3
Mx. is not just used by transgender people, genderqueer people as well also choose to use the term. Genderqueer is not trans*.
I have long enjoyed Mr. Corbett's articles on usage which appear every Tuesday in the Times. He has good sense and a good ear. Here, unfortunately, he is firing a warning shot across the bow of those of us who have hoped that the Times, whatever its failings, would at least continue to uphold reasonable standards of cultivated English usage. Thus we may expect to see a continuation of the mutilations of English introduced by the more radical academic feminists many years ago. A simple example of this is the substitution of "gender", a purely grammatical term, for "sex", a biological term. There is a reason for this. The proto-feminists recognized that "sex" reinforced the view that differences between male and female were innate, and not socially constructed, as their doctrine required. Their elegant solution was to relegate "sex" to being merely a vulgar synonym of sexual intercourse, and to redefine the more neutral "gender" to replace it. Now, of course, we are being told that the bipolar "gender" is far to simple to describe the various "identifiers" such as GLBT. . . which are soon to be as long as the human genome. Most of you will probably think that I am obsessing over trivia. I suggest that you read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", or other writers who have shown that the mutilations of the language of Goethe and Schiller and the hideous coinages (EinsatzGruppen) introduced by the Nazis had a great deal to do with their barbarism.
2
I am proud of who I am. As a young student I was referred to as Miss. I was proud of my title Mrs. when married. After my husband passed away, I became Ms. The title in front of my name - Mx is an insult. It is not "politically correct" - the recent "politically correct" movement another issue for another writing....... I do not want to be classified as a "non-gender" As a business woman, mother, grandmother - I am a woman and proud of it.
3
And I did just wonder if the new Facebook baby's gender absent name Max was carefully chosen....
1
Does this mean that Malcolm X would henceforth be referred to as Mx. X? If I were divorce my beloved spouse, would shx be my ex-Mx.? Would I ever again celebrate X-mas with my ex-Mx? Or share a couple of Dos XXs together at our favorite Tx-Mx? And, since we'd no longer be Mx. and Mx., if shx were to pass, could the executrix nix a fix untangling the mix of our favorite pix? Please xplain. Xtremely Yours, All Mx.'d Up
3
Clearly, the nation's opinion makers seem to feel they have nothing better to do than to spin out cute little pronouns such as "ze" and "xe," perhaps hoping for mention in the next Jeff Besos Dictionary of Modern English. In fact, the solution has been around all along - It. We should refer to modern humans in the same way we refer to other mammals, as "its" rather than "whos (Horton notwithstanding). This will also free us from the feeble minded practice of referring to individuals as "they."
2
Not much light shed here on what to do with the pronoun. "They" is certainly ungrammatical. How could I ever again penalize a student for a lapse in agreement? It would be better to simply repeat the name with whatever title (or not title at all). While this sounds awkward, it is technically correct. Now on to the question of people who change their names, something still done with considerably more frequency than changing genders.
1
As a regular and imperfect, white, straight, liberal lad I find myself stumbling around this issue.
I hear people say things like "He, she, it" when referring to Caitlyn Jenner, for instance, and I am pretty sure that no one wants to be called "it".
I personally like the combination of Mx and Ze or Xe simply because I want to be able to be respectful and not sound like a fool in the attempt.
Well, I might sound like a fool anyway, but at least I will be a try-hard fool. Good on The New York Times for opening the discussion.
I hear people say things like "He, she, it" when referring to Caitlyn Jenner, for instance, and I am pretty sure that no one wants to be called "it".
I personally like the combination of Mx and Ze or Xe simply because I want to be able to be respectful and not sound like a fool in the attempt.
Well, I might sound like a fool anyway, but at least I will be a try-hard fool. Good on The New York Times for opening the discussion.
2
There used to be the pronoun M. Is that French maybe? Anyway, seems like by FAR the simplest solution.
1
I'm saddened to see so many of the top comments on this article considering the use of preferred pronouns and articles a frivolity. While it may only be relevant for a small proportion of the population, the substitution of a single letter here and there is a trivial inconvenience to the reader compared to the potential emotional benefit -- or at least avoided emotional harm -- to the individual being described.
In seeking an ethical use of language, we should consider the greater good of the greater number, and while the greater number may be ever so slightly benefited by simpler language, the greater good lies clearly on the side of writing about people in a way that avoids devaluing them. Your discomfort at finding a word you are unfamiliar with (oh horror of horrors!) should be weighed against the much greater discomfort a person would feel seeing at being described inaccurately.
In seeking an ethical use of language, we should consider the greater good of the greater number, and while the greater number may be ever so slightly benefited by simpler language, the greater good lies clearly on the side of writing about people in a way that avoids devaluing them. Your discomfort at finding a word you are unfamiliar with (oh horror of horrors!) should be weighed against the much greater discomfort a person would feel seeing at being described inaccurately.
3
Never thought about it, but those of us with earned or vocational honorifics, such as Dr., Lt., Rev. and many others, have long been liberated from the supposedly awful chains of gender ones, like Mr., Mrs. or Ms. I'm not, for example, Mr. Dr. Stein.
If some of us can exist in this neutral environment without incurring social stress, it should be possible for everyone else to shed their unwanted prefixes as the philosophical police propose. There is, in nearly all situations in life or in print, no need at all to identify yourself as male, female, married, unmarried, juvenile, or any of the awkward new mashups. The confusion that results in print when a first name is ambiguous or foreign probably deserves to remain confusing.
So, kiddies, dig out your old quilted Mao unisex outfits, stop using your tell-tale first names. Let's all get down there with pet animals and pop performers. It will be no more unsettling than, say, a Korean phone book consisting of an extreme shortage of 'last' names....
And pretty soon, your smartphone will get you into the appropriate washroom.
---Answering to 'hey, you' in Connecticut.
If some of us can exist in this neutral environment without incurring social stress, it should be possible for everyone else to shed their unwanted prefixes as the philosophical police propose. There is, in nearly all situations in life or in print, no need at all to identify yourself as male, female, married, unmarried, juvenile, or any of the awkward new mashups. The confusion that results in print when a first name is ambiguous or foreign probably deserves to remain confusing.
So, kiddies, dig out your old quilted Mao unisex outfits, stop using your tell-tale first names. Let's all get down there with pet animals and pop performers. It will be no more unsettling than, say, a Korean phone book consisting of an extreme shortage of 'last' names....
And pretty soon, your smartphone will get you into the appropriate washroom.
---Answering to 'hey, you' in Connecticut.
1
I'll give this issue serious thought when The Times begins to use other titles and honorifics properly, such as "Dr." for Ben Carson and "Sir" for Paul McCartney.
16
"Dr." in Carson's situation is not an honorific—it's a professional title or an indication of training "Physicians are the ones who gave the term "doctor," a bad name." Until fairly far along in the 19th century, the honorific had been reserved for doctors of philosophy, who no longer use the honorific because it was coopted by those flashy types. "Sir" IS an honorific, as is "Rev." Traditionally, the most formal wedding invitations did not use honorifics, at all—only the given names and social stature of those involved in the event or ceremony. The whole business is rather show-offy, and physicians are the worst, but not the only of those who insist on these titles.
1
They have their own style book. "Properly" is relative.
When these courtesy titles are substantively relevant to the article, they are used (see http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/23/us/politics/with-ben-carson-the-doctor... and here http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/arts/music/03mccartney.html, respectively). Otherwise they are not and rightly so.
1
Instead of adopting Dick Tracy-sounding titles, why not just drop them completely? The world is no longer formal and people can be called by their first or last names. When I am in the South, I am referred to as "Miss Lynn," otherwise it is "Lynn" or "Ms. In DC," and all of these are fine. Mx is a nonstarter and I would not like it added to my name.
22
This is common practice in more socially advanced cultures like Scandinavua.
It’s ironic. For decades I've objected to "titles" not because they sometimes indicate sex (many, like Dr. or Rev., are sex-neutral) but because I'm disturbed by the notion that in order to refer to someone you have to classify him or her into *some* subset of humanity. Now that someone's finally trying to eliminate the sex distinction, they're just picking a different subset: people of indeterminate sex. Why can't we, like the Scandinavians, stop slicing and dicing the human race? If we must use a title, let's invent one that applies to everyone.
It’s ironic. For decades I've objected to "titles" not because they sometimes indicate sex (many, like Dr. or Rev., are sex-neutral) but because I'm disturbed by the notion that in order to refer to someone you have to classify him or her into *some* subset of humanity. Now that someone's finally trying to eliminate the sex distinction, they're just picking a different subset: people of indeterminate sex. Why can't we, like the Scandinavians, stop slicing and dicing the human race? If we must use a title, let's invent one that applies to everyone.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the article essentially states that no change will occur to make Ms. In DC the new, more correct Mx. In DC should Lynn identify as a woman. The Times, traditional as it is, uses titles before the last name after the first reference of the name in an article. In AP Style, contrastingly, authors use last name alone after first reference of the full name. I believe it is important that the Times continue this tradition for as long as it is societally acceptable. It is at the same time reverent to all and more egalitarian with those who have been deemed "Dr" or "Sir."
Is anyone proposing adding it to your name? This is a title specifically for people who have rejected gender specific titles. If you haven't indicated such a preference, there is no reason to expect that it would be applied to you (as the article makes quite clear.)
1
Why even bother with the Mx. in these situations. Hardwick could have just as readily been used.
When quoting or referring to younger children, we don't refer necessarily to Master John, and Miss Betty which were used for hundreds of years.
The formality for naming adults is also not required in all instances. Just take the introduction to this article, "Philip B. Corbett is the associate masthead editor for standards." No requirement for Mr. or Mx. here.
When quoting or referring to younger children, we don't refer necessarily to Master John, and Miss Betty which were used for hundreds of years.
The formality for naming adults is also not required in all instances. Just take the introduction to this article, "Philip B. Corbett is the associate masthead editor for standards." No requirement for Mr. or Mx. here.
11
The Times's Manual of Style ... pictured ... calls for honorifics on the second mentions. You'll notice in the quoted text that "Mx." isn't used on the first reference of Senia Hardwick, either. AP Style has done away with honorifics, so for their secondary references they will just use the last name.
The Times uses Mr. and Ms. in accordance with their own manual of style. This contrasts the AP's use of just the last name after first reference of the full name in an article. Philip B. Corbett is fine on first reference (you'll note that Senia Hardwick is not given a title at first reference, either), but after that he would be a Mr. Corbett throughout the article. This is where the Times must use the term associated with the person's gender identity, or in the case that the person's identity is not traditional, the person's preferred title.
In using Mx, it sounds as though the individual is mixed up....
When i compare the New York time to the french news paper, i am always surprise by the use of Ms. or Mr. in the front of the name. Le Monde doesn't often use it. So then i read Ms. "...." or Mr. " ", i find it so polite, almost outdated, that i have never imagined that somebody could be offended and claim his/her or its neutral gender word. But my opinion is influenced by my culture which is French and also very patriarchal. Furthermore, i hope that Mx. Senia Hardwick insist to be assigned as neutral race to. Coherence "oblige"
5
Regarding pronoun usage, why not use "se" from French/Spanish reflexive verb. "Se" is gender neutral.
12
I have long been an advocate of that position. Or just accept "they" as suitable for singular as well as plural.
The Mx. title sounds like a good option for transgender, gender queer, gender neutral or gender non-conforming individuals to use, it will be interesting to see it this term gains traction in common usage.
12
What is a "gender queer," and how is it different from a traditional queer?
1
MX, standing for Missile Experimental, was the early name of the Peacekeeper Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.
2
Dump all this flummery and title everyone "Citizen".
23
Or comrade
1
But what if you're an anarchist? I think everyone should be called Late for Dinner, myself.
1
Citizen disappeared ages ago in favor of "consumer".
Capitalism run amok.
As for Mr., Mrs., Ms. or Mx. Drop them all.
Capitalism run amok.
As for Mr., Mrs., Ms. or Mx. Drop them all.
1
what's the point of the title Mx if it doesn't do anything to identify the person?
38
Perhaps it's time to stop thinking that Mr. and Ms. do give you information about a person.
It does identify the person... as a person not wanting to be identified by their gender.
1
As compared to gender specific titles, which narrows it down to half the population?
At this point the portion of the population that rejects gender specific titles is tiny, so their use is much more specific than gendered titles.
At this point the portion of the population that rejects gender specific titles is tiny, so their use is much more specific than gendered titles.
The only certainty is that the NYTimes will take the pusillanimous path, wherever it may lead.
19
Since Ms is not an abreviation no period should be added,likewise Mx should not have a period, unless you are referring back to the wombman.
8
Good luck with that argument.
1
M. for the neutral title and e for the 3rd person singular - much easier than the unpornounceable ze or xe.
9
excellent solution.
Yes, I've seen, and used, "M." occasionally over the years in business correspondence when there was no way to know the gender of the person being addressed. At least in writing, it seems to satisfy the need for an impersonal and courteous way to address someone. But how would it be pronounced?
Science fiction writers have been dealing with this issue for many years in a variety of clever and reasonable ways -- because some worlds have different gender identities and types than our world. Ze is one pronoun often used to indicate one between genders. The possessive would be. Xe is another I've seen used. It's not rocket science. Decide on a 'non-gender' set of pronouns and titles and then formalize them and put them in the style book.
6
I think it's unfortunate, but I find myself using "they" and--especially--"their" with a singular but gender non-specific antecedent to avoid the clumsiness of "his or her/him or her." I dislike "their" less than the emerging alternation of genders--"Will everyone please take out her pencil and put it on top of his desk?" At least we all agree that the antiquated patriarchal rule that 'his' covers all persons, regardless of their gender or genders is no longer tenable. No progress without pain, I suppose.
12
And "their" and "they" was used in that manner in English prior to the late 19th century, for instance by Chaucer and Shakespeare. If it worked for the Bard, you should fee no shame.
Just use their last names when writing about those who identify as transgender. Enough with politically correct tyranny. Our insane murder rate shows that America has more pressing concerns.
23
With all due respect to Mr. Corbett, I highly doubt that there is much overlap between the editors of a newspaper and those individuals who are going to be essential to fixing the gun crisis in America. Since it's not going to do any harm, why not do our best to be decent to people, no matter if they're transgender or cisgender?
1
It is fallacious to believe that because major problems exist, we shouldn't also pay attention to minor problems. Why not try to solve both?
1
As a member of the SLGBTQCA community, I approve.
4
If we want a gender neutral prefix, why not just use "M."
21
Ridiculous.
31
Only one mistake here - Mx is not a transgender pronoun. It is a pronoun that is also increasingly adopted by women who do not want to stick to the traditional terms.
7
Pronoun? Honorific?
Or men. I'd rather have a non-gendered pronoun even if I'm internally and externally recognized as a man.
How about " Ns " for " not sure " ?
32
Or IC, for "I'm confused."
1
Yes, but how do you pronounce it?
They are sure. That's the point.
The Quakers solved this problem among a couple centuries ago by using full names without titles or "Friend," as in "Excuse me, Friend, but Friend Jones here has a concern with what Friend Smith said about that.
Using such a term with someone who is not your friend might seem strange, but no stranger than using Mr or Mrs with someone who is not your master or mistress. It could be abbreviated as Fr or Fd or just "F." if you like.
The Quakers adopted this form to show their benevolence to all people, and the equality of all persons. Not bad reasons.
Using such a term with someone who is not your friend might seem strange, but no stranger than using Mr or Mrs with someone who is not your master or mistress. It could be abbreviated as Fr or Fd or just "F." if you like.
The Quakers adopted this form to show their benevolence to all people, and the equality of all persons. Not bad reasons.
60
I like this. They used "Friend" in my son's preschool, and it worked really well. The kids weren't confused by it at all, and, as it turned out, the class did always socialize really well together.
2
I was raised in a Catholic family. When I was 16, I started to question my beliefs, and I went through a number of different denominations and views until I eventually ended up being atheist. During that time, however, I spent a few months as a self-proclaimed Quaker.
While I have since disavowed religion, I still show some of the trappings of Quakerism. I think the world would be a much better place if more people adopted nonhierarchical, egalitarian, pacifistic, and socially just views similar to the Quakers'.
While I have since disavowed religion, I still show some of the trappings of Quakerism. I think the world would be a much better place if more people adopted nonhierarchical, egalitarian, pacifistic, and socially just views similar to the Quakers'.
1
How many Mxs can dance on the head of a pin?
12
I am not transgender, I am a heterosexual female, and I have always objected to gendered titles, just as I object to titles indicating marital status. If you think about it, the fact that these two elements of identity have always been called out when addressing a person speaks countless volumes about how people have either been privileged or oppressed according to gender or marital status (especially women with regard to the latter). I applaud ANY measure that works toward erasing this antiquated system of viewing identity, and I would welcome the usage of "Mx." or some other non-gendered term even in addressing me. I started using "Ms." as a teen because I think women are still far too judged and scrutinized according to marital status, and taking a step further that would indicate that gender has become irrelevant could only be a step in the right direction. Bravo, NYTimes, and keep leaning forward!
37
Excellent. Have a Recommend or 2.
1
If women are "still far too judged and scrutinized according to marital status," why do they insist on wearing that ring?
1
Why not just "it" ?
9
Like the Addams Family - I like it.
Why not just dehumanize someone because they are different?
2
Good Lord! Our streets are filled with blood and the Middle East is a shambles and we're worried about "Mx" vs "Ms or Mr"? Talk about "majoring in the minors"...
50
...and yet, the Times has managed to cover other stories besides this one, with far more column inches, because it contains multitudes.
I like that the Times and Mr. Corbett explain their standards and thinking underlying their style choices. And if it could be shown to diminish somehow the amount of coverage given to the Middle East or violence, you'd have a very good point. But it's not a zero-sum game here, especially when you access the Times online and don't have to worry about what fits into the dead-tree edition.
I like that the Times and Mr. Corbett explain their standards and thinking underlying their style choices. And if it could be shown to diminish somehow the amount of coverage given to the Middle East or violence, you'd have a very good point. But it's not a zero-sum game here, especially when you access the Times online and don't have to worry about what fits into the dead-tree edition.
1
I think we should stop appending letters after our names to demonstrate our self-perception of superiority over others.
5
And you feel the need to have no less than 11 letters following your name to denote your identity (and I assume when speaking, you're the type for whom no less than "Doctor" will do).
Your suggestion that there are more important things to consider than addressing people respectfully is called the "fallacy of relative privation"-- that caring about treating people with respect in one regard will somehow diminish caring about something unrelated in some other regard. Don't forget about the starving children, Doctor.
Your suggestion that there are more important things to consider than addressing people respectfully is called the "fallacy of relative privation"-- that caring about treating people with respect in one regard will somehow diminish caring about something unrelated in some other regard. Don't forget about the starving children, Doctor.
6
It opens the door for people who want to bully others, to "accidentally" address someone as Mx.
5
I think people will think the "Mx" person is Mexican. What if we referred to everyone as "M" to signify that they are a human adult, and "m" for human children?
2
Good for the Times for attempting to handle this issue in a professional and respectful manner. Mr. Corbett wrote that the newspaper isn't trying to foist any practice on society and wants to reflect current practices. I understand that, but the Times has often been a leader in paving the way for just and humane practices.
Good luck on that pronoun policy. I know it will be difficult, but I have faith you all will eventually find a responsible solution.
Meanwhile, perhaps your readers will find the following interesting. It is an episode from the animated documentary "Injunuity" I recently saw on PBS. This episode deals with the Native American tradition of not immediately assigning one a gender and allowing for both in one individual.
http://www.injunuity.org/#!/show/3
Good luck on that pronoun policy. I know it will be difficult, but I have faith you all will eventually find a responsible solution.
Meanwhile, perhaps your readers will find the following interesting. It is an episode from the animated documentary "Injunuity" I recently saw on PBS. This episode deals with the Native American tradition of not immediately assigning one a gender and allowing for both in one individual.
http://www.injunuity.org/#!/show/3
6
I've never understood of "courtesy titles." Why is it anyone's business if I"m married or not? And the term Ms...exactly what does that mean and why?
2
Well, Ms came about because everyone agreed with you that your marital status is no one's business. So neither Mrs. nor Miss, but Ms. I don't know the history, but I imagine that particular form came about because both of the traditional titles (Mrs and Miss) have both an "M" and an "s", so combining the two was thought to be an elegant solution, much as "hen" is an elegant solution to the problem of a gender neutral pronoun in Swedish. (It sounds silly in English, but "han" is Swedish for "he", and "hon" is Swedish for "she", so "hen" is an obvious candidate for a gender neutral pronoun.)
Well, this is certainly a fascinating problem that we have created, and now ponder how to solve. I had a cantankerous middle school teacher who taught us grammar mercilessly, down to diagramming arcane sentences. Of the pronoun "one", she would say that one refers to it using the possessive male gender; "One gets *his* coat," she emphasized. "It's a man's world," she explained to us thirteen-year-olds back then. There's also some problem for Mx. Hardwick to find a gender-free possessive, but that's another conversation he or she or ? will have.
The honorifics "Mr.", "Mrs." and of late, "Ms." are culturally derived. ("Ms." is an obvious addition.) They have gender orientation, but the practice of using them certainly can be modified.
In the case of "Mx." (it does recall that wonderfully controversial missile), it becomes a self-chosen title, a *choice* not to be recognized as having a gender. I'll yield to the biologists whether or not everyone inevitably has a gender that is not by choice.
It raises the question whether we need now recognize individuals by sex; if one thinks further on this, he might well question if there is any use for a gender classifier in a greeting. If I am addressing Mr. or Ms. Bob or Elizabeth Tischbein, I can just as easily use the honorific term "Mx.". They might respond, "Huh?"
Thus if we are going to adopt the term "Mx." then it needs to be adopted universally, dispensing with "Mr." and "Ms.". That's going to be tough to pull off.
The honorifics "Mr.", "Mrs." and of late, "Ms." are culturally derived. ("Ms." is an obvious addition.) They have gender orientation, but the practice of using them certainly can be modified.
In the case of "Mx." (it does recall that wonderfully controversial missile), it becomes a self-chosen title, a *choice* not to be recognized as having a gender. I'll yield to the biologists whether or not everyone inevitably has a gender that is not by choice.
It raises the question whether we need now recognize individuals by sex; if one thinks further on this, he might well question if there is any use for a gender classifier in a greeting. If I am addressing Mr. or Ms. Bob or Elizabeth Tischbein, I can just as easily use the honorific term "Mx.". They might respond, "Huh?"
Thus if we are going to adopt the term "Mx." then it needs to be adopted universally, dispensing with "Mr." and "Ms.". That's going to be tough to pull off.
6
Your use of the question mark suggests an interesting possibility!
Biologists know "sex", not gender. The rest of the people don't have any idea of the difference, anymore, alas.
7
In my experience, nothing clarifies one's understanding of grammar and content better than diagramming sentences. Diagramming was all we ever did in our long-ago English classes from the third through the ninth grade in the public schools of West Virginia. In the fifth grade, our class was given a standardized test on reading comprehension: the slowest child among us was the only one to score at grade level; everyone else rated 12th grade or college level. In the sixth grade, we diagrammed the preamble to the Constitution; in the ninth grade, learning Latin was a snap. The soul of grammar is logic; look at what has become of us without it.
3
Why not just M? Mx. is odd because of the X, not a good association.
14
I agree, 'M.' sounds much better.
For the gender neutral pronoun, how about 'se'?
For the gender neutral pronoun, how about 'se'?
1
I think the problem is that M. is the common abbreviation for "monsieur" in France and Francophone countries, so it risks being read that way, as in M. Hercule Poirot.
4
Because that gets confused with the abbreviation "Monsieur" in French, if I recall correctly.
.
.
Mx. Corbett:
Thanks for this. Interested readers may find that http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/the-times-and-transgend... provides some more history of the issue. In brief, Public Editor Sullivan says there that (until the issue is settled and broadly-understood) NYT pieces using "Mx." or "xe" should be preceded by a short Editor's Note explaining the nonstandard usage.
I have two questions pertaining to gendered/nongendered references.
1. When "Ms." hit the scene, there was probably some dispute over whether punctuation was called for. "Ms." is not an abbreviation of anything (contrast Mrs., Mr., Mlle., Msgr., and etc.); neither is "Mx." Are we stuck with periods at the end of honorifics, in your opinion as a keen observer of the language?
2. I have often read bylined pieces in the Opinion section about political candidates. The norm seems to be for an initial reference to Carly Fiorina to read "Carly Fiorina", for an initial reference to former Governor John E. Bush to read "Jeb Bush", and for an initial reference to Senator Bernie Sanders to read "Bernie Sanders". But with surprising frequency, the initial reference to former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is "Hillary". This raises the questions: Why? (It can't be a nod to her campaign signs, because Mr. Bush's signs say "Jeb!") Also, should I expect opinion writers to use "Colin" as an initial reference to another former Secretary of State?
Thank you.
.
Mx. Corbett:
Thanks for this. Interested readers may find that http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/the-times-and-transgend... provides some more history of the issue. In brief, Public Editor Sullivan says there that (until the issue is settled and broadly-understood) NYT pieces using "Mx." or "xe" should be preceded by a short Editor's Note explaining the nonstandard usage.
I have two questions pertaining to gendered/nongendered references.
1. When "Ms." hit the scene, there was probably some dispute over whether punctuation was called for. "Ms." is not an abbreviation of anything (contrast Mrs., Mr., Mlle., Msgr., and etc.); neither is "Mx." Are we stuck with periods at the end of honorifics, in your opinion as a keen observer of the language?
2. I have often read bylined pieces in the Opinion section about political candidates. The norm seems to be for an initial reference to Carly Fiorina to read "Carly Fiorina", for an initial reference to former Governor John E. Bush to read "Jeb Bush", and for an initial reference to Senator Bernie Sanders to read "Bernie Sanders". But with surprising frequency, the initial reference to former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is "Hillary". This raises the questions: Why? (It can't be a nod to her campaign signs, because Mr. Bush's signs say "Jeb!") Also, should I expect opinion writers to use "Colin" as an initial reference to another former Secretary of State?
Thank you.
31
Maybe columnists have a wider range to roam in, but I have had letters in the New York Times and they edit names to be in their style in the letters, which is always a full name on first use. In the case of Hillary Clinton, the style was to say Hillary Rodham Clinton on first use, which just changed to Hillary Clinton (without the Rodham) this week.
2
It's a put-down, as you hinted.
I suppose, but what I have a hard time with is non-abbreviations, like Ms. or Mx. used with a following period. As long as we have a residual use of Mr. or Mrs. but have possibly given up on Miss's dot, we just introduce confusion with a mixture of abbreviations with new, standalone designations.
And thank goodness, English, which is unruly enough, does not follow other languages in attributing gender to nouns.
Bad enough that my first grade reader firmly imprinted the concept that all dogs were male, all cats female. (Spot and Puff, of course.)
So tell me: what is Mx. short for?
And thank goodness, English, which is unruly enough, does not follow other languages in attributing gender to nouns.
Bad enough that my first grade reader firmly imprinted the concept that all dogs were male, all cats female. (Spot and Puff, of course.)
So tell me: what is Mx. short for?
5
As much as I've always admired the Times' use of respectful titles such as Mr. and Ms., perhaps it's time to just resort to last names only, as have most other publications.
51
How about a Nx= Do not belong to either sex? Then a sub category would be:
NxA=Do not belong to either sex, but an Adult
NxM=Do not belong to either sex, but a Minor? Hello?
NxA=Do not belong to either sex, but an Adult
NxM=Do not belong to either sex, but a Minor? Hello?
7
As confusing as this all may seem, if one prefers to be addressed as "Mix" so and so, how does this differ from mixing HeShe together?
2
I suggest the NYT throw out its "style manual" and adopt Kate Turabian's. Proper usage of the English language is one of the few things that remains permanent and does not bend under the constant assault of political correctness.
23
By all means. For example, the Times should refer to the presidential candidate as "Mrs. William J. Clinton."
12
Language is anything but permanent. Here's the Times on the history radical idea to create an honorific for women that doesn't depend on their marital status. "Ms." Can you imagine?? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/magazine/25FOB-onlanguage-t.html
14
What?! Tell that to the British. "The Economist" still palaces punctuation inside or outside quotation marks depending upon whether the words inside the marks constitute a quotation or not. Not so the Chicago Manual of Style. And remember, Benjamin Franklin correctly wrote, "God helps them that help themselves" in recognition of the use of "who" and "that" to introduce nonrestrictive and restrictive clauses, respectively. Early editions of "The Elements of Style" taught the distinction, but not recently. Permanent? I don't think so.
2
It's just polite to address people as they might wish.
It's possible, though unlikely, that such civility might spread.
Let's try it.
It's possible, though unlikely, that such civility might spread.
Let's try it.
90
Maybe that civility travels two ways, and another polite gesture might be to not insist that someone address you in a certain special way to prevent you from suffering micro-pain of the identity?
9
Does a newspaper, supposedly dedicated to facts, really want to go down this road? The key issue is the claim that "identifying as" amounts to some kind of fact. I can feel that my gender or sexuality isn't adequately "expressed" by either Mr. or Ms. without "insisting" that others abide by my own opinion about who I am. Easy to see the absurdity that will follow if "identifying as" trumps "being recognized as". I may look like a man in his 60's, but what if I "identify as" a sprite, a unicorn, or a divinity? If I "insist" to a Times reporter that I am one of these, should the Times report that I "identify as" a divinity or simply refer to me as one? Don't functioning societies require some acceptance of conventions or norms? Language itself is a system of conventions and norms. We can only communicate and share a collective world if we're willing to accept that fact.
83
It could be relevant to mention that the subject identifies himself as a deity, and I suppose if he calls himself Lord Burroughs they would put that. ". . .," says Lord Burroughs (as he is known).
3
Without disputing how well our society is functioning, we can expect language, like all social systems, to change over time. Many conventions or norms that we've had - that women should not be allowed to vote, that schools should be segregated by race - have needed to change in order to make our society function better. We're lucky that we now have the convention that people whose needs aren't met by the language of one gender or another can be the authority on how they'd like to be referred to, so that they can feel comfortable and spend their time contributing to society instead of feeling frustrated and upset. Folks who do not identify as male or female are not trying to be identified with another species or quasi-species; they're asking for language that makes them feel more human. If you would feel more human if we called you by a gender-neutral honorific, then we'd be more than happy to. That's an option you have now. Even so, it requires a lot of bravery to voice that preference. Language related to gender is changing around you whether or not your comfortable with it. If you have questions or discomforts, voice them. Ask for clarification. No one imagines that a new usage will be immediately available to everyone, but we should expect of one another that we're willing to amend the systems that make our society function so that everyone can feel as comfortable - and as able to contribute - as they can.
10
Language, along with other social and cultural conventions, evolves. We certainly don't speak the English of Chaucer or Shakespeare, nor do we likely abide by many of the norms of those times. Languages acquire new words and expressions all the time, both to account for new things coming into existence ("computer", "internet") and to give recognition to things that were once not on our radar, or that we ignored, invalidated, or otherwise denied the dignity of a name. That mainstream newspapers (among others) are giving serious thought to adopting vocabulary and forms of address that recognize the 'gender ambiguity' that some of our fellow human beings experience does indeed mean that we are "recognizing" how they "identify", we are accepting and validating their experience, we are taking it as "fact".
13
Yay for this first step. I prefer Mx myself, and I think more people --and not only those of us who identify as neither/both/other-- will do so in such situations where one's sex (like one's marital status) is irrelevant to the question at hand... which, come to think of it, is most times.
24
I don't have a problem with neologisms, but I don't like fracturing grammar by misusing "they" when a singular form is wanted. It's preferable—and easy—to write around grammatical conundrums (in this case, just repeat the name). Preferable because it doesn't draw attention to usage but keeps it focused on the information being conveyed. As Spencer Tracy might have said, "Never let them catch you writing."
16
English once had a distinction between the singular and plural "Thou" and "You". It's telling we did not give up distinctions between "I" and "We". Does it mean I am an individual who gets to treat all of you as a collective? If we now have a word emerging that provides a useful distinction for individuals who do not want their gender identified it might be a bit of a win for recognizing other individuality.
6
I was always under the impression that "thou" was a formal version of you, comparable to "vous" in French, while "you" is the familiar form, similar to "tu." The other Latin languages also have intimate and formal versions of "you". and I assumed that "thou" came over with William of Normandy.
I believe that "ye" is technically the plural of you. Although in some part of the country, that has been replaced with "y'all."
I believe that "ye" is technically the plural of you. Although in some part of the country, that has been replaced with "y'all."
4
You've got it backwards. "Thou" was the familiar form; "you" the formal form.
Drop the title entirely. Most people you to whom you refer in your articles don't deserve any title.
5
'Ms.' is itself a fairly recent convention as opposed to Miss or Mrs., a way to address a woman without making assumptions about her marital status.
4
and without giving importance or making a judgement about her marital status.
4
Sometimes in business you are writing to a person whose name can be either male or female, i.e. 'Dale' or 'Sandy'. I'm always worried that if I get the gender wrong the person I'm writing to will feel insulted. 'Mx' seems like it might be a good solution. As to 'they' when referring to one person, as in "A person often does what they want", they seems more appropriate rather then he or she even though I know that that is the proper usage. A new word might be needed for this situation, but I don't think it's mx.
5
In the article, "mx" is not discussed for use in the manner that you suggest; "xe" or "ze" are (both of which I like for a non-gender-specific pronoun).
2
i like s/he for a gender-neutral pronoun and hir as a possessive....
1
Drop the honorifics entirely. It's well past the time we need to use anything but the name.
16
I like the honorifics. I also like when senators refer to "the gentleman from Ohio." It elevates the conversation and at least uses courtesy as a starting point.
9
The trouble is that honorific are only deemed courteous by some. For others, labels (such as Miss and Mrs.) are used to position one within social hierarchy. Calling a woman a "lady" often does not have a courteous intention. Calling a senator a "gentleman" may seem galling in an article about said "gentleman's" desire, say, to force members of a certain religion to register with the government, hardly a gentlemanly pursuit. We should favor respect above courtesy in all cases.
I prefer to use they as a non-gender singular pronoun. It just sounds better than the endless he or she or some awkward made up word.
3
How about s(he)?
I think that there is a need for a widely accepted, gender-neutral pronoun and courtesy title, not only for individuals who don't identify as male or female but for anyone whose gender is unknown. I encounter this problem in the classroom using journal articles published with only initials or with a given name that isn't clearly male or female. I'm too old-fashioned to easily accept "they" as a singular pronoun, although that seems to be where the language is going, so I arbitrarily assign a gender to authors when I don't know what is correct. I appreciate that the NYT doesn't want to create standards, but I wish that someone would.
16
The problem with randomly assigning a gender to the author of an article is that you gender is an essential part of your experience within the world. An authors gender could potentially change the reading of a journal article, and you are potentially assigning the life experience of being a woman or a man to the content.
4
Eh, if singular "they" was good enough for Jane Austen, it's good enough for me: "You wanted me, I know, to say ``Yes,'' that you might have the pleasure of despising my taste; but I always delight in overthrowing those kind of schemes, and cheating a person of their premeditated contempt."
But if a known individual doesn't identify with a gender or doesn't want their gender known, what is the problem with using these new pronouns? Why does gender ambiguity upset so many people?
But if a known individual doesn't identify with a gender or doesn't want their gender known, what is the problem with using these new pronouns? Why does gender ambiguity upset so many people?
I've never understood why the NYTs uses the word "militant" instead of "terrorist." It's completely insulting to the victims and misdefines events of far greater consequence than gender clarification.
14
The real question is why we should use courtesy titles at all Any implications about social standing or worthiness disappeared long ago, Writing "Mr Hitler" must have felt ridiculous even in the more formal 1940s.
When every man is a gentleman we can save our breath and our ink by not bothering to say so. When every role can be filled by a person of either - in fact any - gender, why is it relevant to identify that one characteristic among many at every reference?
Thank you for this interesting column, Corbett.
When every man is a gentleman we can save our breath and our ink by not bothering to say so. When every role can be filled by a person of either - in fact any - gender, why is it relevant to identify that one characteristic among many at every reference?
Thank you for this interesting column, Corbett.
30
Wonder if this might be relevant: In 1995 I published a book called "God's Country: A Case Against Theocracy" Haworth Press, NY, in which I suggested "en" (short for entity) as a gender-neutral pronoun.
3
But it's also species neutral.
However the Times comes out on this honorific, or on the related pronoun discussion, it is no reason to slip into the bureaucratic imprecision of stringing together nouns separated by slashes, for example, from this piece, "...policy/rule/decision." Which is it? Find the right word, or use punctuation and a conjunction.
5
I like the idea of applying the moniker Mx. to members of “activist centers."
It tips me off to the possibility that I’m about to hear something odd, stupid, disagreeable or ridiculous.
It tips me off to the possibility that I’m about to hear something odd, stupid, disagreeable or ridiculous.
70
This is getting too complicated for me. I still associate Mx with a MIRVed missile that was decommissioned a decade ago.
Using Mx instead of Mr., Ms., etc., obscures and confuses rather than informs. I still think it's important to know whether a person is a man, boy, girl, or woman, and that the Times owes that clarity to its readers even if the subject who wants to be known as Mx disagrees.
Mx is change, not progress. Reserve it for decommissioned missiles.
Using Mx instead of Mr., Ms., etc., obscures and confuses rather than informs. I still think it's important to know whether a person is a man, boy, girl, or woman, and that the Times owes that clarity to its readers even if the subject who wants to be known as Mx disagrees.
Mx is change, not progress. Reserve it for decommissioned missiles.
12
Using your own logic, "...it's important to know whether a person is a man, boy, girl, or woman..." then the Times should use the Mx. because the gender identity of the person is important to you. I assume of course that you realize their biological sex is of no importance whatsoever though (unless the article is about their transition), because one's own personal identity is how one presents oneself to the world. And that informs all of your actions, right?
4
Why do you need to know if for example a job applicant is male or female, black, brown yellow or white? The reason many of us use simple initials is we are quite aware the potential company or client has an image in mind of who they want, and this is discriminatory. US is better than Latin American and Asian countries which require a photo with CV and advertising is permitted to clearly state "we want a señorita between 20 - 35 yrs old. Well what straight guy doesn´t!
5
An especially good idea since missiles have an obvious phallic (male) nature.
2
Why would you admit that you are "not looking to lead the way, set the rules or break new ground?" Are you just going to twiddle your thumbs and not do anything, despite being a widely-read news organization? Language must progress, and if you can adopt a word like "selfie," I think you should be able to adopt words that have been used for decades by people who simply want their existence acknowledged.
3
The Times, ever humble, doesn't want to be accused of considering itself as a self-appointed, contemporary, Dr. Samuel Johnson.
Thanks, Phillip. But it would be easier to drop all honorifics, including Dr. and the Rev.
1
I'm enjoying this ""Tempest in a Teapot".
Just try dropping all honorifics here in Germany. I have a neighbor who is a Prof. Dr. Dr. --- yes, three honorifics! Sometimes I say "Good morning Dr.". Sometimes I say "Good morning Professor". However I would not be so impolite as to not use any title.
From a former New Yorker
Just try dropping all honorifics here in Germany. I have a neighbor who is a Prof. Dr. Dr. --- yes, three honorifics! Sometimes I say "Good morning Dr.". Sometimes I say "Good morning Professor". However I would not be so impolite as to not use any title.
From a former New Yorker
One of Alexander McCall Smith's comic creations is a German professor who is a double doctor, the world's leading authority on Portuguese irregular verbs, if I remember correctly. His double doctor status is a matter of great pride to him, and he would take great offence were one of the "doctors" to be omitted in addressing or describing him.
1
It was helpful to me that you included the pronunciation of Mx. It seems like you should include the pronunciation in any regular articles, at this point, especially the way you've used it.
Thanks for the insights!
Thanks for the insights!
3
I would like to see reporters slip in a pronoun sooner rather than later when writing about non-westerners whose names provide no clue to their gender.
4
The historical record going back to 1912 suggests that Ms. derives from the existing honorific Miss, proposed by first-wave feminists like Fola LaFollette as a marriage-neutral parallel to Mr. Ms. is probably not the blend of Miss and Mrs. that is suggested in the 1970s revival of the term. Mr., in turn, is a shortening of Master, and in current use is marriage neutral. Both Miss and Mrs. derive from the feminine analog of Master, which is Mistress. Though Miss and Mrs. have typically indicated marital status, both terms have been used in reference to unmarried women, and both have also been used to refer to married women. Mx. is anew addition to the mix, and as you say, it's not yet clear whether the form will catch on. We seem to be entering a period where gender nonconformity is more acceptable, so it is possible that invented terms like Mx. and either singular they or an invented common gender third person singular pronoun, may see wider usage and increasing acceptance both by the writing public and by the major style guides.
2
"The Times is not looking to lead the way, set the rules or break new ground."
Yes, I think we're aware of that, Times. With that said, "they" is totally uncontroversial in my opinion. Not only do I use it and hear it used often to refer to an antecedent with ambiguous or nonbinary gender, but it's even used singularly in cases where the antecedent's gender is clearly marked, as this blog post shows: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=22586
And I've also gotta say I think you're crazy for worrying about using Mx. when people want you to use it. Like, what do you lose - I mean, what part of your integrity is compromised - by just referring to a person the way they want to be referred to? Including if they don't want a title at all! If I ever had that *great* privilege of being referred to by the Times, I know I would not want a title to precede my name. Historically that word was all about class hierarchy - I could go on, but I'm sleepy :((
Yes, I think we're aware of that, Times. With that said, "they" is totally uncontroversial in my opinion. Not only do I use it and hear it used often to refer to an antecedent with ambiguous or nonbinary gender, but it's even used singularly in cases where the antecedent's gender is clearly marked, as this blog post shows: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=22586
And I've also gotta say I think you're crazy for worrying about using Mx. when people want you to use it. Like, what do you lose - I mean, what part of your integrity is compromised - by just referring to a person the way they want to be referred to? Including if they don't want a title at all! If I ever had that *great* privilege of being referred to by the Times, I know I would not want a title to precede my name. Historically that word was all about class hierarchy - I could go on, but I'm sleepy :((
1
The NYT was seriously late to the game in embracing Ms., which I believe it refused to use until 1986, so I wouldn't expect it to be a trailblazer here.
3
Oh no- please don't do this. If you're going to start using "Mx", "ze", "xe", and mix up singular and plural at the "insistence" the <<<1% of the population for whom these non-words apply, maybe limit the silliness to a separate, super-PC version of the NYT; or use them only in the NYT "Men's Stockings Section" (NY Metro edition only, please). And I apologize for any micro-aggressions I may be committing here ;-)
44
If a person identifies as a dog should we call them Woof? I know, you're not going to print it, but maybe it will give some of you a good laugh.
25
No, we should call them by their name and the Times should use a courtesy title that aligns with their gender. A person who identifies as a dog does not suddenly lose their name. If someone self-identified as a dog and had the name, "Woof," they would be called "Mr.," "Ms.," "Mrs.," or, "Mx.," Woof.
1
No, I think they would be called Woof Woof
1
Who's afraid of Virginia Woof?
Why do we need courtesy titles at all? Let's just refer to Senia Hardwick as HardwicK. I don't see anything discourteous about that.
6
OK. You're cool
So, we learn that a main Times goal is "to be clear to our readers and avoid distracting them from the main point of an article." Is that what the Times is doing when they use "she" as a supposedly genderless pronoun, which is what "he" actually often is? As in "Not just an average student, she will be a famous scientist," in a context where we know nothing at all about "her," not even her gender. This is not the language as we know it. It is the language that Times writers would like, full of politically correct distractions and posturings, but also, plain and simple, very English.
3
This is the same silliness that is currently afflicting university campuses, and you are seriously considering instituting it in this newspaper?
Luckily for those of us who actually savor the difference between the sexes, there are some inconvenient biological facts that will prevent the desexualizing of society (as if it were even desirable).
Human beings come in two flavors, and two flavors only. Human beings cannot choose whether they are born with a penis or with a vagina. Of course, human beings can pretend to be a member of the opposite sex if they so choose, they can even take it to the point of surgery, but biological men can never, ever become biological women, and vice versa. No amount of "identifying" will change this.
If the Times falls so far over the PC edge that it won't even distinguish between male and female, you will cease being of any use on a planet populated exclusively by males and females - a relative few confused souls notwithstanding.
Luckily for those of us who actually savor the difference between the sexes, there are some inconvenient biological facts that will prevent the desexualizing of society (as if it were even desirable).
Human beings come in two flavors, and two flavors only. Human beings cannot choose whether they are born with a penis or with a vagina. Of course, human beings can pretend to be a member of the opposite sex if they so choose, they can even take it to the point of surgery, but biological men can never, ever become biological women, and vice versa. No amount of "identifying" will change this.
If the Times falls so far over the PC edge that it won't even distinguish between male and female, you will cease being of any use on a planet populated exclusively by males and females - a relative few confused souls notwithstanding.
38
Alas, this is merely wrong.
3
Actually more babies than you can imagine are born intersex. While I tend to agree (pick a side!), I think it's polite to address people as they prefer.
2
"Human beings come in two flavors, and two flavors only."
This is biologically false, and more unequivocally so than any of the claims presented here are biologically true.
"biological men can never, ever become biological women, and vice versa. No amount of 'identifying' will change this."
Assuming this is true: so what? We shouldn't give people the respect of an identity they prefer, because it doesn't fit "biological" reality? Why not, if they aren't hurting anyone and rigid "biological" reality is hurting them?
"If the Times falls so far over the PC edge that it won't even distinguish between male and female, you will cease being of any use on a planet populated exclusively by males and females..."
So many comments about the (entirely abstract) dire consequences of this decision... for the NYT, for language, even for society. How exactly does this slippery slope work? Assuming this decision is objectively, biologically wrong, does that negate all value the NYT might otherwise have?
This isn't really about the NYT's credibility, or biology. It's about people reacting in a less than gracious manner when socially received rules and categories they're comfortable with are challenged.
This is biologically false, and more unequivocally so than any of the claims presented here are biologically true.
"biological men can never, ever become biological women, and vice versa. No amount of 'identifying' will change this."
Assuming this is true: so what? We shouldn't give people the respect of an identity they prefer, because it doesn't fit "biological" reality? Why not, if they aren't hurting anyone and rigid "biological" reality is hurting them?
"If the Times falls so far over the PC edge that it won't even distinguish between male and female, you will cease being of any use on a planet populated exclusively by males and females..."
So many comments about the (entirely abstract) dire consequences of this decision... for the NYT, for language, even for society. How exactly does this slippery slope work? Assuming this decision is objectively, biologically wrong, does that negate all value the NYT might otherwise have?
This isn't really about the NYT's credibility, or biology. It's about people reacting in a less than gracious manner when socially received rules and categories they're comfortable with are challenged.
3
Either I or the New York Times has gone down the "Rabbit Hole"
Why not "Tx" instead of "Mx" so we know it is not a misprint ?
Better, just get rid of pronouns wherever and whenever possible.
Why not "Tx" instead of "Mx" so we know it is not a misprint ?
Better, just get rid of pronouns wherever and whenever possible.
5
Mx.? This is a joke, right?
"What happens when people don't identify as either male or female?"
Three words: First. World. Problem.
Seriously? All that has happened the past few weeks and this is what the NYT "editor for standards" is working on?
"What happens when people don't identify as either male or female?"
Three words: First. World. Problem.
Seriously? All that has happened the past few weeks and this is what the NYT "editor for standards" is working on?
16
@jb: I agree that there are awesomely difficult problems in the world right now, but which of them needs to be addressed by the NYT "editor for standards?"
3
Not really a first world problem when many developing countries (such as Pakistan) have special status and language surrounding people with less clear gender identities.
1
As an artist, with a masters degree in fine arts, and 30 years as a practicing artist,- on the topic of gender's leading edge and it's solemn implications for our society's brave future - one term comes to mind: Artsy-fartsy.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
1
I believe the use in the article is entirely appropriate, given the New York Times elegant style. I look forward to a time when courtesy titles gain greater use in popular culture, including gender-neutral and gender-less versions.
I prefer 'no titles', which would be OK, except that certain
people in congress, demand them.
I pick the most ridiculous titles, like 'commodore', just to fill in this space.
What's wrong with saying the person's name, instead of 'she', 'he' or 'they'? 'They', referring to one person, sounds a little weird.
These 'honorifics' are outdated, don't you think?
people in congress, demand them.
I pick the most ridiculous titles, like 'commodore', just to fill in this space.
What's wrong with saying the person's name, instead of 'she', 'he' or 'they'? 'They', referring to one person, sounds a little weird.
These 'honorifics' are outdated, don't you think?
2
The NYT usage on sex/gender should be revisited with consideration of the actual readership instead of the individual being referenced, in particular, the pronouns of "he" and "she". What do these pronouns refer to - a person's gender or a person's actual sex? In the past, gender and sex were synonymous so the was no ambiguity regarding the pronouns. Now that we are relaxing that standard, the Times is de facto letting individuals state what they want those pronouns to mean; in other words, making up their own definition. This does a tremendous disservice to readers because words have defined standards. I would suggest that the Times consult with the Oxford English Dictionary's definitions of "he", "she", "him", "her", "male", "female" and any other sex/gender term and then use those words accordingly.
For instance:
"male": Of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
"he": Used to refer to a man, boy, or male animal previously mentioned or easily identified.
So, according to the OED, Caitlyn Jenner, being male, should be referred to with "he", not "she".
For instance:
"male": Of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
"he": Used to refer to a man, boy, or male animal previously mentioned or easily identified.
So, according to the OED, Caitlyn Jenner, being male, should be referred to with "he", not "she".
4
I'm sorry but another person's identity is not based on what is convenient or comfortable for you. More importantly, the New York Times has a responsibility to the reader to report on the people involved in story. If they referred to Caitlyn Jenner as 'he' or Pat Califia as 'she' they would not be reporting on the full reality of the people involved. Instead they would be eliding large portions of the pertinent information that help develop the breadth of the story. I wish I could say that I'm sorry that this might make you uncomfortable but I really can't.
6
As for my comfort, this has nothing to do with it. I am not bothered, per se, but this has nothing to do with comfort - it has to do with objective standards and misleading readers.
For instance, if the law says that you stop at a red light, then you need to understand what red is. If everyone else says that red is what we perceive as red, then, when you run a red light, then you can't defend yourself by saying "That light wasn't red; it was tutti frutti."
The words "he", "she", "him", "her", etc have similar objective definitions all related to physical sex. Furthermore, the Oxford English Dictionary, widely regarded as the standard bearer of the English language, defines those words as so. Using these words in a non-standard fashion can mislead readers and thus should be avoided.
For instance, if the law says that you stop at a red light, then you need to understand what red is. If everyone else says that red is what we perceive as red, then, when you run a red light, then you can't defend yourself by saying "That light wasn't red; it was tutti frutti."
The words "he", "she", "him", "her", etc have similar objective definitions all related to physical sex. Furthermore, the Oxford English Dictionary, widely regarded as the standard bearer of the English language, defines those words as so. Using these words in a non-standard fashion can mislead readers and thus should be avoided.
1
There was once also an objective definition for what made someone black or what made someone Jewish but now we can see that it was not so objective. I imagine the same can be said of the "objectiveness" here.
Quaker style: eliminate courtesy titles. Senia Hardwick, tout court.
5
"Some people advocate “they” as a gender-neutral pronoun to refer to a single individual, while others have suggested invented alternatives like “ze” or “xe.”
Live and be well, truly, no matter how you identify, but please don't do this.
Live and be well, truly, no matter how you identify, but please don't do this.
13
Meanwhile, back at the First Draft, Mrs. is making a comeback.
3
As one of the most prominent publications in the world, I believe you should begin using the courtesy title "Mx," unabashedly. Why not lead the way, I say. You mention you've used it a number of times before, so it seems you've decided on an appropriate title, a title apparently suggested by those who identity as such. And I personally think it fits amazingly well.
As for those pronouns... eek.
As for those pronouns... eek.
2
Oh-so politically correct. Also see 'confusing' and 'unnecessary'.
34
@California Man: You give the Times too much credit for political correctness. It took the FOREVER to adopt "Ms/", long after numerous women were using it themselves. (I wish I could cite dates on this.) They occasionally even addressed the issue in editorials, stating that they considered a woman's marital status relevant. They are certainly moving faster now, by even considering that transgender people might or might want to be identified as having one gender or the other, or no gender.
As for "first reference" versus subsequent references, the Times has always been very strict about usage. This once led to a review of a Meat Loaf concert, in which the first reference was "Meat Loaf" and the second was "Mr. Loaf". You have to give them credit for consistency.
As for "first reference" versus subsequent references, the Times has always been very strict about usage. This once led to a review of a Meat Loaf concert, in which the first reference was "Meat Loaf" and the second was "Mr. Loaf". You have to give them credit for consistency.
12
I understand that Prince gave up on his symbol - so that would be available now.
10
Is this the "Silly Season"? Yet another example of the NYTimes fixation on gender and transgender people in particular. Frankly, I'm tired of it.
61
I get the desire to be respectful and inclusive, but please do not allow "they" as a non-gendered personal pronoun. Singular "they" has a long history in English as a singular pronoun for an individual of unknown gender, and to use it for known individuals of no or non-traditional gender is simply confusing.
Pronouns, like prepositions and unlike nouns or verbs, are a closed class of words, meaning it is very hard for new words in that class to enter the lexicon. Getting a new word like xe or ze accepted will already be tremendously difficult; redefining "they" is a very bad way to go.
Pronouns, like prepositions and unlike nouns or verbs, are a closed class of words, meaning it is very hard for new words in that class to enter the lexicon. Getting a new word like xe or ze accepted will already be tremendously difficult; redefining "they" is a very bad way to go.
5
I appreciate both this piece and the original writer's point-blank explanation of Mx. (I might've assumed it was a typo without that). It's good to know the language revolution that accompanied the sexual revolution is alive and well and I generally approve. Mr., Mrs., Ms., and now Mx., are fine with me (especially when "they" are asked).
But while I accept that many youth now use the term "queer" and see it as neutral (another sign of changing language), my experience of it as ultra-pejorative in a Kansas town in the 1960's is far too deeply ingrained for me to ever use it myself. "LGBTQ" is fine, but the full Q-word still pains me deeply.
But while I accept that many youth now use the term "queer" and see it as neutral (another sign of changing language), my experience of it as ultra-pejorative in a Kansas town in the 1960's is far too deeply ingrained for me to ever use it myself. "LGBTQ" is fine, but the full Q-word still pains me deeply.
5
It's ironic when Mr. Corbett says that "In this as in other areas of language and usage, the Times is not looking to lead the way, set the rules or break new ground." Some of us well remember how the Times took forever to finally accept the term "Ms.," long after many women had asked that they do so. (Just as the Times took forever to include same-sex marriages in its weddings pages.) So, no, readers certainly shouldn't look to the Times to "lead the way" in accepting language preferred by transgender people.
7
Always thought of myself as "Hey, you" (hY., for short). Of course there are them (xem?) what might prefer to call me (xe) 'iT.", as in "Tag, you're..."
3