Like senorxs or señor@s. Where the X or @ means ‘o’ or ‘e’ (male) or ‘a’ (female). I like the way they do this.
This has some issues as it doesn’t include non-binary options. I think it’s also more of a protest against the patriarchal nature of the Spanish language which always defaults to the male version in the case where the gender is unknown or a mix.
How is pronounced I don’t really know. People don’t really speak it in practice. It’s more used written.
Spanish is my first language. Spanish defaults to masculine of words, but so do all Latin based languages. Here in the states we see Latinx. In Mexico and South America, “latine” is becoming prevalent.
Linguistically speaking, it’s absurd. Polls in the USA, where Latinx was invented by uncomfortable, uninformed white people to try and be inclusive, show that 93% of the latino / hispanic population either disapprove of or don’t care about it.
As someone with no skin in the game, I don’t understand why people don’t just say “Latin” when they’re speaking English. We already don’t use genders, and routinely ignore plenty of other foreign language rules like plurals (“a cannoli”, for example). I don’t think anyone is going to be confused and think you’re talking about the Italic people annexed by Rome in 338 BC.
Because we’re not Latin - that’s just the language spoken by the Roman empire. In fact, latino is a bit wrong. Something my mom rankled at when I was growing up. Oddly enough, my grandma who got her PhD in Spanish from the University of Habana, didn’t give two shits.
Hispanic refers to “Hispaniola,” the kingdom primarily situated on the Iberian peninsula which had Portugal, Spain, and parts of France in it (to simplify the explanation).
Latino is accepted and fine. Hispanic seems to be fine as well. Latin works, but again, it’s sort of wrongish.
My perspective has always been “if it’s good enough for John Leguizamo to use on HBO, it’s good enough for me.” And he very frequently referred to his ethnicity as Latin in his comedy.
And then a few weeks ago he was on CNN saying Latinx.
Point being, the thing that matters is that the intent is to be respectful. Using the wrong word to offend makes you an asshole, and it doesn’t matter if you’re misgendering someone or denigrating an entire ethnicity. Using the wrong word because it’s ambiguous, or it’s traditional, or you’re not sure is a different matter. Most words were wrong at some point, because language changes. The point is that you treat other humans as people, and not as political targets.
Way to miss the point. None of this is news to me, and prescriptivism is a losing argument. I personally despise the term Latinx–just like I despiss Mx. I wouldn’t default to either. But I’ll call anyone whatever they prefer. If you want to doggedly refuse to accommodate someone just because their preference puts them in a minority, who are you actually helping?
I do not refuse to address people on their preferences. I do believe the conversation about the topic, in general, has gone well beyond what I would consider reasonable.
That’s my point in linking the surveys: for some reason “Latinx” is still being used despite how reviled it is by our community.
Hot take: gendered language doesn’t serve any meaningful purpose and we should just get rid of it. There is no need for inanimate non-gendered objects to have a linguistic gender.
Or, you know, you could just get over it and realize that gender in language is not the same thing as gender in people. There’s one African language, for example, that has 16 different genders.
Also, you are mistaken that linguistic gender doesn’t serve a purpose. It does and there’s a pretty extensive body of linguistic literature on the subject.
Fun fact; as with most of the other Germanic languages, English originally had three genders; masculine, feminine and neuter. They got stripped out of the language for reasons having to do with English history that are too technical to go into right now.
Can you link a layman’s explanation of the value of grammatical gender regarding inanimate objects? After years of learning and being frustrated by French, I had come to the conclusion that grammatical gender was stupid and served no purpose, but I’d love to have a better understanding of its value.
Again, this isn’t coming from a position of “prove me wrong, buttfart”. This is coming from “I’d like to learn more and have a better understanding of something I’m probably just not getting.”
And German still has those genders, and as you rightly said, they have nothing to do with gender identity.
The only issue here is gendered pronouns and other forms of address that rely on the gender of the person being discussed. Nobody cares whether a table is masculine or feminine, but they do care whether your parent’s sibling is a male or female because in many languages, there’s no word to eliminate that information. That’s the issue here, and the solution isn’t to rewrite the entire concept of gender in languages, but instead to introduce and popularize genderless pronouns and titles. I know I hate saying “how many uncles and aunts do you have,” especially since I know that doesn’t necessarily cover all of the person’s parents’ siblings. Give me words like “cousin” so I don’t need to separate people by gender in casual conversation unless it’s actually relevant.
It’s still entirely non-standard, and not explicitly protected under law.
By all means, push the bounds; and I would hope you establish legal precedent. However, there is little that offers prior circumstance; you are still arguing how things should be, rather than how things are right now. Because of that, courts are not a sufficient venue, it must be argued at the political level.
I agree that Mx is made up bullshit, much like “Latinx” is nonsense in Spanish, but the law does not make any such distinction. You cannot be discriminated against in your job based on your sexual identity, even if you identified as an Apache helicopter (“oh yes daddy, let me fuck you in your missile tubes” - “hah, as if you’d even touch the sides”).
I’m merely pointing to that as a ridiculous exception that is still technically valid in this instance. Sexual identity is a protected class, if only in matters of employment.
Frankly, I think it should be a universally protected class, in almost all cases and for all classifications, but it bears mentioning the limitations of the law.
Boy do I have bad news for you about every other word that exists in every single language. There is no word tree we harvest fresh ripe new words from, everything is made up. We are just meat squirting air through our various holes because we like the sounds they make and wish to communicate thought.
Something being made up doesn’t make it bullshit, but something made up by a tiny minority within a minority expecting everyone else to adopt it certainly does.
Is it really so hard to respect a person enough to address them with the courtesy title they ask you to use? Are you in any way inconvenienced by saying “Hello Mx. TWeaK, how are you today”?
No, but unless someone tells me that they want to be referred to as “Mx” I shouldn’t be expected to assume that. Furthermore, when they tell me and my natural response is “Huh?” I shouldn’t be vilified for not knowing what they mean - neither should they be vilified for coming up with a personal definition that suits them better.
It’s a two way street. You’re free to be yourself and to stand out from the crowd, but doing so naturally invites inquesition. Such inquesition is not inherently malicious, even if malicious people are more likely to ask questions.
The reasonable ground is somewhere in between. Noisy people on either side demand that they be seen as right, but the fact is they’re both an insignificant minority with an unobjective opinion. One minority is smaller and more vulnerable, and that should be taken into consideration, but that doesn’t mean everything they say is right.
Question: “I shouldn’t be expected to assume that. Furthermore, when they tell me and my natural response is “Huh?” I shouldn’t be vilified for not knowing what they mean”
Who has ever done this to you. Ever. Who have you met that asked you to address them in a specific way then got pissy at you over it? I’m not saying it didn’t happen, but neither me nor anyone I know nor anyone who knows a person I know has ever had this happen to them.
Also: “and that should be taken into consideration, but that doesn’t mean everything they say is right.”
How can someone be wrong about the courtesy title that they choose to use? Like the entire concept and name ‘courtesy title’ make it pretty clear what they are about.
Who has ever done this to you. Ever. Who have you met that asked you to address them in a specific way then got pissy at you over it? I’m not saying it didn’t happen, but neither me nor anyone I know nor anyone who knows a person I know has ever had this happen to them.
No one. At the same time, people here seem to be getting a little pissy over the thought of asking the question or not immediately accepting any answer - hence my statement in clarification. My statement is confined to the hypotheticals in our conversation, dismissing them out of hand would be hypocritical.
Also: “and that should be taken into consideration, but that doesn’t mean everything they say is right.”
How can someone be wrong about the courtesy title that they choose to use? Like the entire concept and name ‘courtesy title’ make it pretty clear what they are about.
First, my statement that it “doesn’t mean everything they say is right” is meant to cover extreme limits, it doesn’t explicitly refer to things we’ve said but things that could potentially be extrapolated from that. I’m trying to form a concise statement that covers as much as possible.
Second, using a “courtesty title” and even people accepting that does not mean the courtesy title is not “made up bullshit”. People accept bullshit all the time - just look at Trump supporters. It’s only when the made up idea is accepted by a critical mass that it ceases to be bullshit; and even then, it could still be reasonably labelled as bullshit, particularly if it doesn’t have a logical origin.
Maybe “Mx.” as an abbreviation for “Mix” has some logical origin, but at the same time it doesn’t really fit in line with “Mister, Miss, Missus”, and it certainly isn’t established like those terms are nor is it immediately apparent what the abbreviation is short for.
Some measure of rejection should be expected when you’re asking people to adapt their native language to suit yourself. Your personal expression should not dictate how others express themselves in communication; communicating is a mutual process between people, without an agreement on terminology things are neither right nor wrong, it’s all just made up bullshit until we agree - and even then…
Dr. = Doctor. Mr. = Mister. Mrs. = Misses. There is also “Miss”, which has no period because it isn’t an abbreviation.
Mx. = ?.
Is “Mx.” an abbreviation? No? Why does it have a period? You pronounce it phonectically, though we do not do that with Dr. or Mr. or Mrs.?
I don’t oppose the use of gender neutral language, but I don’t think the pronunciation of “Mx.” or the fact that it isn’t an abbreviation is obvious. It conforms to conventions in one way and departs from conventions in another.
Do your classes take place entirely over text? They’re asking how you pronounce that in speech.
Mr. Is short for “Mister” Mrs is short for mistress, but is usually pronounced “Misses”
So how does one pronounce Mx.? Mix or Mixter? Mixes? And sometimes Xs are pronounced like Z, so is it just Mmmz?
Asking how to pronounce someone’s preferred pronouns is entirely reasonable when their preferred pronoun is not a regular part of the English language. I’d rather know how to say something and not offend someone than say it wrong for who knows how long and definitely offend them.
I’m not assuming you would know. Nobody is. If they’re introducing themselves, that’s how you would know. If you are a third party and want to learn for yourself, there is a very easy way to do that.
Your version of “common sense” in this situation only applies to a small minority that naturally extrapolates beyond the meaning of the statement alone.
“Mx.” as a prefix is not in any way established in common vernacular, nor does it easily make sense unless you assume they’re doing something specific that most people don’t do.
However, the law says that anyone is free to do so as they please; you can sexually identify in any way and must not be discriminated against for that in terms of your employment.
It’s not immediately intuitive in my opinion, but it does make sense once you remember that other M- honorifics start “Mi”. Mister, missus, miss. Then it makes sense to follow, mix.
I don’t remember writing that anyone was hateful. Actively trying to be offended, yes. Legitimate questions ask questions like this “So how is Mx pronounced?”. The comment was I replied to intended to mock it, not ask in good faith. But see, you’d have to come to that conclusion by using common sense, so here we are again.
It’s not “fairly simple if you have common sense”. The known abbreviations have been in use for a hundred or more years and are widely known. Everyone knows how to pronounce them, the only curveball is Mrs being misses since it was originallymistress but that word later became associated with cheating and “ladies of the night”.
Mx was made up recently, it stands for nothing AFAIK. They just took the standard M beginning and slapped X on it because X tends to mean “unknown”.
It’s akin to asking you to address me as “Zf. Cat” because that’s what makes me feel comfortable.
They weren’t introduced in anything like an analogous way. Mr and Mrs evolved slowly over decades and even centuries from older forms referring to master and mistress.
I don’t have a strong opinion about Mx either way, but as an amateur linguistics nerd I can assure you that the way it’s been introduced to our lexicon is very different from these much older terms.
Yep, language flows and changes over long periods of time, not through a court order or “marginalized” people screaming “we want our own pronoun that we just came up with to be culturally except! If you don’t comply, you are an insensitive asshole!”
Now you have to remember that for every interaction with me. If you happen to call me sometime else, I’ll grit my teeth and have to correct you or if I’m an asshole, I’ll berate you about it, constantly. You will also have to refer to me as Zf. Cat to everyone you know, regardless of whether or not they know me, or are in my presence.
You should be asking yourself why you assume the person would react angrily instead of just politely correcting the pronunciation. If someone accidentally mispronounces my name I gently correct them, while smiling, and I have never once been offended or take it personally. You also assume it is a heavy burden on others to simply call people what they’d like to be called. When it is not. Being angry over this is not a healthy attitude. It’s simple manners to be considerate of others and that is precisely what the person is asking for, nothing more.
If you have to correct someone about your name/title every single time it gets pretty damn annoying. I met a girl years ago whose name was spelled Remy but pronounced Ray-me she said “I hate my parents for it” (I doubt she actually hated her parents, but hated the fact that they gave her a “bad” name).
The context is Mx. already being used and recognized around the country and around the world. It’s new, but it’s not just something the teacher made up.
Secondly, randomly adding in the letter x to things is not ‘common sense’.
Common sense is the ability to make practical judgments and behave in a sensible way. It’s the knowledge and experience that most people have, or should have.
So my original point still stands. ‘Mx’ is not common sense. Knowing not to play a game of chicken with traffic, is common sense. Maybe this is why common sense isn’t so common anymore, people just appropriate words/phrases to mean whatever they want, instead of what they mean.
This is how we’ve ended up in a world where the word literally no longer means the word literally.
Bitcoin isn’t common sense. NFTs aren’t common sense. Picking fruit in Brazil, sending it to China for packaging, and shipping to Brazil for resale isn’t common sense.
Common sense doesn’t work as a magic guide.
Is it virtue signaling for someone named Benjamin to ask to be called Ben? The request is to know their name. That’s all.
Well see, common sense would have me ask “hm, how do I say that?” then google it, then when I see that it’s simply pronounced “mix” I’d say “oh, okay”. And then go on about my day… instead of ranting about how hard it is to figure out and how angry it should make everyone. But that’s just me.
If it were me, I would probably figure out what the person I’m trying to argue arguing with was actually arguing about. Instead of getting up on a soapbox and pretending like I know what I’m arguing about. But that would take effort.
But you keep using those canned responses you got ready to go.
How do you even say that? “Mexico Smith, can I get a hall pass?”
Here in Spain you see X or @ a lot.
Like senorxs or señor@s. Where the X or @ means ‘o’ or ‘e’ (male) or ‘a’ (female). I like the way they do this.
This has some issues as it doesn’t include non-binary options. I think it’s also more of a protest against the patriarchal nature of the Spanish language which always defaults to the male version in the case where the gender is unknown or a mix.
How is pronounced I don’t really know. People don’t really speak it in practice. It’s more used written.
Spanish is my first language. Spanish defaults to masculine of words, but so do all Latin based languages. Here in the states we see Latinx. In Mexico and South America, “latine” is becoming prevalent.
Linguistically speaking, it’s absurd. Polls in the USA, where Latinx was invented by uncomfortable, uninformed white people to try and be inclusive, show that 93% of the latino / hispanic population either disapprove of or don’t care about it.
Edit: putting this up higher for visibility.
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/11/901398248/hispanic-latino-or-latinx-survey-says
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/us/latinx-gallup-poll-preference-trnd/index.html
Use latine, it already exists in the language
I will refrain. Thanks.
As someone with no skin in the game, I don’t understand why people don’t just say “Latin” when they’re speaking English. We already don’t use genders, and routinely ignore plenty of other foreign language rules like plurals (“a cannoli”, for example). I don’t think anyone is going to be confused and think you’re talking about the Italic people annexed by Rome in 338 BC.
Because we’re not Latin - that’s just the language spoken by the Roman empire. In fact, latino is a bit wrong. Something my mom rankled at when I was growing up. Oddly enough, my grandma who got her PhD in Spanish from the University of Habana, didn’t give two shits.
Hispanic refers to “Hispaniola,” the kingdom primarily situated on the Iberian peninsula which had Portugal, Spain, and parts of France in it (to simplify the explanation).
Latino is accepted and fine. Hispanic seems to be fine as well. Latin works, but again, it’s sort of wrongish.
Edit: putting this up higher for visibility.
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/11/901398248/hispanic-latino-or-latinx-survey-says
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/us/latinx-gallup-poll-preference-trnd/index.html
My perspective has always been “if it’s good enough for John Leguizamo to use on HBO, it’s good enough for me.” And he very frequently referred to his ethnicity as Latin in his comedy.
And then a few weeks ago he was on CNN saying Latinx.
Point being, the thing that matters is that the intent is to be respectful. Using the wrong word to offend makes you an asshole, and it doesn’t matter if you’re misgendering someone or denigrating an entire ethnicity. Using the wrong word because it’s ambiguous, or it’s traditional, or you’re not sure is a different matter. Most words were wrong at some point, because language changes. The point is that you treat other humans as people, and not as political targets.
Sure. 93+% of the others who have weighed in against it don’t matter. Only Leguizamo.
Let me state it clearly: most of us do not like it.
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/11/901398248/hispanic-latino-or-latinx-survey-says
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/us/latinx-gallup-poll-preference-trnd/index.html
Way to miss the point. None of this is news to me, and prescriptivism is a losing argument. I personally despise the term Latinx–just like I despiss Mx. I wouldn’t default to either. But I’ll call anyone whatever they prefer. If you want to doggedly refuse to accommodate someone just because their preference puts them in a minority, who are you actually helping?
I do not refuse to address people on their preferences. I do believe the conversation about the topic, in general, has gone well beyond what I would consider reasonable.
That’s my point in linking the surveys: for some reason “Latinx” is still being used despite how reviled it is by our community.
Latine is so obviously the better choice, but no, 'Muricans have to anglicize it to make it theirs. 🙄
Use latine instead
But I’m in Spain. People here are not Latinos or Latinas :)
Hot take: gendered language doesn’t serve any meaningful purpose and we should just get rid of it. There is no need for inanimate non-gendered objects to have a linguistic gender.
Or, you know, you could just get over it and realize that gender in language is not the same thing as gender in people. There’s one African language, for example, that has 16 different genders.
Also, you are mistaken that linguistic gender doesn’t serve a purpose. It does and there’s a pretty extensive body of linguistic literature on the subject.
Fun fact; as with most of the other Germanic languages, English originally had three genders; masculine, feminine and neuter. They got stripped out of the language for reasons having to do with English history that are too technical to go into right now.
Can you link a layman’s explanation of the value of grammatical gender regarding inanimate objects? After years of learning and being frustrated by French, I had come to the conclusion that grammatical gender was stupid and served no purpose, but I’d love to have a better understanding of its value.
Again, this isn’t coming from a position of “prove me wrong, buttfart”. This is coming from “I’d like to learn more and have a better understanding of something I’m probably just not getting.”
And German still has those genders, and as you rightly said, they have nothing to do with gender identity.
The only issue here is gendered pronouns and other forms of address that rely on the gender of the person being discussed. Nobody cares whether a table is masculine or feminine, but they do care whether your parent’s sibling is a male or female because in many languages, there’s no word to eliminate that information. That’s the issue here, and the solution isn’t to rewrite the entire concept of gender in languages, but instead to introduce and popularize genderless pronouns and titles. I know I hate saying “how many uncles and aunts do you have,” especially since I know that doesn’t necessarily cover all of the person’s parents’ siblings. Give me words like “cousin” so I don’t need to separate people by gender in casual conversation unless it’s actually relevant.
Hot take: person who only speaks English thinks everyone should just speak English.
It’s still entirely non-standard, and not explicitly protected under law.
By all means, push the bounds; and I would hope you establish legal precedent. However, there is little that offers prior circumstance; you are still arguing how things should be, rather than how things are right now. Because of that, courts are not a sufficient venue, it must be argued at the political level.
I agree that Mx is made up bullshit, much like “Latinx” is nonsense in Spanish, but the law does not make any such distinction. You cannot be discriminated against in your job based on your sexual identity, even if you identified as an Apache helicopter (“oh yes daddy, let me fuck you in your missile tubes” - “hah, as if you’d even touch the sides”).
Boo, get new material.
Seriously, sexually identifying as an Apache helicopter? Go back to edgy 2012.
I’m merely pointing to that as a ridiculous exception that is still technically valid in this instance. Sexual identity is a protected class, if only in matters of employment.
Frankly, I think it should be a universally protected class, in almost all cases and for all classifications, but it bears mentioning the limitations of the law.
Boy do I have bad news for you about every other word that exists in every single language. There is no word tree we harvest fresh ripe new words from, everything is made up. We are just meat squirting air through our various holes because we like the sounds they make and wish to communicate thought.
Who wants to meet meat?
If they’d both dressed as Mark Twain they surely would’ve resolved their dispute.
Something being made up doesn’t make it bullshit, but something made up by a tiny minority within a minority expecting everyone else to adopt it certainly does.
Is it really so hard to respect a person enough to address them with the courtesy title they ask you to use? Are you in any way inconvenienced by saying “Hello Mx. TWeaK, how are you today”?
No, but unless someone tells me that they want to be referred to as “Mx” I shouldn’t be expected to assume that. Furthermore, when they tell me and my natural response is “Huh?” I shouldn’t be vilified for not knowing what they mean - neither should they be vilified for coming up with a personal definition that suits them better.
It’s a two way street. You’re free to be yourself and to stand out from the crowd, but doing so naturally invites inquesition. Such inquesition is not inherently malicious, even if malicious people are more likely to ask questions.
The reasonable ground is somewhere in between. Noisy people on either side demand that they be seen as right, but the fact is they’re both an insignificant minority with an unobjective opinion. One minority is smaller and more vulnerable, and that should be taken into consideration, but that doesn’t mean everything they say is right.
Question: “I shouldn’t be expected to assume that. Furthermore, when they tell me and my natural response is “Huh?” I shouldn’t be vilified for not knowing what they mean”
Who has ever done this to you. Ever. Who have you met that asked you to address them in a specific way then got pissy at you over it? I’m not saying it didn’t happen, but neither me nor anyone I know nor anyone who knows a person I know has ever had this happen to them.
Also: “and that should be taken into consideration, but that doesn’t mean everything they say is right.”
How can someone be wrong about the courtesy title that they choose to use? Like the entire concept and name ‘courtesy title’ make it pretty clear what they are about.
No one. At the same time, people here seem to be getting a little pissy over the thought of asking the question or not immediately accepting any answer - hence my statement in clarification. My statement is confined to the hypotheticals in our conversation, dismissing them out of hand would be hypocritical.
First, my statement that it “doesn’t mean everything they say is right” is meant to cover extreme limits, it doesn’t explicitly refer to things we’ve said but things that could potentially be extrapolated from that. I’m trying to form a concise statement that covers as much as possible.
Second, using a “courtesty title” and even people accepting that does not mean the courtesy title is not “made up bullshit”. People accept bullshit all the time - just look at Trump supporters. It’s only when the made up idea is accepted by a critical mass that it ceases to be bullshit; and even then, it could still be reasonably labelled as bullshit, particularly if it doesn’t have a logical origin.
Maybe “Mx.” as an abbreviation for “Mix” has some logical origin, but at the same time it doesn’t really fit in line with “Mister, Miss, Missus”, and it certainly isn’t established like those terms are nor is it immediately apparent what the abbreviation is short for.
Some measure of rejection should be expected when you’re asking people to adapt their native language to suit yourself. Your personal expression should not dictate how others express themselves in communication; communicating is a mutual process between people, without an agreement on terminology things are neither right nor wrong, it’s all just made up bullshit until we agree - and even then…
Like “mix”. It’s fairly simple to most people who have common sense and aren’t actively trying to be offended over nothing.
Dr. = Doctor. Mr. = Mister. Mrs. = Misses. There is also “Miss”, which has no period because it isn’t an abbreviation.
Mx. = ?.
Is “Mx.” an abbreviation? No? Why does it have a period? You pronounce it phonectically, though we do not do that with Dr. or Mr. or Mrs.?
I don’t oppose the use of gender neutral language, but I don’t think the pronunciation of “Mx.” or the fact that it isn’t an abbreviation is obvious. It conforms to conventions in one way and departs from conventions in another.
I pronounce it phonetically precisely because this is not an abbreviation of any word. But honestly I have no idea, this asking.
”Good morning, I am Mx. Vary, your science teacher." That’s it, that’s all you need for the entire year.
Do your classes take place entirely over text? They’re asking how you pronounce that in speech.
Mr. Is short for “Mister” Mrs is short for mistress, but is usually pronounced “Misses”
So how does one pronounce Mx.? Mix or Mixter? Mixes? And sometimes Xs are pronounced like Z, so is it just Mmmz?
Asking how to pronounce someone’s preferred pronouns is entirely reasonable when their preferred pronoun is not a regular part of the English language. I’d rather know how to say something and not offend someone than say it wrong for who knows how long and definitely offend them.
In my area, it is pronounced “mix”.
Switch the scenario a bit: “Dr. = doctor. Wait–dr? How do you pronounce that? Oh, dr = doctor.” Info learned and no conflict needed.
If they’re saying it, they just told you how to pronounce it. That’s my point.
Yeah, but I’m trying to learn for myself, and have never had anyone say it to me.
So you’re not really helping by assuming I should know how to pronounce a new word
I’m not assuming you would know. Nobody is. If they’re introducing themselves, that’s how you would know. If you are a third party and want to learn for yourself, there is a very easy way to do that.
Okay, but like, if you were in their class you would hear them say it to you and then you’d know.
If you actually cared you’d just look it up tbh.
maybe the x is silent? is it pronounced mi, like in the solfege song?
Sure, but Mx. Vary wasn’t fired for using the honorific one time.
Your version of “common sense” in this situation only applies to a small minority that naturally extrapolates beyond the meaning of the statement alone.
“Mx.” as a prefix is not in any way established in common vernacular, nor does it easily make sense unless you assume they’re doing something specific that most people don’t do.
However, the law says that anyone is free to do so as they please; you can sexually identify in any way and must not be discriminated against for that in terms of your employment.
And I thought it is m-ex, like reading the letter “x”.
It’s pronounced emacs
I thought that they were declaring themselves as a mail exchange
I’m more of a ‘vi’ guy.
:q
It’s not immediately intuitive in my opinion, but it does make sense once you remember that other M- honorifics start “Mi”. Mister, missus, miss. Then it makes sense to follow, mix.
I think some people use it one way and others the other. I don’t think there’s one universal correct way.
I’ve heard it both ways. I’m sure no one would be offended either way you say it.
You’re the divisive one here, suggesting people are hateful for having legitimate questions.
It’s so simple, just like Mr. Is pronounced merr.
You’re very much part of the problem.
I don’t remember writing that anyone was hateful. Actively trying to be offended, yes. Legitimate questions ask questions like this “So how is Mx pronounced?”. The comment was I replied to intended to mock it, not ask in good faith. But see, you’d have to come to that conclusion by using common sense, so here we are again.
It’s not “fairly simple if you have common sense”. The known abbreviations have been in use for a hundred or more years and are widely known. Everyone knows how to pronounce them, the only curveball is Mrs being misses since it was originallymistress but that word later became associated with cheating and “ladies of the night”.
Mx was made up recently, it stands for nothing AFAIK. They just took the standard M beginning and slapped X on it because X tends to mean “unknown”.
It’s akin to asking you to address me as “Zf. Cat” because that’s what makes me feel comfortable.
Repeat your argument when the concept of Mr and Mrs were introduced.
Language evolves as we learn new things. Computer used to refer to a person. “We have floppy discs, so why make a new name for CDs?”
They weren’t introduced in anything like an analogous way. Mr and Mrs evolved slowly over decades and even centuries from older forms referring to master and mistress.
I don’t have a strong opinion about Mx either way, but as an amateur linguistics nerd I can assure you that the way it’s been introduced to our lexicon is very different from these much older terms.
Yep, language flows and changes over long periods of time, not through a court order or “marginalized” people screaming “we want our own pronoun that we just came up with to be culturally except! If you don’t comply, you are an insensitive asshole!”
How slowly was the introduction of the word covid? As a linguist, the change of language is the fascination.
Most floppy disks aren’t floppy either, so maybe not the best example.
The argument is “Mr and Mrs are established in society. It is stupid to add Mx.”
Floppy discs were well established. Was it stupid to add CD to our vocabulary?
Actually the floppy part of the disk is inside the plastic case. It’s a floppy piece of magnetic tape.
But that’s a great example of how language evolves - people don’t even know what the name means, and yet they know what it is.
Ok, Zf. Cat :) If that makes you feel comfortable it costs me nothing to be considerate of your preference. See?
Now you have to remember that for every interaction with me. If you happen to call me sometime else, I’ll grit my teeth and have to correct you or if I’m an asshole, I’ll berate you about it, constantly. You will also have to refer to me as Zf. Cat to everyone you know, regardless of whether or not they know me, or are in my presence.
You should be asking yourself why you assume the person would react angrily instead of just politely correcting the pronunciation. If someone accidentally mispronounces my name I gently correct them, while smiling, and I have never once been offended or take it personally. You also assume it is a heavy burden on others to simply call people what they’d like to be called. When it is not. Being angry over this is not a healthy attitude. It’s simple manners to be considerate of others and that is precisely what the person is asking for, nothing more.
If you have to correct someone about your name/title every single time it gets pretty damn annoying. I met a girl years ago whose name was spelled Remy but pronounced Ray-me she said “I hate my parents for it” (I doubt she actually hated her parents, but hated the fact that they gave her a “bad” name).
Except it’s not like that at all, because you just made that honorific up!
Mx. has an actual cultural context outside of their classroom. Sure, it’s new, but it’s not like this teacher just made it up themselves.
“Mx” was also just made up by someone.
So was every word in existence.
What is that context? You failed to include it.
The context is Mx. already being used and recognized around the country and around the world. It’s new, but it’s not just something the teacher made up.
So common sense is dictated now by a few members of niche social media circles?
What is the actual anger you feel?
A few people in our society would like their honorific to be Mx. How does that impact your life?
One, it’s virtue signaling at its best.
Secondly, randomly adding in the letter x to things is not ‘common sense’.
Common sense is the ability to make practical judgments and behave in a sensible way. It’s the knowledge and experience that most people have, or should have.
So my original point still stands. ‘Mx’ is not common sense. Knowing not to play a game of chicken with traffic, is common sense. Maybe this is why common sense isn’t so common anymore, people just appropriate words/phrases to mean whatever they want, instead of what they mean.
This is how we’ve ended up in a world where the word literally no longer means the word literally.
Bitcoin isn’t common sense. NFTs aren’t common sense. Picking fruit in Brazil, sending it to China for packaging, and shipping to Brazil for resale isn’t common sense.
Common sense doesn’t work as a magic guide.
Is it virtue signaling for someone named Benjamin to ask to be called Ben? The request is to know their name. That’s all.
Also, virtue signaling what? I don’t see it.
Bitcoin and NFTs… That’s the counter argument you go with. Fucking Christ…
You’d think someone using the name CaptPretentious would be all in favor of things being made up by niche social circles.
Sorry was I supposed to put my first name, last name, social Security number, and mother’s maiden name as my username?
Well see, common sense would have me ask “hm, how do I say that?” then google it, then when I see that it’s simply pronounced “mix” I’d say “oh, okay”. And then go on about my day… instead of ranting about how hard it is to figure out and how angry it should make everyone. But that’s just me.
If it were me, I would probably figure out what the person I’m trying to argue arguing with was actually arguing about. Instead of getting up on a soapbox and pretending like I know what I’m arguing about. But that would take effort.
But you keep using those canned responses you got ready to go.
Wow, those two letters really shook you. Deep breaths.
My position has fuck all to do with the letters.
But you really need it to be don’t you. Because your canned responses only work if that’s what I’m arguing about.