How many teachers use Mx?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Expecting everyone to advertise a gender doesn't make any sense to me. My children aren't in school to date their teachers.

So should we stop using Mr., Miss, etc.? Just go by surnames?

I would 100% support this.

It's laughable that someone says people shouldn't advertise gender, and doesn't realize that calling someone Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. is.....advertising gender.

It's a bit crazy for anyone to say that using Mr. or Mrs. is "advertising gender" when for 99.9% of adults it's quite obvious which they are - it's about etiquette, and I think most parents would agree that using an honorific with unrelated adults (whether it's e.g. Mr. first name or Mr. last name) is a good (or at least not a bad) habit for kids to develop

Lol. A gendered honorific is advertising gender. Period. You can say that they are otherwise advertising their gender through what they look like, but the gendered honorific ALSO advertises gender.

Literally true, perhaps, but the word “advertise” is misleading in a pejorative way in that phrasing which is what I object to

[Anonymous]

I’ve known 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Expecting everyone to advertise a gender doesn't make any sense to me. My children aren't in school to date their teachers.

So should we stop using Mr., Miss, etc.? Just go by surnames?

I would 100% support this.

It's laughable that someone says people shouldn't advertise gender, and doesn't realize that calling someone Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. is.....advertising gender.

It's a bit crazy for anyone to say that using Mr. or Mrs. is "advertising gender" when for 99.9% of adults it's quite obvious which they are - it's about etiquette, and I think most parents would agree that using an honorific with unrelated adults (whether it's e.g. Mr. first name or Mr. last name) is a good (or at least not a bad) habit for kids to develop

Lol. A gendered honorific is advertising gender. Period. You can say that they are otherwise advertising their gender through what they look like, but the gendered honorific ALSO advertises gender.

man, you would really fall apart in most countries that have gendered nouns!

[Anonymous]

Yes let’s upend all our established norms and etiquette because less than 1% of the population is so narcissistic they feel the rest of us should be as confused as they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes let’s upend all our established norms and etiquette because less than 1% of the population is so narcissistic they feel the rest of us should be as confused as they are.

Or....you can't handle a tiny bit of divergence from your established norms and etiquette because your brain lacks the ability to incorporate new ideas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes let’s upend all our established norms and etiquette because less than 1% of the population is so narcissistic they feel the rest of us should be as confused as they are.

Because established norms and etiquette have never changed ever and never should ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Denying people's existence doesn't make them not exist.


https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mx%22+mcps+staff+directory

Happy Pride!

And yet, many institutions are denying womens’ existence.

Happy reality!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Denying people's existence doesn't make them not exist.


https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mx%22+mcps+staff+directory

Happy Pride!

And yet, many institutions are denying womens’ existence.

Happy reality!

Please explain how this is related to the use of the honorific "mx."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Denying people's existence doesn't make them not exist.


https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mx%22+mcps+staff+directory

Happy Pride!

And yet, many institutions are denying womens’ existence.

Happy reality!

Please explain how this is related to the use of the honorific "mx."

Non binarism and transgenders are not biological existences but a reflection of the imagination. I suppose they exist because people declare themselves as such but it's quite different from the real genders.

I suppose if I demanded everyone address me as Sir/Lady, you'd happily acquiesce?

The whole battle over pronouns and associated honorifics is a struggle over how we define and accept what is real versus not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Denying people's existence doesn't make them not exist.


https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mx%22+mcps+staff+directory

Happy Pride!

And yet, many institutions are denying womens’ existence.

Happy reality!

Please explain how this is related to the use of the honorific "mx."

Non binarism and transgenders are not biological existences but a reflection of the imagination. I suppose they exist because people declare themselves as such but it's quite different from the real genders.

I suppose if I demanded everyone address me as Sir/Lady, you'd happily acquiesce?

The whole battle over pronouns and associated honorifics is a struggle over how we define and accept what is real versus not.

Not an answer to the question. Why not?

All gender is a function of the imagination. That's how gender expression changes over time. People imagine different ways that men and women (genders) should be. That changes. When men wore wigs was that not 'real'?

If you wanted to be addressed as "Sir/Lady", yes I'd happily acquiesce. It's not particularly difficult. I don't really care, and I won't die from doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Denying people's existence doesn't make them not exist.


https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mx%22+mcps+staff+directory

Happy Pride!

And yet, many institutions are denying womens’ existence.

Happy reality!

Please explain how this is related to the use of the honorific "mx."

Non binarism and transgenders are not biological existences but a reflection of the imagination. I suppose they exist because people declare themselves as such but it's quite different from the real genders.

I suppose if I demanded everyone address me as Sir/Lady, you'd happily acquiesce?

The whole battle over pronouns and associated honorifics is a struggle over how we define and accept what is real versus not.

Not an answer to the question. Why not?

All gender is a function of the imagination. That's how gender expression changes over time. People imagine different ways that men and women (genders) should be. That changes. When men wore wigs was that not 'real'?

If you wanted to be addressed as "Sir/Lady", yes I'd happily acquiesce. It's not particularly difficult. I don't really care, and I won't die from doing it.

DP but I think it IS an answer - traditional honorifics tell you actual information about the real world - male, female, married or not - these things all have reality independent of the mental state of the person from minute to minute

Not so with “Mx” which describes something that only exists in one person’s head

That’s the “real vs not real” thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Denying people's existence doesn't make them not exist.


https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mx%22+mcps+staff+directory

Happy Pride!

And yet, many institutions are denying womens’ existence.

Happy reality!

Please explain how this is related to the use of the honorific "mx."

Non binarism and transgenders are not biological existences but a reflection of the imagination. I suppose they exist because people declare themselves as such but it's quite different from the real genders.

I suppose if I demanded everyone address me as Sir/Lady, you'd happily acquiesce?

The whole battle over pronouns and associated honorifics is a struggle over how we define and accept what is real versus not.

Not an answer to the question. Why not?

All gender is a function of the imagination. That's how gender expression changes over time. People imagine different ways that men and women (genders) should be. That changes. When men wore wigs was that not 'real'?

If you wanted to be addressed as "Sir/Lady", yes I'd happily acquiesce. It's not particularly difficult. I don't really care, and I won't die from doing it.

DP but I think it IS an answer - traditional honorifics tell you actual information about the real world - male, female, married or not - these things all have reality independent of the mental state of the person from minute to minute

Not so with “Mx” which describes something that only exists in one person’s head

That’s the “real vs not real” thing

How is some people's preference for Mx. related to denying women's existence?

Mx. doesn't say that other people can't be called Ms. or Mrs.

Is that what PP is trying to propose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Denying people's existence doesn't make them not exist.


https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mx%22+mcps+staff+directory

Happy Pride!

And yet, many institutions are denying womens’ existence.

Happy reality!

Please explain how this is related to the use of the honorific "mx."

Non binarism and transgenders are not biological existences but a reflection of the imagination. I suppose they exist because people declare themselves as such but it's quite different from the real genders.

I suppose if I demanded everyone address me as Sir/Lady, you'd happily acquiesce?

The whole battle over pronouns and associated honorifics is a struggle over how we define and accept what is real versus not.

Not an answer to the question. Why not?

All gender is a function of the imagination. That's how gender expression changes over time. People imagine different ways that men and women (genders) should be. That changes. When men wore wigs was that not 'real'?

If you wanted to be addressed as "Sir/Lady", yes I'd happily acquiesce. It's not particularly difficult. I don't really care, and I won't die from doing it.

DP but I think it IS an answer - traditional honorifics tell you actual information about the real world - male, female, married or not - these things all have reality independent of the mental state of the person from minute to minute

Not so with “Mx” which describes something that only exists in one person’s head

That’s the “real vs not real” thing

Someone identifying as non-binary is real, sorry. You don't have a lock on "real" gender.

[Anonymous]

Male and female aren’t “genders” - they’re biology, which is “real” in a way that
feelings about invented genders are not - sure, they may “feel real” to the person and sure, the person themself is real, but come on, this distinction is very simple

[Anonymous]

Does “Mx.” mean you have to call that teacher “they”?