In this post I’ll be summarising the results of a survey I ran for eight days, from 15th to 23rd April 2016.
The survey sought to find out how Mx is pronounced, splitting results by group. It asked people how they pronounced Mx, and it also asked whether the participant’s title was Mx, about gender identity, about location (UK and outside UK), where the participant identified on the trans/cis spectrum (if anywhere), and where the participant identified on the nonbinary/binary spectrum (if anywhere).
It was promoted mainly through Twitter, Tumblr, and Reddit - and some participants told me that they would share with interested friends too. After removing 4 abusive responses there were 505 usable responses.
Here are two more visual summaries of the responses:
I recently blogged a link to someone else’s informal results analysis of their survey into neopronouns, and they rightly said that sometimes you have to prove things that everyone already knows. This survey is no exception.
We learned that:
Cis and binary people are far less likely to know how to pronounce Mx, topped only by people whose title is not Mx.
Trans and nonbinary people are more confident about its pronunciation, and people whose title is Mx are most confident.
My experience that UK folks like the schwa and non-UK folks prefer Mix was confirmed, but I was interested to find that people in the UK are far more confident of its pronunciation generally.
And finally, out of curiosity I put together a table to compare various groups.
[Note: “Are Mx” includes people whose title is sometimes or always Mx.]
These results appear to support the hypothesis that nonbinary and trans people are much more likely to use the title Mx for themselves, which is perhaps not surprising.
It is also worth noting that 20% of nonbinary people don’t use Mx as their title, and that number is likely to be higher outside of this survey - there will have been bias due to Mx being mentioned in promotion of the survey, resulting in a disproportionate number of people taking part who use Mx as their title.
There are other curious snippets to be gleaned from this table - such as:
Nonbinary participants were much more likely to feel that the cis/trans spectrum didn’t fit them. (3% of binary respondents identified as neither cis nor trans, whereas 29% of nonbinary respondents did.)
People whose title is Mx are apparently more likely to identify with the cis/trans spectrum. (18% of participants whose title was not Mx didn’t feel the cis/trans spectrum fit them, whereas only 16% of participants who were Mx didn’t fit that spectrum.)
The 9 binary people who use Mx do so “sometimes”, but of the 10 cis people who use Mx, 3 do so “always”. These numbers are not high enough to be representative, but I found them interesting anyway.
And finally, I was reassured that there were several responses in the feedback box telling me that they had never heard of Mx. It told me that the survey had made it out of the usual small circle of nonbinary and trans followers, which I think makes the data more useful.
Thank you everyone for your support, promotion and participation! These results are more useful and more detailed than the last set, and I am grateful for everyone’s efforts. I hope this summary has been helpful and/or interesting.
The letters page ‘In The Chapters’ by Ann Parks, page 21, gives some context - it appears that a previous issue had asked a question to which Mx was one of the suggested answers:
There has been some response to the question of what to call men and women (other than Mr. and Mrs./Ms.). Ex–husbands are WASbands, of course. Pat Kite (Single-Again Scrapbook, April SINGLE PARENT) felt that both sexes should be designated MX. But Dalynn Hoeflin (Solano County, CA 92) feels that males should be
But the actual first use in print is on Page 16 in an article called ‘Single-Again Scrapbook’ by Pat Kite. This appears to be a short story, possibly part of a serial, involving a flirtatious encounter at a party:
“THE WORST PROBLEM facing the single woman today is having to decide whether she is Miss., Mrs., or Ms.,” said the Blue-Eyed Man as he sat sipping his rosé.
“Ooohh, really?” I gasped, swallowing my frito whole.
“I’m glad you agree,” nodded the Man, taking the matches from my hand to light my cigarette. “Now, where I work we make it a point to call every female ‘Ms.’ It took me quite a while, but I made it. Now everybody’s happy.”
“Where do you work?” I asked.
“The welfare bureau.”
“Do you mean if you get a widow who was married forty-eight years in your office, and you address her as Ms., she likesit?”
“Why not?” said the Man.
“Frankly the term Mizzzz reminds me of the servant section of a pre Civil War Southern plantation,” I commented, drawing out the words through clenched teeth.
“Oh, that was in the past” smiled the happy Man. “Now Ms. for everyone connotes individuality. What tile do you go by?”
“Mrs.” I replied with a shrug.
“Why Mrs.?”
“Because I have four children and I like them to look legitimate, that’s why. Anyhow, if Mrs. and Miss are to be shortened to Ms., then I think Mister and Master should be changed to Muster … abbreviated Mu. On second thought, maybe both sexes should be called Mx. That would solve the gender problem entirely.”
“Are you a women’s libber or something?” said the horrified Man. "Then how come you didn’t get mad when I lit your cigarette?“
“Because it was a gesture of courtesy,” I answered, “and I don’t think good manners ever go out of style. Besides, I love having doors opened for me, and my heavy packages carried.”
“Oh, then you’re not a libber!” said the Man with a sigh of relief.
“It all depends on how you look at it,” I replied. "For instance, if you’ll give me my matches back, I’ll be able to light your cigarettes. We could take turns.“
"You wouldn’t. . . .!”
“Why not?” I said with a tiny smirk.
“You know, the biggest problem women have today is whether to be Miss, Mrs., or Ms.,” said the Man, as he took the matches from his pocket and lit my Bel-air.
“Not quite, kind Sir,” I commented, trying to change the topic to the artistic merits of Alice Cooper.
"Yes really, Ma'am,“ laughed the Man as he got up to dance.
And we mixed our whimsey with our wine until well past midnight.”
I’m making a few updates to the Nonbinary Wiki’sUK recognition section today, and I’ve found Tesco now provide Mx as a title option on their Clubcard registration form! Nice work, Tesco.
However, they could do with making titles optional, for nonbinary customers who don’t use titles at all.
Use the feedback form itself, feel free to leave the title field optional, and just ask them with a sentence or two to add the gender-neutral title Mx. Make sure to give them the URL of the form itself, so they know which one you’re talking about! https://www.postoffice.co.uk/technical-issues-website
Here’s what I’m writing:
This form (https://www.postoffice.co.uk/technical-issues-website) has a title field, and the title Mx, which is available on title fields throughout the Post Office and Royal Mail websites, is missing. As a nonbinary person the titles Mr and Ms/Miss/Mrs are inappropriate for me. As Mx is the standard gender-neutral title on Post Office and Royal Mail websites, could you please add it to the title list on this form? See also https://mxactivist.tumblr.com/mxevidence
“I’ll tell you,” said Vimes. “A monarch’s an absolute ruler, right? The head honcho–”
“Unless he’s a queen,” said Carrot.
Vimes glared at him, and then nodded.
“OK, or the head honchette–”
“No, that’d only apply if she was a young woman. Queens tend to be older. She’d have to be a…a honcharina? No, that’s for the very young princesses. No. Um. A honchess, I think.”
Vimes paused. There’s something in the air in this city, he thought. If the Creator had said, “Let there be light” in Ankh-Morpork, he’d have got no further because of all the people saying, “What color?”
I just remembered that I have a series of English language fics with Latin titles that are all double entendres/short phrases/puns and also reveal the whole plot of the fic. I feel like that really ought to be some kind of bingo
I actually hate ttitle-drops, so my mains are:
Short and subtle lyric or phrase (neutral good)
One word title (true neutral)
Really long song lyric titles with brackets (chaotic neutral)
Tropes (like 5 + 1) (lawful neutral)
Also, setting details and references to canon items. I’m inordinately likely to name a fic after a seemingly trivial item that appears in it.
I’ve never tried other language titles. Maybe I should.
Okay, this is in incredibly petty nitpick, but: if you’re writing a fantasy setting with same-sex marriage, a same-sex noble or royal couple typically would not have titles of the same rank - e.g., a prince and a prince, or two queens.
It depends on which system of ranking you use, of course (there are several), but in most systems there’s actually a rule covering this scenario: in the event that a consort’s courtesy title being of the same rank as their spouse’s would potentially create confusion over who holds the title by right and who by courtesy, the consort instead receives the next-highest title on the ladder.
So the husband of a prince would be a duke; the wife of a queen, a princess; and so forth.
(You actually see this rule in practice in the United Kingdom, albeit not in the context of a same-sex marriage; the Queen’s husband is styled a prince because if he were a king, folks might get confused about which of them was the reigning monarch.)
The only common situation where you’d expect to see, for example, two queens in the same marriage is if the reigning monarchs of two different realms married each other - and even then, you’d more likely end up with a complicated arrangement where each party is technically a princess of the other’s realm in addition to being queen of her own.
You’ve gotta keep it nice and unambiguous who’s actually in charge!
Okay, I’ve received a whole lot of asks about this post, so I’m going to cover all of the responses in one go:
1. The system described above is, admittedly, merely one of the most common. Other historically popular alternatives include:
The consort’s courtesy title is of the same rank as their spouse’s, with “-consort” appended to it: prince and prince-consort, queen and queen-consort, etc. This is how, e.g., present-day Monaco does it.
The consort is simply styled Lord or Lady So-and-so, and receives no specific title. I can’t think of any country that still does it this way, off the top of my head, but historically it was a thing.
(Naturally, your setting needn’t adhere to any of these, but it would be highly irregular for it to lack some mechanism for clarifying the chain of command.)
2. The reason why the consort of a prince is historically a princess even though those titles are the same rank is basically sexism. This can go a couple of ways:
In many realms, there was no such thing as being a princess by right; the daughter of a monarch would be styled Lady So-and-so and receive no specific title, so the only way to be a princess was to marry a prince.
In realms where women could hold titles by right, typically a masculine title was informally presumed to outrank its feminine counterpart. So, e.g., kings outrank queens, princes outrank princesses, etc.
In either case, no ambiguity exists.
(Interestingly, this suggests that in a more egalitarian setting where masculine titles are not presumed to outrank their feminine counterparts, or vice versa, you’d need to explicitly disambiguate rankings even outside the context of same-sex marriages. Food for thought!)
3. It would also be possible to have two kings or two queens in the same marriage without multiple realms being involved in the case of a true co-monarchy. However, true co-monarchies are highly irregular and, from a political standpoint, immensely complicated affairs. If you’re planning on writing one of those, be prepared to do your research!
4. The next rank down from “countess” is either “viscountess” or “baroness”, depending on which peerage system you’re using.
(Yes, that last one actually came up multiple times. Apparently there are a lot of stories about gay countesses out there!)
This is a letter I wrote to my boyfriend before he was my boyfriend. He still hasn’t seen it…
May 9, 2020
I know you don’t care about titles and neither do I but I just want you to myself. “Let’s go with the flow” I’m down but “My boyfriend”? That would be nice; on the other hand that’s also a lot to live up to. That’s one reason why I don’t want a title. I don’t want you to become my person (boyfriend) then disappoint me. I don’t wanna disappoint you. I just want to make you happy and I just wanna be happy with you for as long as I can. Even if it’s not as long as I would like. I know you really like me, I notice it more and more each day. Shit I like you too I say it’s love but I don’t know. I’ve never experienced real love. I’ve never fully given myself to someone. But it’s just something different with you, I just can’t put my finger on it. Maybe it’s because when I talk to you it’s like I talking to myself but with slight differences. Or you just make me fell so relaxed but nervous. We can hold eye contact for a short amount of time but it’s still gets awkward. Which I love. I love that I can be silly but vulnerable with you. I love that you call me beautiful, or think I’m sexy when I just feel average. I love how excited you get when you play video games. I love how kiss my forehead and hold me afterwards like there’s no one in the world but you and I. I love how long you are but we still fit so well together. I love that your passionate about music. I love that you’re just so cool without even trying. I love all you’re old stories. I just want to learn to love you. I want you to learn to love me. I’ll slowly open up to you if you give it time, and I’m sure you’ll do the same. But one thing.. please don’t break my heart. Heartbreak feels the same with or without a title.
Okay, Gen Z, younger millennials, please tell me, are you aware of what the title Ms. means? And how to pronounce it?
Because I just listened to several young 20-somethings pronounce it Miss and talk about how it means you’re not married. And…I’m feeling weird about it, considering that’s the title I use.
(It means my marital status is none of your business. I use it because I’m married but I kept my maiden name so I’m not Mrs. anyone.)
These comments really are fascinating and it seems especially people whose first language isn’t English aren’t sure about this, which is fair. But as I suspected some young folks aren’t clear either?
It seems like Ms. has been conflated with Miss and Miss has fallen out of favor, which is fair, but the meanings have been confused.
So here:
Ms.has some antique origins similar to Mrs. and Miss (all short for Mistress) but was revived in the 20th century (mostly in the 60s and 70s) by feminists as an all-purpose female title.
The problem with Miss and Mrs. is that they are tied specifically to marital status. (Miss is SPECIFICALLY an unmarried woman and Mrs. is a woman who is married or has been married. Yes, even older women can be Miss and a widow is still Mrs. (of course if they so choose).
While Mr. isn’t tied to marital status for men, of course. So Ms. is the female equivalent to Mr., intended to be used both as a default term when you don’t know someone’s marital status and ALSO as a term of choice when you don’t wish to be defined by your relationship to a man.
This was very much a political thing, part of second-wave feminism (which of course has it’s flaws). (Ms. magazine was a feminist women’s magazine which popularized the term.)
It’s pronounced something like Miz or Mzz.
So for me, I’ve used Ms. basically since I got out of college anytime I’m asked for a title. First because I didn’t want my marital status to be a thing of concern in professional settings. And when I was living with my now-husband but we weren’t married. And then after we were married and I kept my own last name because IMO neither of the other options was relevant.
(The keeping your own name thing is a different discussion probably, but I did it partly out of desire to stay the same “person” and partly out of apathy. Also my husband’s last name isn’t even the same as his parents (because remarriage) so there was no pressure there to change it and he gave no fucks about it. In fact, he’s almost seriously thought about changing his name to mine because he likes my family better, lol.)
But anyway, I feel like it’s important to keep the intention of Ms. alive because it’s so very useful and needed to have an equal partner to Mr. And more useful than ever with so many situations where you may be married/committed but not using your partner’s name (ie. gay married, poly relationships, not legally married for reasons of disability, idk whatever).
But Ms. does NOT mean unmarried. It means someone could be of ANY marital status: never married, currently married, divorced, widowed, etc. It means “it’s not your business because you don’t ask a man his marital status the first second you meet him so buzz off.”
a lot of the time i find forms with options don’t even list “miss” now, just mrs. and ms.
which not only sort of defeats the entire purpose of ms. anyway but also means people who voluntarily use miss and are officially miss can’t… have the title they normally use because it’s been “replaced” by ms. and now we’re all back to square 1
