| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | Gender neutral honorific Mx 'to be included' in the Oxford English Dictionary alongside Mr, Ms and Mrs and Miss
|
|---|
| |
that there is so much opposition to this.
"Trans advocates are cheering "Mx"'s possible inclusion as a positive step for recognition. "It's a reminder that people are not feeling validated, and it does cause stress. Documentation and forms that don't match the reality of people's existence are part of that," Transgender Victoria executive director Sally Golder told the Australian Broadcast Corporation, later adding, "[The new title] will give flexibility in a lot of ways."
... See more that there is so much opposition to this.
"Trans advocates are cheering "Mx"'s possible inclusion as a positive step for recognition. "It's a reminder that people are not feeling validated, and it does cause stress. Documentation and forms that don't match the reality of people's existence are part of that," Transgender Victoria executive director Sally Golder told the Australian Broadcast Corporation, later adding, "[The new title] will give flexibility in a lot of ways."
http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/05/05/mx-could-be-oxford-english-dictionarys-first-trans-affirming-honorif
I very much doubt whether transgender people see this as a "politically correct" move, or a "quirk". I still wince when asked to complete an online form and the only gender options given are "male" or "female". Not everyone identifies with the gender they were assigned at birth, or born with.
I do think it's ugly, and perhaps something more appropriate could have been found. But I think it's a positive step.
None of us use all the words in the dictionary. If "Mx" does not apply to you, don't tick that box. Avert your eyes from the dictionary page if it pains you so much. But don't make life tougher for people already struggling with acceptance. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
I wish they'd finally get over the gender thing.
"get over the gender thing"??? Please tell me you're joking?
| | | | | Totally agree | May 11, 2015 |
Fiona Peterson wrote: that there is so much opposition to this. "Trans advocates are cheering "Mx"'s possible inclusion as a positive step for recognition. "It's a reminder that people are not feeling validated, and it does cause stress. Documentation and forms that don't match the reality of people's existence are part of that," Transgender Victoria executive director Sally Golder told the Australian Broadcast Corporation, later adding, "[The new title] will give flexibility in a lot of ways." http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/05/05/mx-could-be-oxford-english-dictionarys-first-trans-affirming-honorif I very much doubt whether transgender people see this as a "politically correct" move, or a "quirk". I still wince when asked to complete an online form and the only gender options given are "male" or "female". Not everyone identifies with the gender they were assigned at birth, or born with. I do think it's ugly, and perhaps something more appropriate could have been found. But I think it's a positive step. None of us use all the words in the dictionary. If "Mx" does not apply to you, don't tick that box. Avert your eyes from the dictionary page if it pains you so much. But don't make life tougher for people already struggling with acceptance.
I couldn't have said it better.
| | | | | Let's hear from the people concerned | May 11, 2015 |
It would be interesting to hear from trans-gender people themselves how they feel about Mx.
Are they actually all hot and bothered about the need for Mx, or are some of us getting all hot and bothered on their behalf?
| | |
|
|
|
| Missing the point entirely | May 11, 2015 |
MalinFreelancer wrote:
the reason they're "invented" is that there are people who actually need them. Real people with feelings whose lives will be made just that tiny little bit easier by these words coming into use.
Precisely!
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
Personal quirks of some people shouldn't be making aspects of everyday life weird for everybody else.
And how does freedom for a sector of the population which has struggled for generations make life "weird" for everybody else? It's title that someone chooses if they want to. Perhaps the "weirdness", as you put it, comes from an inability on the part of others to accept a change that's uncomfortable, unknown. I'm sure men thought women having the vote was "weird", as whites probably did when coloured people demanded the right to be able to sit on the same bus seats, use the same drinking fountains and the same facilities. But these changes came about because they were recognised as being RIGHT. And I'm sure millions of recipients of Obamacare, black AND white, are grateful for the fact that a coloured member of society was able to achieve a position of political importance. Because it's RIGHT that it is so. It's called equality.
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
People should concentrate on what they do with their own lives rather than what impact they want to force on others' lives e.g. by expecting to be referred to in convuluted ways or making a fuss over disclosing one's gender.
The term is "Mx". Not "konstituziokontrakotasunarekikoetan", "Speciallægepraksisplanlægningsstabiliseringsperiode", or "cyfrwngddarostynedigaeth". Let's not pretend this is more convoluted than "Mr" or "Mrs". It's different, sure. But things change, and rightfully so.
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
And what about the feelings of people who don't want to be addressed as 'Mx'?
I imagine in that case they would simply not use the term.
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
There already are women who don't like the shift to 'Ms' as default title for their sex.
Since when is "Ms" a default title for the female sex? Normally that is "Mrs" - "Ms" is nornally an alternative. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you see it, honorific titles are always going to be an imposition - Mrs suggests those who are older or married, Ms those who are younger, or unmarried, or prefer a more "neutral" term. But these terms will always have connotations. But in a world of form-filling, where they provide a "quick" indication of someone's gender, the very least we can do is provide a range of terms which are inclusive rather than exclusive.
And Łukasz, if you really want us to "get over the gender thing", I imagine you support abolishing the terms Mr and Mrs in favour of "spouse". While we're at it we can abolish "husband", "wife", "daughter" and "son".
All of those opposing this move... try reading up on the struggles of transgender people before you deny them the right to use two little letters on a form. It's not a demand for money, it's not a demand for privilege. It's simply a demand for equality and recognition. We now recognise that gender and sexuality are not black and white, they do not fit neatly into two pigeonholes. The very least we can do is make the necessary linguistic changes to accommodate for this fact.
| | | | | Drop the honorifics altogether | May 11, 2015 |
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote: Jenny Forbes wrote:
Nice one, Mxy Balu!
This Mx business is the silliest thing I've heard for days. All the rage in greeny PC Brighton, I see.
Why is an "honorific" needed at all in these soi-disant egalitarian days? Exactly. To me the solution in English and probably other languages would be as simple as removing old-fashioned Mr./Ms./Mrs./Mx. (yes, Mx is old-fashioned from inception since it follows the same system), and simply use "Ps." for "person".: Dear Ps. Paula Murray, Dear Ps. Robert Finney, Dear Ps. Haeden Marie Friston, Dear Ps. Bryce Noelle Black, Dear Ps. Dana International, This way, we can give all people equal treatment and continue to waste our time adding some kind of useless honorific.
In some languages it is quite acceptable to address people directly by name without honorifics of that kind.
Very often gender is totally irrelevant anyway.
It is a bit old-fashioned to address me as Fru Andersen in Denmark (= Mrs.) and in writing it is still unusual to see Fr. (a common abbreviation for Fru and Frk. (Frøken) = Miss).
They go straight to my own name -
Kaere Christine Andersen
If writing to a group - unless you know it is appropriate to address them as Ladies or whatever, then it is usually possible to find something relevant and neutral
Dear Customers
Club members
...
There might be occasions when you really don't know the gender of the person you are addressing -
Mx Chris Williams, or names in unfamiliar languages.
-- but I am sure we could get used to using names without any prefixes indicating gender at all. Individuals would have to find personal names that revealed as much or as little as they wanted, but then the ball is in their court. Most of the time I am not worried about revealing my gender and marital status, but I can easily understand why others prefer not to reveal theirs.
| | | | | This is about whether or not dictionaries should be creating language | May 11, 2015 |
Elisa Fernández Vic wrote: Fiona Peterson wrote: that there is so much opposition to this. "Trans advocates are cheering "Mx"'s possible inclusion as a positive step for recognition. "It's a reminder that people are not feeling validated, and it does cause stress. Documentation and forms that don't match the reality of people's existence are part of that," Transgender Victoria executive director Sally Golder told the Australian Broadcast Corporation, later adding, "[The new title] will give flexibility in a lot of ways." http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/05/05/mx-could-be-oxford-english-dictionarys-first-trans-affirming-honorif I very much doubt whether transgender people see this as a "politically correct" move, or a "quirk". I still wince when asked to complete an online form and the only gender options given are "male" or "female". Not everyone identifies with the gender they were assigned at birth, or born with. I do think it's ugly, and perhaps something more appropriate could have been found. But I think it's a positive step. None of us use all the words in the dictionary. If "Mx" does not apply to you, don't tick that box. Avert your eyes from the dictionary page if it pains you so much. But don't make life tougher for people already struggling with acceptance. I couldn't have said it better.
But I think the question isn't whether this is good for transgender people or not, it's whether a dictionary should be a reflection of language or the creator of language. As I wrote earlier, I love the idea of Mx for my own reasons, but if you're in the reflection of language camp the fact that it's a great idea doesn't mean Mx should be added to the Oxford. Many people see dictionaries as being a last bastion of objectiveness in a world that increasingly believes objectiveness isn't possible, and I think much of the opposition to this comes from people who don't believe the Oxford should be a creator of language (I mean has anyone seriously heard of Mx being used in mainstream publications before this?)
| | | | | What dictionaries cover is not necessarily mainstream, but established usage | May 11, 2015 |
Don't we all hate those small dictionaries that only cover the central core of a language? After the first few years at school you know everything in them anyway! I grew up with the OED on the bottom shelf in the living room, no matter how small the flats my parents moved in and out of.
The Oxford English Dictionary seeks to record as much as possible of established use, while avoiding ephemeral expressions that are soon forgotten.
In fact a dictionary is most useful in... See more Don't we all hate those small dictionaries that only cover the central core of a language? After the first few years at school you know everything in them anyway! I grew up with the OED on the bottom shelf in the living room, no matter how small the flats my parents moved in and out of.
The Oxford English Dictionary seeks to record as much as possible of established use, while avoiding ephemeral expressions that are soon forgotten.
In fact a dictionary is most useful in defining the LESS frequently used words and expressions, partly so that people know what is meant when the words do turn up, and partly to fix the meaning, so that it is not slurred by mistaken guesses.
These words may be found in unusual contexts or used by small sections of the community - and are not always immediately recognisable to the majority.
I agree, dictionaries should not create language, but as soon as lexicographers pick up a reasonably stable usage of a word or expression, then it should be recorded.
The question of gender - defining it correctly and not making an issue of it when it is not relevant - is certainly not ephemeral, and if Mx is a solution some people find useful, it belongs in the dictionary where we can look it up.
Then we can use it or ignore it, along with a lot of Shakespeare's vocabulary, technical terms, legalese and all the rest of the language ... ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Peter Zhuang 
Germany
Local time: 20:07
German to English
+ ...
| Get over it. | May 11, 2015 |
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
Yeah, right, 'has been in use,' by like 5 people on the planet. I wish they'd finally get over the gender thing.
Apart from transgender and genderqueer people - who have to fight for equality, and often subjected to violence - about 1 in 2000 people are born sexually ambiguous.
People who do not fit into a clear gender dichotomy exist. They are here to stay regardless of the existence of gender neutral pronouns and honorifics.
Get over it.
| | | | Neil Coffey
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:07
French to English
+ ...
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
Yeah, right, 'has been in use,' by like 5 people on the planet.
Yeah, they should probably take "ketoglutaric" out too. There can't be many people on the planet using that word either...
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 23:37
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Why not do it the Hindi way, which is also gender neutral? | May 11, 2015 |
In Hindi, as well as many Indian languages, the gender-indicating terms like Mr, Mrs, Ms etc., can be dropped altogether, and instead, to show respect to the person, the term "ji" is added at the end of the name. This term is gender-neutral and can be added to both male and female persons, and also equally well, to people who don't identify with either of these genders.
So we have Gandhiji, Soniaji, Modiji, Balasubramaniamji, etc.
I think this is something that other la... See more In Hindi, as well as many Indian languages, the gender-indicating terms like Mr, Mrs, Ms etc., can be dropped altogether, and instead, to show respect to the person, the term "ji" is added at the end of the name. This term is gender-neutral and can be added to both male and female persons, and also equally well, to people who don't identify with either of these genders.
So we have Gandhiji, Soniaji, Modiji, Balasubramaniamji, etc.
I think this is something that other languages too can adopt and solve the gender issue in this little aspect of usage once and for all. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 02:07
Chinese to English
| Usage, as noted in the article... | May 12, 2015 |
the Mx honorific has become included for people to use on a number of official documents over the past two years, from driving licences to bank accounts.
Brighton and Hove city council in Sussex included the honorific on its council forms two years ago after a vote favouring the gender-neutral term, and Royal Mail told The Sunday Times it had introduced Mx following requests from customers.
A number of banks include Mx as an option for its customers, including the Royal Bank of Scotland, which introduced it last year.
That's a number of different usages. I would think that the OED certainly should include all words which get used on bank letters.
| | |
|
|
|
fazil
Uzbekistan
Russian to English
+ ...
| How it will honor them? | May 13, 2015 |
I don't get it, how on earth it's going to honor them if they are called "mux" or "mix"?
| | | |
Fiona Peterson wrote:
The term is "Mx". Not "konstituziokontrakotasunarekikoetan", "Speciallægepraksisplanlægningsstabiliseringsperiode", or "cyfrwngddarostynedigaeth". Let's not pretend this is more convoluted than "Mr" or "Mrs". It's different, sure. But things change, and rightfully so.
It would be equally convoluted or not if it were simply 'Mx' with 'x' for either r or s, where the sex is unknown. However, 'Mx' as a gender-neutral honorific for people who find self-empowerment in not disclosing their gender is convoluted in itself as a figure of speech, regardless what pronoun is used. The coming up with such forms of address is what is convoluted to begin with.
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
And what about the feelings of people who don't want to be addressed as 'Mx'?
I imagine in that case they would simply not use the term.
You are clearly biased and bending it to fit your preconceptions. What I was speaking about was e.g. the water or gas company putting 'Mx' before people's names on the bill instead of trying to figure out the correct title.
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
There already are women who don't like the shift to 'Ms' as default title for their sex.
Since when is "Ms" a default title for the female sex? Normally that is "Mrs" - "Ms" is nornally an alternative.
Unfortunately not. 'Ms' is the default title in business, and it would be improper to address an unmarried woman as an Mrs with rare exceptions such as high-ranking judges ('Mrs Justice') and elderly teachers.
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you see it, honorific titles are always going to be an imposition - Mrs suggests those who are older or married, Ms those who are younger, or unmarried, or prefer a more "neutral" term. But these terms will always have connotations. But in a world of form-filling, where they provide a "quick" indication of someone's gender, the very least we can do is provide a range of terms which are inclusive rather than exclusive.
'Inclusive' does not mean pretending that everybody is just the same as anybody else.
And Łukasz, if you really want us to "get over the gender thing", I imagine you support abolishing the terms Mr and Mrs in favour of "spouse".
You need more coffee, Fiona. Bachelors and widowers are misters too.
While we're at it we can abolish "husband", "wife", "daughter" and "son".
???
That sounds like your agenda, not mine. I'm sorry but really... you do need more coffee.
Neil Coffey wrote: Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
Yeah, right, 'has been in use,' by like 5 people on the planet.
Yeah, they should probably take "ketoglutaric" out too. There can't be many people on the planet using that word either...
As you are well aware, Neil, highly specialized field-specific vocabulary does not normally appear in everyday language.
fazil wrote:
I don't get it, how on earth it's going to honor them if they are called "mux" or "mix"?
Precisely. It will only give activists the comfort of knowing that they were capable of making their own outlandish speech construct compulsory for everybody else, i.e. the knowledge that they were able to make such an impact on the lives of others. Which is what power is about.
[Edited at 2015-05-13 14:52 GMT]
| | | | | Sorry, but what on earth has gender got to do with paying the gas or electricity bills? | May 13, 2015 |
It is really none of the utility companies' business whether consumers are male, female, Martian or anything else.
They supply a service and they are entitled to be paid for it. My money doesn't smell any different from anyone else's. End of story. In so many other situations, gender is totally irrelevant, and if people don't want to reveal it then why should they?
I admit I hate the way people pronounce Ms and dread to think what they can do with Mx. Never mind.
... See more It is really none of the utility companies' business whether consumers are male, female, Martian or anything else.
They supply a service and they are entitled to be paid for it. My money doesn't smell any different from anyone else's. End of story. In so many other situations, gender is totally irrelevant, and if people don't want to reveal it then why should they?
I admit I hate the way people pronounce Ms and dread to think what they can do with Mx. Never mind.
As I have mentioned earlier, Danish legislation is being re-worded (and retranslated) to reflect gender equality - inclusively - with expressions that cover everyone as far as possible. Spouse, parent, sibling ... etc.
I have to admit I too am amazed at the hostility shown to this suggestion. Gender IS an important part of people's identity. Why not just accept that we don't all fit into the two classic stereotypes - and get over that? ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Gender neutral honorific Mx 'to be included' in the Oxford English Dictionary alongside Mr, Ms and Mrs and Miss | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
