The virtual school says its hands are tied due to Florida’s “don’t say gay” law. However, the teacher has lodged a complaint against it.
The virtual school says its hands are tied due to Florida’s “don’t say gay” law. However, the teacher has lodged a complaint against it.
All titles are “made up,” and Mx. as an honorific has been around for almost fifty years. A better question would be why our two main honorifics for people are so pointlessly gendered.
It has barely any history prior to 10 years ago. Just because some nobody said it once in the 1970’s doesn’t mean its been colloquially around for 50 years. The source of it “being around from the 1970’s” is a dubious article written in 2015. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11597192/Whats-it-like-to-be-a-Mx.html
Your claim as to its history is simply not true, and its use has, obviously, been mostly limited to the community that generated it. Did you expect Ronald Reagan to use it in his inauguration speech?
Other than that, I don’t see what point you’re actually trying to make here.
Removed by mod
You just read an article about a non-binary person, so I think we can assume they are, indeed, “a thing.” Something tells me you don’t interact with a lot of queer people anyways, so your acceptance of their terms of address feels pretty irrelevant.
Removed by mod
How do you avoid yourself?
There’s words that develop organically and then there’s words that people make up to validate the feelings of women who would have been emos like 10 years ago. Neopronouns and titles like this are stupid and no person outside the progressive bubble will ever use them.
Organically developed, like, a community making a new word that fills a lexical need to describe a concept? Sounds a lot like “Mx.” to me. What’s stupid about it?
Qed
Try reading a book that’s a few decades old. Language evolves. Though wonder if you read books.
“Read a book sweaty 💅💅” 🤓