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…
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…