LGBTAI+ Questions and Discussion thread II: Make It Double

[YossarianLives]

We should really add discussion of it as a personal pronoun to the list of banned topics. Everytime it comes up, it just leads to sadness for the people being denied use of their preferred pronoun AND the people who've had bad experiences with that word used to refer to humans. Bad times all around, and I can't imagine anything productive coming out of the discussion in the future. Every time it's brought up, it just leads to a stalemate.

[Heliomance]

We should really add discussion of it as a personal pronoun to the list of banned topics. Everytime it comes up, it just leads to sadness for the people being denied use of their preferred pronoun AND the people who've had bad experiences with that word used to refer to humans. Bad times all around, and I can't imagine anything productive coming out of the discussion in the future. Every time it's brought up, it just leads to a stalemate.

That's why I brought it up here rather than in the support thread, encased it in spoilers, and put warnings on the topic. I hoped that would be enough precautions. Apparently not though.

The banned subject list is on the main thread, not here, and I think this might already be in it. The purpose of this thread is for discussing issues that some might find uncomfortable though - if you read the OP, there are no banned topics save by forum rules.

[Jormengand]

The thing is, there's no way the discussion can ever be productive. One group is uncomfortable if X is the case, one is uncomfortable if X is not the case, and neither sees any reason they should compromise or change their stance. I don't think anyone ever benefits from it.

[Lettuce]

Spoiler: Spoiler

Show

OK, but look what basically happened here. Your friend asked other people to use "it", and subsequently recieved treatment that was dehumanizing.

Yes, it is a pronoun. Not all pronouns are used for people. An AMAB person requesting "she" is asking other people to recognize her as female.

Requesting "it" is asking other people to recognize the requestee as a non-person.

The argument for it is basically "I don't think "it" is dehumanizing when used to refer to a person even though that's the generally understood use, and want to be referred to as "it". By refusing to dehumanize me, you are dehumanizing me."

Can you really blame people for avoiding a lose-lose situation? It's not even the uneducated or the ignorant that will have the biggest problems with use of "it". The people who will balk the most at "it" (aside from grammar teachers) are the people who know that convincing a mob to think of someone as "it" is usually step three on the "they're not really people so it's ok to kill them and take their stuff" ladder.

It's not like this is an old thing that's faded away and now the term is ripe for colonization, either. "It" is used as a widely understood insult intended to demean or negate another sapient being's personhood at least as recently as the first Shrek movie. (Which was more recently adapted into a broadway hit and has national tours featuring the same scene with the same usage)

Spoiler: It

Show

The thing is, you seem to be arguing that the word "it" and dehumanising someone are completely intertwined to the point of inseparability. My argument is that they're not; there are other factors involved that can change that (such as Jor or my friend's personal pronoun preferences). The idea that "it" is always dehumanizing is a preconception that should be challenged.

My apologies if I've misunderstood your argument here, but--a person who asks to be called "it" isn't asking to be dehumanised. They're asking to be treated like the person they identify as. That's an empowering thing, not a dehumanising thing.

My argument is that dehumanising is actually TREATING someone like a non-human. Talking down to or about them; acting like what then want doesn't matter; valuing them less than you would other people. If you treat someone the same way you treat everyone else, you aren't dehumanizing them.

I think that Jor is right on the money when it says things like "Given a choice between sounding as though you're dehumanising me and actually dehumanising me, the answer should be obvious."

As for the argument than an AMAB wanting to be called "she" is different, it seems that you're advocating a binary gender system and rejecting people who are outside the binary? Or are you saying that there's only a certain set of already-established pronouns that are acceptable, and people must choose among them and no others? My apologies, but I feel like I'm probably misunderstanding something here, so I'd appreciate some clarification on that particular point. Thanks.

Anyway, I think at the end of it all, what this question really boils down to is "Do I value my own comfort or this other person's comfort more?" And with more nuance, "How does how uncomfortable this makes me compare to how uncomfortable this makes that other person?" And where the exact line is, is different for everybody and every situation. There are people who adamantly feel that "it" is the right pronoun for them, and nothing else will suffice; there are people who would really prefer "it" but will accept something else. There are people who could never use "it", no matter what; there are people who are a little jittery about it but are willing to do their best to take others' preferences into account. Sometimes the stances are incompatible; but often times they aren't--they just take some effort to resolve. Whether a friendship is worth the effort is a judgement call, I guess.

But I will say this: it really wasn't so very long ago that being gay or being trans was a LOT more unacceptable than it is now. People who were open about their identities were ridiculed or confronted in public with great frequency (and in some places, they sadly still are). If none of their friends had ever hung out with them or supported them in public, I don't think that we would have seen the great acceptance and swelling of support for LGBTAI+ people that we've had over the past few years.

More visibility, rather than less, is the answer. That's the only way things are going to change. We could keep shoving the issue under the rug and marginalizing people who identify with the pronoun, or we can try to spread awareness and change the cultural context so that way we reach a time where everyone is comfortable. It'll be a little rough along the way as we all adjust, sure--but I think it's a cause worth fighting for.

Edit: Also, I disagree that the conversation can't be productive. I don't know that it can be RESOLVED in a coherent fashion, because it's an inherently value-based decision, and people value or prioritize different things. But the conversation itself raises awareness, which can help normalize use of "it" as a pronoun. Even in this thread, there was a poster who learned that wanting to use the pronoun "it" for oneself can be a serious and legitimate thing, where they previously were under the impression that people who did so were essentially just trolling people and making fun of personal pronouns in general. (And a lot more people read these threads who don't regularly post--myself usually being one of them--so I bet other people have learned from this conversation, too.) And I think that is a positive step.

[Icewraith]

Spoiler: It

Show

The thing is, you seem to be arguing that the word "it" and dehumanising someone are completely intertwined to the point of inseparability. My argument is that they're not; there are other factors involved that can change that (such as Jor or my friend's personal pronoun preferences). The idea that "it" is always dehumanizing is a preconception that should be challenged.

My apologies if I've misunderstood your argument here, but--a person who asks to be called "it" isn't asking to be dehumanised. They're asking to be treated like the person they identify as. That's an empowering thing, not a dehumanising thing.

My argument is that dehumanising is actually TREATING someone like a non-human. Talking down to or about them; acting like what then want doesn't matter; valuing them less than you would other people. If you treat someone the same way you treat everyone else, you aren't dehumanizing them.

I think that Jor is right on the money when it says things like "Given a choice between sounding as though you're dehumanising me and actually dehumanising me, the answer should be obvious."

As for the argument than an AMAB wanting to be called "she" is different, it seems that you're advocating a binary gender system and rejecting people who are outside the binary? Or are you saying that there's only a certain set of already-established pronouns that are acceptable, and people must choose among them and no others? My apologies, but I feel like I'm probably misunderstanding something here, so I'd appreciate some clarification on that particular point. Thanks.

Anyway, I think at the end of it all, what this question really boils down to is "Do I value my own comfort or this other person's comfort more?" And with more nuance, "How does how uncomfortable this makes me compare to how uncomfortable this makes that other person?" And where the exact line is, is different for everybody and every situation. There are people who adamantly feel that "it" is the right pronoun for them, and nothing else will suffice; there are people who would really prefer "it" but will accept something else. There are people who could never use "it", no matter what; there are people who are a little jittery about it but are willing to do their best to take others' preferences into account. Sometimes the stances are incompatible; but often times they aren't--they just take some effort to resolve. Whether a friendship is worth the effort is a judgement call, I guess.

But I will say this: it really wasn't so very long ago that being gay or being trans was a LOT more unacceptable than it is now. People who were open about their identities were ridiculed or confronted in public with great frequency (and in some places, they sadly still are). If none of their friends had ever hung out with them or supported them in public, I don't think that we would have seen the great acceptance and swelling of support for LGBTAI+ people that we've had over the past few years.

More visibility, rather than less, is the answer. That's the only way things are going to change. We could keep shoving the issue under the rug and marginalizing people who identify with the pronoun, or we can try to spread awareness and change the cultural context so that way we reach a time where everyone is comfortable. It'll be a little rough along the way as we all adjust, sure--but I think it's a cause worth fighting for.

Edit: Also, I disagree that the conversation can't be productive. I don't know that it can be RESOLVED in a coherent fashion, because it's an inherently value-based decision, and people value or prioritize different things. But the conversation itself raises awareness, which can help normalize use of "it" as a pronoun. Even in this thread, there was a poster who learned that wanting to use the pronoun "it" for oneself can be a serious and legitimate thing, where they previously were under the impression that people who did so were essentially just trolling people and making fun of personal pronouns in general. (And a lot more people read these threads who don't regularly post--myself usually being one of them--so I bet other people have learned from this conversation, too.) And I think that is a positive step.

Spoiler: Spoiler

Show

I'm probably not being clear enough. We're in the murky territory of perception, intention, and effect. Like... if I'm a chef, and you order a dish and request I add this miniscule amount of Arsenic, don't worry you're immune.... I'm still putting Arsenic in your dish. Maybe you're actually immune, maybe you need it to live now and not using the Arsenic is also bad, maybe it's actually killing you slowly. Maybe you need it to live now and it's killing you slowly anyways.

I think the whole idea behind the concept of "rights" is that you can train people to get used to anything, but just because they're used to it, maybe even convince them they want certain things, there are certain things that are inherently degrading and dehumanizing that aren't supposed to be done to people. Treating a person like an object means you don't think their life has any value. The language we use shapes how we treat people. Pronouns are important for trans people because by using the correct pronoun, you are agreeing with them that they are a particular gender and should be treated the same as any other member of that gender. They are also asking you to train your brain to treat them that way even if they're not currently displaying the signals that would indicate they are a member of that gender.

You absolutely should be able to request people treat you as a member of your gender, and "they" is available for those who don't identify with "he" or "she". But by claiming "it" as a personal pronoun, you're asking my brain to treat you like a table or a piece of meat. Cattle are he or she and they when they're running around mooing but if you ruin your steak dinner "you burned it". A dead body is an it belonging to a person- it's someone's corpse. Conversely, we give names and personal pronouns to objects that we rely on or have a strong attachment to. Some people name and gender their ships, their cars, or their guns.

There is power in names- not your fantasy book magic, but power nonetheless. How we call things shapes how we think about them and how we treat them. I don't want to unconsciously start thinking about specific people as if they had less value, fewer rights, or less sentience than any other person. So that may be why I think I'm still dehumanizing Jor by calling it "it" even though it doesn't think that "it" is dehumanizing. Hopefully people will also notice that with that said, I'm not refusing to use Jor's chosen pronoun either. I'm not sure how this all balances out. However, if I can figure out why I'm uncomfortable with "it" more so than with learning to use "she" (there I was mainly worried about messing it up in front of her, this I feel like I'm doing something wrong) when a friend transitioned then we'll have a better idea of why many people seem to feel that way, and what can or cannot be done about it, and whether doing any of that is wise.

[Coidzor]

Spoiler: It

Show

The thing is, you seem to be arguing that the word "it" and dehumanising someone are completely intertwined to the point of inseparability. My argument is that they're not; there are other factors involved that can change that (such as Jor or my friend's personal pronoun preferences). The idea that "it" is always dehumanizing is a preconception that should be challenged.

My apologies if I've misunderstood your argument here, but--a person who asks to be called "it" isn't asking to be dehumanised. They're asking to be treated like the person they identify as. That's an empowering thing, not a dehumanising thing.

My argument is that dehumanising is actually TREATING someone like a non-human. Talking down to or about them; acting like what then want doesn't matter; valuing them less than you would other people. If you treat someone the same way you treat everyone else, you aren't dehumanizing them.

I think that Jor is right on the money when it says things like "Given a choice between sounding as though you're dehumanising me and actually dehumanising me, the answer should be obvious."

As for the argument than an AMAB wanting to be called "she" is different, it seems that you're advocating a binary gender system and rejecting people who are outside the binary? Or are you saying that there's only a certain set of already-established pronouns that are acceptable, and people must choose among them and no others? My apologies, but I feel like I'm probably misunderstanding something here, so I'd appreciate some clarification on that particular point. Thanks.

Anyway, I think at the end of it all, what this question really boils down to is "Do I value my own comfort or this other person's comfort more?" And with more nuance, "How does how uncomfortable this makes me compare to how uncomfortable this makes that other person?" And where the exact line is, is different for everybody and every situation. There are people who adamantly feel that "it" is the right pronoun for them, and nothing else will suffice; there are people who would really prefer "it" but will accept something else. There are people who could never use "it", no matter what; there are people who are a little jittery about it but are willing to do their best to take others' preferences into account. Sometimes the stances are incompatible; but often times they aren't--they just take some effort to resolve. Whether a friendship is worth the effort is a judgement call, I guess.

But I will say this: it really wasn't so very long ago that being gay or being trans was a LOT more unacceptable than it is now. People who were open about their identities were ridiculed or confronted in public with great frequency (and in some places, they sadly still are). If none of their friends had ever hung out with them or supported them in public, I don't think that we would have seen the great acceptance and swelling of support for LGBTAI+ people that we've had over the past few years.

More visibility, rather than less, is the answer. That's the only way things are going to change. We could keep shoving the issue under the rug and marginalizing people who identify with the pronoun, or we can try to spread awareness and change the cultural context so that way we reach a time where everyone is comfortable. It'll be a little rough along the way as we all adjust, sure--but I think it's a cause worth fighting for.

Edit: Also, I disagree that the conversation can't be productive. I don't know that it can be RESOLVED in a coherent fashion, because it's an inherently value-based decision, and people value or prioritize different things. But the conversation itself raises awareness, which can help normalize use of "it" as a pronoun. Even in this thread, there was a poster who learned that wanting to use the pronoun "it" for oneself can be a serious and legitimate thing, where they previously were under the impression that people who did so were essentially just trolling people and making fun of personal pronouns in general. (And a lot more people read these threads who don't regularly post--myself usually being one of them--so I bet other people have learned from this conversation, too.) And I think that is a positive step.

Spoiler

Show

Yes, from a utilitarian or practical standpoint, if a pronoun already exists for you, it's far superior to just use that one than re-invent the wheel. They has weathered time a lot more successfully than xie or zie or xe or ze, and with good reason. Arguments against the use of they have been leveled and debunked and found baseless for years now, decades, even.

So only those who have an insurmountable objection to they shouldn't use it if it fits and suits them, and those who initially chafe at it due to bad grammar teachers should stop and think about why before pushing for another alternative too vehemently.

This conversation, with the primary antagonists involved, is inherently unhealthy and alienating, so that's a small silver lining to a toxic cloud.

[Asmodean_]

Spoiler: @everyone re:It

Show

I tend to do what I do a lot, mostly borne from simpler conversations regarding cis people.
"Oh I talked with koala and he seemed to like the idea."
"Um... koala's a girl"
"And she seemed to like the idea"
Instant awkwardness. Now I just avoid pronouns when unsure of the correct one.
Option the first: "The DM wanted him to basically Sephiroth the vampire and he wouldn't shut up about it until it actually happened." (true story btw) Whoops! But the DM is Jorm.
Option the second: "The DM wanted him to basically Sephiroth the vampire and it wouldn't shut up about it until it actually happened." Whoops! But I look like a bigot and have to say something along the lines of "Wait nonono it asked me to call it it" which could only make it worse.
Option the third: "The DM wanted him to basically Sephiroth the vampire and wouldn't shut up about it until it actually happened." I won't say problem solved, but problem at the very least successfully avoided. Now no pronouns are used, no incorrect pronouns can be used by accident.

And I think if a topic has been spoilered, anyone opening it should acknowledge that it was spoilered and not just plastered on with no regard to feelings.

[goto124]

Spoiler: @everyone re:It

Show

Instant awkwardness. Now I just avoid pronouns when unsure of the correct one.

Option the third: "The DM wanted him to basically Sephiroth the vampire and wouldn't shut up about it until it actually happened."

I won't say problem solved, but problem at the very least successfully avoided. Now no pronouns are used, no incorrect pronouns can be used by accident.

Spoiler: Agreement

Show

That's what I do as well, especially in forum posts where I can go over what I've typed and adjust accordingly. 'He/she' becomes whatever the person's name is, 'his/her' becomes 'the', etc.

Harder to do when speaking IRL, though. If I catch myself accidentally slipping into pronouns, I try to talk a bit faster and smooth over the pronouns even if I'm grammatically incorrect.

[Kalmageddon]

Spoiler: It stuff

Show

Out of curiosity, has "it" ever been used by someone in actual conversation, in person? Because it sounds to me that it would be clunky as hell to use while talking with a few friends at a table or something. Like, you can ask me to call you "it", but in practice, it's only doable without it being confusing or annoying on the Internet, in written language.

[Jormengand]

Spoiler: It stuff

Show

Out of curiosity, has "it" ever been used by someone in actual conversation, in person? Because it sounds to me that it would be clunky as hell to use while talking with a few friends at a table or something. Like, you can ask me to call you "it", but in practice, it's only doable without it being confusing or annoying on the Internet, in written language.

10chars

Spoiler

Show

Yes.

[Cizak]

Does anyone else have any experience with (or know literature about) having different romantical feelings in theory and in practice?

What I mean by this is: In theory, I'm bi or pan romantic. I can see myself having a relationship with pretty much anyone. And I love the concept of a relationship. Really really love it. I absolutely adore the idea of spending so much time with a single person, to get to know them in such a special way, to share so much, so trust another so much. Yeah, I know that's a pretty romanticised image and reality is not as rosy as the movies, but still. I see other people with romantic partners and I get jealous. On certain days I long for it so badly. I have wonderful friends who I know love me and I love them, but that's strictly platonic. Sometimes, I just ache for something romantic.

But in practice, I'm totally aromantic. I've been romantically interested in exactly one person in my entire life. Those feelings lasted for 2-3 years and ended 10 years ago (we never got together). I haven't felt a single romantic feeling in a decade. I don't understand how people "get crushes". I don't understand how people can know each other for two weeks, initiate a romantic relationship, be together a few months and then break up.
The person I developed feelings for was a very close friend of mine. I've definitely had friends I've been as close with after them. By all logic, I should have developed romantic feelings for someone these last 10 years. I fell in love because the person was kind, trustworthy and pretty. I've gotten to know tons of people with the exact same attributes since then. Yet, absolutely no romantic feelings. 0,00%. I still remember what it felt like to be in love, but those feelings have never been replicated since.

Am I alone in this? Am I crazy? Do I have some very light variation of a split personality disorder? What am I actually, biromantic cause that's what I wanna be or aromantic because that's what all evidence is pointing towards? Am I blowing this way out of proportion? For a while, this didn't bother me. But in the last two or so years, it has occupied my mind a lot more than I'm comfortable with. It just gets so exhausting.

[JNAProductions]

Does anyone else have any experience with (or know literature about) having different romantical feelings in theory and in practice?

What I mean by this is: In theory, I'm bi or pan romantic. I can see myself having a relationship with pretty much anyone. And I love the concept of a relationship. Really really love it. I absolutely adore the idea of spending so much time with a single person, to get to know them in such a special way, to share so much, so trust another so much. Yeah, I know that's a pretty romanticised image and reality is not as rosy as the movies, but still. I see other people with romantic partners and I get jealous. On certain days I long for it so badly. I have wonderful friends who I know love me and I love them, but that's strictly platonic. Sometimes, I just ache for something romantic.

But in practice, I'm totally aromantic. I've been romantically interested in exactly one person in my entire life. Those feelings lasted for 2-3 years and ended 10 years ago (we never got together). I haven't felt a single romantic feeling in a decade. I don't understand how people "get crushes". I don't understand how people can know each other for two weeks, initiate a romantic relationship, be together a few months and then break up.
The person I developed feelings for was a very close friend of mine. I've definitely had friends I've been as close with after them. By all logic, I should have developed romantic feelings for someone these last 10 years. I fell in love because the person was kind, trustworthy and pretty. I've gotten to know tons of people with the exact same attributes since then. Yet, absolutely no romantic feelings. 0,00%. I still remember what it felt like to be in love, but those feelings have never been replicated since.

Am I alone in this? Am I crazy? Do I have some very light variation of a split personality disorder? What am I actually, biromantic cause that's what I wanna be or aromantic because that's what all evidence is pointing towards? Am I blowing this way out of proportion? For a while, this didn't bother me. But in the last two or so years, it has occupied my mind a lot more than I'm comfortable with. It just gets so exhausting.

First off, you are fine. With or without a relationship, you are just you, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Second off, I can't say I've ever personally experienced that. So all this is pure conjecture. But it sounds, to me, like you're just very picky emotionally. You said you had feelings for a very close friend? Well, maybe it's hard for you to open up emotionally, romantically. And that's totally fine. But it would explain why you're able to fantasize so freely (the girl/boy of your dreams is perfect, real people aren't) but have so little romance in real life.

Remember, I don't have the same life you do, so that's all just guessing. But does it make sense? Does it help?

[Togath]

I've been curious if anyone here has had experience with other types of feminizing surgeries, and what the procedures and recovery are like?(since I have considered them for making the non "parts" parts of my body more feminine).

Asking here.
For context, I'm not interested in SRS/GRS, but have been curious about other stuff, like FFS or breast augmentation.

[Coidzor]

Well, boobjobs have gotten a lot better in recent years compared to the 90s or even 00s.

Still need to do research on the surgeon and their work, though.

So is what I've kept hearing on the wind, at any rate.

[Togath]

From my vague understanding, it seems like recovery from one usually isn't too hard, and usually doesn't require much of a hospital stay(I've also been finding a few of accounts of it being possible to have done without general anesthesia, which is a bit of a plus to me if it is a thing, since I both find stuff like this fascinating... And have a fear of being knocked out for medical stuff)

FFS(and other stuff)... I have a lot less knowledge of.
It sounds like a lot of other feminizing surgeries would have a longer more complex recovery just based on bone modification sounding like a thing that would take a while to recover after, but they also seem harder to find as much information on(probably due to being more niche than breast augmentation)

[Cizak]

First off, you are fine. With or without a relationship, you are just you, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Second off, I can't say I've ever personally experienced that. So all this is pure conjecture. But it sounds, to me, like you're just very picky emotionally. You said you had feelings for a very close friend? Well, maybe it's hard for you to open up emotionally, romantically. And that's totally fine. But it would explain why you're able to fantasize so freely (the girl/boy of your dreams is perfect, real people aren't) but have so little romance in real life.

Remember, I don't have the same life you do, so that's all just guessing. But does it make sense? Does it help?

I don't know if "picky" describes it... it's not like I chose to fall in love that one time. It just happened. And as I've said, I've known plenty of similar people just as well, if not better, than them later in life. It's weird that no inkling of romantic feelings have ever surfaced again. Maybe it's hard for me to open up romantically, but again that's in practice. In theory, I would love to open myself up to a romantic relationship. But doing that is not really on the table if romantic feelings aren't present.

[Asmodean_]

Unsure whether I'm hetero or bi, not willing to put in the effort to find out which, unsure how to feel about that attitude.

Edit: For clarity, it's because I'm lazy and have limited free time.

So I spent some time thinking about it and I think the word that describes me would be bisexual. As in, gender isn't really a consideration for getting into a (hypothetical) romantic relationship. Is that the most accurate description I could be using?

[Jormengand]

So I spent some time thinking about it and I think the word that describes me would be bisexual. As in, gender isn't really a consideration for getting into a (hypothetical) romantic relationship. Is that the most accurate description I could be using?

Well...

There's a massive argument on what the exact difference is between bisexual and pansexual, and one which gets people hurt whenever it gets brought up, but the answer is that if you feel comfortable saying you're bisexual, that's the term that most people will probably understand and it's fine for you to identify that way, and it's at the very least accurate enough that people probably won't be confused by it.

Of course, you're allowed to change what you think whenever you like.

[Coidzor]

So I spent some time thinking about it and I think the word that describes me would be bisexual. As in, gender isn't really a consideration for getting into a (hypothetical) romantic relationship. Is that the most accurate description I could be using?

As long as you find yourself attracted to both men and women, only a very odious person would give you **** over a technicality that's not even covered by real consensus and is itself a divisive issue.

[Algeh]

This may not be strictly on topic, because I'm not asking about it for reasons of my personal gender identity, but is there a non-gendered form of Mr./Ms. that doesn't involve me getting a doctorate?

It's time to write my bio and course policies at work again, and I basically feel like my gender is unrelated to my teaching of mathematics, so I'd prefer a title that didn't immediately convey that information as though it were the most important single thing about me (in the same way that I currently use Ms. rather than Miss or Mrs. not because I am some other state than either married or unmarried, but because my martial status is not relevant to my job - I end up explaining this to kids at least once a month, probably, because it seems like most kids are totally confused about why female teachers have three different titles and tend to use them interchangeably).

I certainly wouldn't want to use a title reserved only for non-binary people in an appropriative way, which is a large part of why I'm asking here rather than just searching the internet for a while and picking something that sounds cool. I want something that's equally ok for anyone to use regardless of gender, just like "Ms." is equally ok regardless of martial status, rather than something that just signals something different about my gender than my current title.

If it matters, I teach 12-18 year olds in a fairly progressive state in the US. I teach online, so I'd probably put up a link to page explaining whatever title I ended up using to head off questions.

[Heliomance]

This may not be strictly on topic, because I'm not asking about it for reasons of my personal gender identity, but is there a non-gendered form of Mr./Ms. that doesn't involve me getting a doctorate?

It's time to write my bio and course policies at work again, and I basically feel like my gender is unrelated to my teaching of mathematics, so I'd prefer a title that didn't immediately convey that information as though it were the most important single thing about me (in the same way that I currently use Ms. rather than Miss or Mrs. not because I am some other state than either married or unmarried, but because my martial status is not relevant to my job - I end up explaining this to kids at least once a month, probably, because it seems like most kids are totally confused about why female teachers have three different titles and tend to use them interchangeably).

I certainly wouldn't want to use a title reserved only for non-binary people in an appropriative way, which is a large part of why I'm asking here rather than just searching the internet for a while and picking something that sounds cool. I want something that's equally ok for anyone to use regardless of gender, just like "Ms." is equally ok regardless of martial status, rather than something that just signals something different about my gender than my current title.

If it matters, I teach 12-18 year olds in a fairly progressive state in the US. I teach online, so I'd probably put up a link to page explaining whatever title I ended up using to head off questions.

Mx, pronounced Mixter, is slowly gaining momentum.

[Asmodean_]

Mx, pronounced Mixter, is slowly gaining momentum.

Yeah but that sounds like a cocktail. You can always use Prof.

[Coidzor]

If you don't like having to educate children about Ms., you're probably going to hate introducing an entirely separate concept, especially if you do have a female gender identity in the first place, since it would be inventing work for yourself.

[noparlpf]

I mean, "Dr." is pretty heavily socially gendered. Just ask any female doctor how she likes getting get mail addressed to "Dr. and Mrs. Surname."

[Irish Musician]

Yeah but that sounds like a cocktail. You can always use Prof.

I'd go this way with it. You're teaching, your a professor....just use that as your "title". Professor *Surname here*. That way don't have to worry about any gendered prefix.

[Chen]

I'd go this way with it. You're teaching, your a professor....just use that as your "title". Professor *Surname here*. That way don't have to worry about any gendered prefix.

Professor may work depending on where you are. I don't recall calling any of my high school teachers professor. Post-secondary though they'd all be called professor. Some places do tend to limit professor to someone with a Ph.D though.

[Irish Musician]

Professor may work depending on where you are. I don't recall calling any of my high school teachers professor. Post-secondary though they'd all be called professor. Some places do tend to limit professor to someone with a Ph.D though.

Very good point. I didn't call any of mine Prof, either, but doesn't mean they couldn't get them to call them that.

But you're right, probably just depends on where you are in the world

[golentan]

I mean, "Dr." is pretty heavily socially gendered. Just ask any female doctor how she likes getting get mail addressed to "Dr. and Mrs. Surname."

My parents are Dr. and Dr. or Professor and Professor Surname.

A source of great confusion to their students given they frequently teach the same class together.

They met in postgraduate school and bonded over their course of study.

[Algeh]

Culturally, I can't imagine asking kids in middle or high school to call me "professor". That's for college - my job title is "teacher", which doesn't seem to make sense as a title in front of a last name. "Teacher Lastname" just sounds...odd.

I don't mind educating students about the meaning of "Ms." (and I don't get angry if they call me by something else, I just correct them, explain why I picked what I did, and move on), I do find it odd that their middle or high school math teacher is the first one to explain it to them (I've found this odd for my entire teaching career of 10-ish years). When I taught in a regular classroom, I just didn't correct them no matter what title they used for me (or how they spelled my name, which has several silent letters), and now that I teach online and mostly interact with students individually or in small groups (we have on-site office hours in our program), if it comes up during office hours I take the time to explain about the three different female titles, and they generally react as though this is completely new information to them and kind of clears up the mystery of when to use which one.

I guess my mother was the right wave of feminist that this was something I was taught when I was learning polite ways to address adults as a very small child (I was of a generation and culture that called the various adults in my neighborhood by PreferredTitle Lastname rather than by their first names), so it's like if I were somehow having to explain to high schoolers how waiting in line works or something at least once a month.

I guess what mostly brought this on is that my current explanation about Ms. tends to run something along the lines of "There are three different titles for female adults: Miss, Mrs., and Ms. Miss means that you aren't married, Mrs. means that you are, and Ms. can be used regardless. I choose to go by Ms. becuase I don't think people doing the same job need different titles depending on whether or not they're married (you'll notice the men's title of Mr. doesn't change for that). If there were a title that worked for both men and women, I'd pick that one instead, too."

So I began to wonder...is there one? Because then I should go ahead and pick it instead.

I teach in a small program as the only secondary math teacher, and may have the same students for 5 years in a row (7th grade math through Algebra 2). I'd probably only have to explain it to 40-50 new students a year at most after the initial year.

[goto124]

Maybe you could go for the surname by itself? Instead of Ms Smith, just Smith?

Yeah but that sounds like a cocktail. You can always use Prof.

Now I know what title to use if I ever become a bartender...