Talk:Mx (title)

Bluntly Speaking again
The article should also note a distinct lack of common usage. It should also say most people are unaware of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawn0 o (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As a (non-trans male) user of the title I can confirm it is not terribly well known. I note that Jack Monroe (the cookery author and anti-austerity activist) is on Twitter as MxJackMonroe which might raise recognition if not adoption of the title - Mx Monroe's libel case against Katie Hopkins centred on both their use of Twitter and many news reports quoted their tweets - but have not seen any media comment on Mx Monroe's title. As for actual stats we would need citable figures. Perhaps a freedom of information request to one of the large public sector organisations that allows the use of Mx, such as HMRC or DVLA, would elicit citable information. As an anecdote and bit of original research, on the branch register of my union branch, I am the only Mx out of 2500 or so members. Rugxulo (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As a nonbinary individual, I can honestly say I've only seen this title come up in maybe one or two forms over the course of my life (which is shorter than the supposed existence of the title). The usage I've seen has only been within the past 5 years or so as well, with options such as "other" in gender still being a rarity as well. So despite the opening paragraph's claim that it is "widely accepted by the govt. and many businesses", it is still largely unknown to folk who aren't in the nonbinary community. There is a world of difference between de jure and de facto acceptance. 2A02:C7F:4693:1300:4521:3DFB:4B66:4312 (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I just started a Freedom of Information request to HMRC here - let's see how that goes? I'm not very experienced with FOI requests so I'm not sure it'll be successful! I'm not even sure if HMRC accommodate Mx properly on their systems. But if they can't answer the question directly, they can probably provide more information. If they don't accommodate Mx properly they will hopefully say so. -- Cassolotl   (talk) pronouns: they/them  21:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cassolotl, I will follow the progress of this with interest. 86.169.184.109 (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I saw their update to this, which found that around 0.003% of individuals used Mx as their honorific Therealteal (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Genderqueer
Category:Genderqueer has been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Thought this was relevant to this page and yes I am the nominator. --Devin Kira Murphy (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Just unknown?
Can 'Mx' be used to address or refer to somebody whose gender is simply unknown to the speaker/writer? It seems 'Ms' is commonly used to refer to a woman when one simply doesn't know her marital status, so such use would be similar to this. — Smjg (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In the scenario you mention I would probably just use the person's full name without a title e.g. "C. Smith" on an envelope, and "Dear Chris Smith" in a letter, when there is any doubt as to the gender of "Chris" and/or their preferred term of address. The use of Mx, as with the older titles Miss, Mrs and Mr, is a matter of personal preference. 81.153.246.173 (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The earliest known text describing Mx as a gender-neutral title proposed that it could be used by anyone of any gender to avoid sexism, so this seems fair enough to me! Blog post and linked original text in Google Scholar. -- Cassolotl   (talk) pronouns: they/them  22:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That it "could be used", does not mean everyone is willing to be addressed as Mx. It up to the individual what title they use, be that Mx or one of the longer established titles that indicates gender and perhaps marital status. More organisations are recognising Mx as a title so there is no excuse for them not to use the correct titles on mail merges etc. 86.169.184.109 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

American Usage
I propose to add Usage sub-headings for "United Kingdom" and "United States". Evidence shows acceptance in the UK, and at least evolving usage in the US according to one major style authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmausner (talk • contribs) 15:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

As a sign that Mx. is becoming more common in the U.S.A., it appears in the drop-down for title on the form to submit email to the White House and probably for some other federal government pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatMAK (talk • contribs) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Updated source
I can't really update this article with a new source because I made the new source and that seems like a faux pas! But I thought I would let watchers of this article know that there is a new "version" of citation 3, "The Prevalence and Pronunciation of the Title Mx". That's a report of a survey done in 2019 (n = 3,000 or so), and this new one is 2023 and n = 6,000 or so. -- Cassolotl   (talk) pronouns: they/them  23:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

mx claus emoji
The mx claus emoji seems a) superfluous, and b) makes the entry, and therefore the title Mx itself, seem less serious.

If I were to address a formal business email to Mx Cohen, applying for a job, for instance -- if the recipient has not seen that title before, they would assumedly google it and be led to its wikipedia page. I would not want them to infer from that giant emoji, the first thing they see on the page, that the tenor of the email was not sufficiently professional, and thus take offense. 2601:282:1780:6340:2960:4E00:9F11:79D2 (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)