Now You Can Be A Mx.--In England, Anyway

I identify as a woman.  Any time I'm asked for a salutation, I use "Ms.", in part because the titles "Mrs." and "Miss" seem both inappropriate for me and simply troublesome.  For one thing, I don't think a woman's salutation should announce her marital status if a man's doesn't signal his. For another, since I'm not married--and, were I to marry, I probably wouldn't take on my spouse's name--"Mrs." simply wouldn't make any sense.  And somehow "Miss" doesn't seem right for a woman of my age.

(In France, women "of a certain age" are usually referred to as "Madame", whether or not they are married.  Female salutations are used in similar ways in other cultures; i.e., "senora" and "senorita" in Spanish-speaking countries, and "signora" and "signorita" in Italy.)

Having said those things, I believe that a person should have the right not to identify as male or female.  Such a person should be allowed to create another gender identity, or not to have a gender identity at all.

Interestingly, some other countries are, in effect, allowing that.  Four years ago, an Australian  who goes only by the name Norrie was issued papers that say "Sex Not Specified."  As I understand, a few other people have received such papers.

Now people in the UK can get drivers' licenses and other official documents on which their names are preceded by "Mx."--which is usually pronounced as "Mux"--instead of "Ms.", "Mrs.", "Miss",  "Mr.", "Dr.", "Lord" or "Lady".  Royal Mail, the country's major banks, government agencies and some universities are now also acepting this title.  It even appears in the drop-down boxes of some online job applications and other forms.

It will be interesting to see whether the title is adopted here in the US.  I am old enough to remember the uproar over "Ms." when it first appeared.  Some people actually thought it was the end of civilization when the New York Times started using it in their articles in the late 1970's.  If Americans start to use "Mx>", how long will it take the Times to allow it onto their hallowed pages?

I also have to wonder how or whether other cultures that don't have an equivalent of "Ms>" will deal with "Mx."

The Netherlands Regains Its Edge

As of this writing, Argentina remains the nation with the most enlightened laws regarding gender identity.  Essentially, any Argentinian 18 years or older can live in whatever gender he or she chooses.  There are no prerequisites: no hormones, no surgery, not even a third-party recommendation or consent.

A year and eight months have passed since Argentina's ruling.  Since then, the United Kingdom, Austria and Portugal have done away with the requirements for hormones, surgeries or other medical or psychiatric interventions in order to change the gender marker on a person's identification documents.  A German court has ruled in favor of a similar policy.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the Netherlands is about to join them.  Like their European counterparts--and unlike Argentina--the Netherlands will require expert testimony attesting to the applicant's long-held conviction that he or she is of a gender different from the one to which he or she was assigned at birth.  The Dutch will, like the other nations mentined, not require any medical, pharmacological or psychiatric procedures or treatments.  One way in which the Dutch have parted company with those nations, though, is that a person has to be only 16 years old in order to make the changes.

I began my previous paragraph with "Perhaps not surprisingly" because, for one thing, the Netherlands was the first nation to legalize same-sex marriage.  Perhaps even more relevant is the fact that in 1985, it was one of the first nations to pass legislation enabling transgender people to change their registered gender.  In the ensuing quarter-century, the laws have lost some of their edge as understanding of what it means to be transgendered has advanced in the medical, legal and academic communities as well as among the general public.  So, apparently, the Dutch figured it was time to make the changes to reflect that knowledge as well as their changing understanding of human rights laws.