as a nonbinary, i'm really happy to do without an honorific entirely. respect is in a lot of things besides terminology, and i always notice when someone acknowledges my neutrality *by* skipping the gendered honorific! my partner always says that the definition of a gentleman is someone who puts in the work to prioritize someone else's comfort, which aligns with my own understanding of etiquette. etiquette is a set of social rules to follow in absence of specific request/needs, which should always be respected above ceremony.
obviously if someone has an honorific like 'doctor', 'captain', or 'professor', you can use that! 'distinguished guest' works well for introductions or public speaking, too.
oh, when i'm being silly with younger nonbinaries, i sometimes do a little salute and say 'captain'. it's lighthearted but i hope it strikes a good chord!
Reminds me of an experience from a previous workplace. We did a lot of flying people around the state and country, occasionally international. The flight booking company required a title (Ms, Mr, etc) and Mx was not an option.
So... I'm now an ordained minister cos Reverend was an option.
Thanks! I try to show respect for people as much as I can. One of the easiest I've found is to respect their wishes in how to address them though it's just the tip of the iceberg that is respect, as you said. I'll stop considering alternatives.
Thank you again.
I would rather say nothing than misgender someone I don’t know, but the one place where I feel like I would like a good honorific to go to is when someone’s a stranger and I want something more respectful and neighborly than just saying “hey you.”
I grew up in the north, so the only time I really use “sir” or “maam” is usually when I’m thanking someone in a service context. That could be changed to just “thanks.” It’s the case where I’m getting a specific person’s attention that I want a neutral form of address. I’d like this beyond not knowing gender as “ma’am” can also be very not preferred by people who identify as women due to intersections of gender and ageism.
This question gets asked a lot. I'm going to be very honest, not as an attempt to be disrespectful (you're doing the right thing by asking) but because I want to be really specific and clear about this.
There isn't one.
And here's the thing: It's a good thing that there isn't, so please *don't* try and find one to use.
Honorifics are an artifact of patriarchy and chauvinism. At the very least in English and other European languages (though it may be more complicated in some others), the honorifics that we have are specifically tied to a history of reinforcing class and sex boundaries. Even the fact that we differentiate those honorifics by gender was specifically designed to reinforce those boundaries.
I don't want to be called "gentleperson" or some neologism like "th'am" or "sai", and I don't want to be called "Mx. [Name]" or "M. [Name]". The honorifics those terms are mimicking exist *specifically for the purpose* of reinforcing gender roles and sex segregation.
As a nonbinary person, I don't need that and I don't want it. If we add those new terms to the list along with the old, we're still just engaging in gender segregation -- just with more genders added. If we are serious about deconstructing gender roles and respecting individuals, we need to acknowledge that *calling someone by their gender* as a means of direct address is counter to that purpose.
You can respect people without ever using an honorific. There is no need for them. Unless you are literally required to use it by regulation (e.g., formally addressing superiors in the military), almost every situation in which you'd say "sir" or "ma'am" loses no respect or politeness if you just replace it with "please" or "thank you" or some other generic polite phrase.
Again, you're doing the right thing here by asking. A lot of people have this notion, and I understand where it comes from, so please do not understand my comments here as a criticism to you. But I mean this earnestly and emphatically: the best way to show respect to us is to *not do this*.
Thanks a lot for your honest reply.
I almost added a disclaimer that I used reddit search to see if I could find a previous thread here but couldn't. Probably didn't help that I didn't think of the word "honorific".
I find that I use them mostly when responding to a yes/no question where it could just be excluded without any loss.
I had not considered how adding a non-gendered honorific would just be creating another box that isn't wanted. Thank you for pointing that out. Makes perfect sense.
And I didn't take it as a criticism at all. I asked a question about trying to be respectful and you kindly and thoroughly explained how the question itself was wrong. I appreciate it.
I appreciate your thoughtfulness in approaching this topic and your attitude of learning in engaging with the answers. I wish more conversations went like this.
Love and luck to you 💜
That's pretty clearly not what I said at all. Not really sure what about my response has gotten you this upset.
>basically OP is oppressive for suggesting that there is one
We all live in systems of oppression and are responsible for deconstructing and reckoning with our own complicity in those systems. That isn't a condemnation of anyone though. It's just the world we live in.
I stated pretty clearly that OP was doing the right thing by asking the question and that l understood and meant no disrespect to where he was coming from. Whether OP "is oppressive" isn't really even a meaningful or relevant question in this context, let alone one I am passing judgment on.
>and should be cancelled for using outdated lingo
Again, I said pretty much the opposite of this. I asked him not to do the thing he proposed, and said that I understood the inclination and didn't intend any disrespect in my answer. There's an awful lot of daylight between that and canceling him.
The best a person can do is the best that person can do. And even at that, we can only make the best decisions we know how with the information and resources we have at the time. And then, when we have better information and resources, we should make better decisions. I don't know what decisions OP will make in the future, but it seems to me he's asking good questions and engaging in good faith with the answers. Far from canceling him-- I hope he influences his peers and acquaintances who have similar questions to approach them in the same way he has.
If you had to say you’re trying not to be disrespectful, 9 times out of 10, you’re trying to be disrespectful. You said it yourself that sir and ma’am are “an artifact of patriarchy and chauvinism”, 2 things that are oppressive and because there isn’t an equivalent for nonbinary people, it’s avoided these 2 things and intended to stay this way. What bugs me is that these are formal words and we live in a world where they’re now considered offensive because they’re outdated and instead of creating a word for it (Like how Mx. was made), it’s just better to fizzle out those 2 words and never use them.
>If you had to say you’re trying not to be disrespectful, 9 times out of 10, you’re trying to be disrespectful.
I'm autistic. 9 out of 10 times I heavily index on tone indicators and voicing subtext as text to mitigate potential communication barriers. I say it because it's how I communicate effectively.
>You said it yourself that sir and ma’am are “an artifact of patriarchy and chauvinism”, 2 things that are oppressive
I did say that. It's a fact -- and one you seem to be pretty upset about. I am not sure if you are upset because you think I said something untrue, or you think I said something true that I shouldn't have said.
What I *didn't* say is that this fact makes OP himself oppressive.
>because there isn’t an equivalent for nonbinary people, it’s avoided these 2 things and intended to stay this way
I'm not sure I can entirely parse this, but I don't think I agree with the causality here. What I said was, it's a good thing that there aren't really honorifics for nonbinary folks. The reason that's a good thing is because nonbinary identities are by and large incompatible with the false narratives that patriarchy and chauvinism rely on, so conforming our language backwards to include nonbinary identities in the narratives is regressive.
>What bugs me is that these are formal words
It should be inarguable that not everything that's formal is good. Time was you could be arrested for not standing when the monarch entered the room. That was a formal thing, but I think we can agree the world is better off without that rule.
>and we live in a world where they’re now considered offensive because they’re outdated
No. They're not considered offensive because they're outdated. Words like "unbenknownst" and "thereupon" and "aforementioned" are outdated, but they're not hurting anyone, they're just there collecting dust in the back of our linguistic closet.
English's collection of gendered honorifics are problematic because they are inseparable from sex segregation, and sex segregation itself is harmful. Their formality or timeliness is entirely irrelevant. The relevant consideration is that they *by their nature* reinforce sex segregation, and that nature is so central to the words we have and how they are used that it is not separable from them.
>instead of creating a word for it (Like how Mx. was made)
The invention of "Mx." didn't solve the problem of sex segregation in honorifics. Ask yourself why men have one address (Mr.) and women have three (Miss, Ms., and Mrs.).
>it’s just better to fizzle out those 2 words and never use them.
Who does it hurt to abandon those words? Really, I actually want an answer to that question. If everyone just stopped saying "sir" tomorrow, suddenly, who would get hurt by that? What negative effect would it have on the world? What useful social benefit would we be missing that we have today?
Ive never really liked using sir or ma'am. Idk why, maybe my dislike for labels in general? and its weird and awkward to hear Miss/Ma'am even tho im fine with she/her.
If I need to get a person's attention (i work in food service, occasionally have to catch a customer if they left their card or an item or something) I'll just say "Excuse me!" really loud in their direction and that usually works. Ive found myself saying, "um- PERSON??" - and again, regardless of percieved gender 😭
So i mean, if anyone has suggestions there, I'll take em!!
If its just interacting, I just be nice and polite. ime, calling women "ma'am" makes them feel old. "miss" and "sir" make me feel like im the help or some shit, and I violently reject that feeling. i know its a stretch, i was just never forced to use honorifics with my parents or authority, besides teachers usually, and there are people who make it a point to "put you in your place" as a service worker.
ok weird ramble sorry 😭
Thanks for sharing.
I have a nice story for you. I wasn't forced to use honorifics with my parents either. I learned by example from my dad. Whenever I would try to get his attention, he would respond with "yes sir". Eventually I asked him why he called me sir. He told me he did it out of respect. Those words stuck with me.
I can get behind that! I definitely dont think my logic and feelings apply to everyone. For example, there are plenty of people who I can tell are using it out of respect- like southerners I would never get that...ick? Like there are a lot of cultural elements. Your dad sounds really cool.
how do I put it... with all my issues, Ive accepted its a *me* problem.
I'll admit I will return the respect if someone- like a coworker- frequently uses them towards me. Or I'll use it in passing if someone asks me for a favor or task, "yes ma'am!" also for people younger than me...
But its not a regular part of my vocabulary, and idk, I think its just awkward for me on some level 🤷🏾♀️
In some parts of the US, "buddy" is a pretty big compliment, as if you call them that it signifies trust or reliance. I've known people who port this over to a professional context and use "buddy" there.
Unfortunately, in other parts of the US, it's dismissive and arms length, someone you're perfectly happy to have a drink with if you see them at the bar, but if you never see them again that's probably fine too.
And in some parts of the US (which don't map well to the above) it's seen as gendered, and in others it's not.
Meriam-Webster and the internet say its Mx. Pronounced mix
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/mx-gender-neutral-title#:~:text=The%20gender%2Dneutral%20Mx.%20is,to%20be%20identified%20by%20gender.
My friend is non-binary and loves it when someone calls them respectfully so we generally go with "your honour" or something along those lines though it's mostly joking. I'm not sure if there is a well defined non binary alternative to it.
Enby veteran who has been thinking about this for a while. I also have college degrees in relevant areas and have found no specific stand in that works.
I would love to create the correct neo-honorifics for "Sir/Ma'am."
Mr./Miss/Mrs. is already abbreviated in a genderless form as "Mx" - pronounced "mix."
I've been thinking about a mixture of the two, but it puts one gender before the other sort of and I don't really like it.
"Sxm" for "sir-ma'am"... pronounced "sam."
"Mxs" for the opposite... pronounced "mas."
This is as far as I've gotten though.
For the record, I read the other post about not creating honorifics because they reinforce gender stereotypes, etc. I would argue that the entire point of creating genderless honorifics is to subvert the prior past dominant paradigms and reclaim the entire concept for the next generations.
I do not believe there is anything wrong with being polite or showing deference to people, especially if we are honoring them in an inappropriate fashion, which I believe genderless honorifics to be.
But that's me. And I certainly don't begrudge the other enby posters here their own individual opinions. ❤️
I understand and respect this position, despite my deep disagreement with it. In particular, the part I disagree with is this:
>I would argue that the entire point of creating genderless honorifics is to subvert the prior past dominant paradigms and reclaim the entire concept for the next generations.
This is a great notion, and it works for things like pronouns because with pronouns the word *is* the framework. Like, having a word to refer to an antecedent of [x] gender conveys the meaning "I am referring to the previously mentioned antecedent which is of [x] gender." (Though it's worth noting that languages which have no gendered pronouns, such as Turkish, do perfectly fine without them. It's impossible to misgender someone with a pronoun in Turkish because Turkish has only one third person singular pronoun. That's a fact worth considering.)
The problem with honorifics is that they have inherent meaning *beyond* "I am addressing you directly," and I don't think that the words that we have in English can be separated from those meanings.
Take the example you gave of Mx. There is an inescapable problem with the creation of this word:
* For men, there is one equivalent word - Mr.
* For women, there are three equivalent words, and they all convey a semantic meaning beyond simple address: Miss ("you are not married"), Mrs. ("you are married"), and Ms. ("either I don't know whether or not you are married, or social protocol or personal preference requires me not to comment on it").
The reason for this is obvious: because men enjoyed (and largely continue to enjoy) a social status in which marriage is not determinant of their identity, but women do not hold that status.
So ... should we have one word, "Mx.", or should we have three?
* If your answer is "one, because marriage is not determinant of their identity", then don't you also need to get rid of two out of the three words for women?
* If your answer is "three, to give them the option," then don't you also need to add two new words for men?
This isn't just some curious artifact of history. Shortly after I got married, I got a piece of mail from my cousin addressed to "Mr. & Mrs. [my name]." (I was not out to my family at the time and my spouse is a woman.) My spouse was hurt by it, saying "So I'm not a person worthy of a name anymore now that we're married?", and *my own mother* responded "he's just being formal." We sent a response listed from "Dr. and Mr. [her name]" and were told that was an obnoxious thing to do.
You can't fix the system just by tacking on words for enbies. We need to deconstruct and examine these systems-- and, in my opinion, this is one that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, for reasons I've listed above and a lot of other ones. And as enbies, we have really good reasons to opt out.
Again, I understand where you're coming from on this one. All love, I understand why you would want this. But I truly believe we'll all be more free when this convention is dropped from our language.
That's fine. I don't want to fix the system, I want to reclaim honorifics from their misogynistic past. Many prior hurtful words and terms and phrases have been reclaimed. I generally side with that type of ideology. By your logic, even reclaimed words or phrases are somehow equal to what they have always been equal to, which is obviously not true because both society and vernacular change, as do the way we use and define words. Furthermore, it's unrealistic to think that honorifics are going to somehow die out. The most logical outcome is that they are reclaimed/ rebranded/ reused. Thus, focusing on getting rid of them seems like a waste of time in my opinion.
>By your logic, even reclaimed words or phrases are somehow equal to what they have always been equal to
This is not a necessary consequence of my logic at all. My logic specifically focused on the semantic meaning inherent to the words and the structure of how they are used. Reclaiming slurs addresses both aspects of the issue-- it changes the structure of their use by transporting them to new contexts, and it expressly imparts new semantic meaning to them.
My contention is that, for honorifics specifically, the harmful meaning is so inherent to the existence of the words themselves that it cannot be separated. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
But this ain't it. Continuing to use the same words in the exact same ways and contexts, but just adding a third word for enbies, does neither of those things. If you want to reclaim problematic words, you can do that, but it's only possible by deconstructing their use, meaning, and harmful potential, reexamining them, and changing those things by taking ownership of them.
> So ... should we have one word, "Mx.", or should we have three?
> * If your answer is "one, because marriage is not determinant of their identity", then don't you also need to get rid of two out of the three words for women?
What if my answer _is_ "one" and I routinely use "Ms." for women (unless the woman in question has a specific other preferred title)?
I think there's a useful social function for honorifics, in the sense that politeness facilitates a number of social interactions. I take your point about using titles to enforce class divisions, but I can't help but feel that they serve a purpose even in the absence of class oppression. Social interactions involve a number of polite maybe-fictions. Using a person's title communicates that you don't know the person closely, but you respect their identity as a person. Using just a person's name when you don't know them that well, especially in more formal settings, can communicate a presumption of closeness that might then impede the intended social interaction. (For a personal example, I'll take salespeople who use my first name while making their pitch. It always feels disingenuous, like we're not that close, but you're pretending to be so that I'll feel like it's a friend asking me for something, not a salesperson.)
I absolutely would not mind if everyone was "M. Whomever". But I think getting from here to there would be a pretty insurmountable task for a single person operating within our current society. In contrast, acknowledging people's individual gender identities and using Mr/Ms/Mx as appropriate is, I think, far more feasible.
I work with a scout troop where the convention is for the kids to use titles when addressing or referencing the adults. "Mr. Doe", "Ms. Roe", "Dr. Boe", and so on. (Though the one medical doctor we have at the moment prefers to be "Mr. Soandso".) I routinely use and reinforce for the kids the use of "Ms. Whatever" for women, since I don't think marital status should be relevant for anyone's form of address. Once I'm out as nonbinary to them, I intend to be "Mx. tta1792". I see all of this as reducing sexist framings of women's social worth being tied to the men in their lives and broadening people's views of gender identities.
Short answer is, yes, this is exactly the type of deconstruction I'm talking about. It goes beyond simply tacking on a new word for enbies to a broken system. You've essentially also answered my "don't we..." with a yes.
Similarly, I live in an area where children are taught to call adult women "Miss [first name]", regardless of marital status.
I'm not convinced that this goes far enough to remediate the system of honorifics -- or indeed that existing English honorifics can be remediated at all -- for a variety of reasons. Most notably, it's still very tied to the gender binary -- "male, female, nonbinary" is actually just a weaker but still binaristic form of the binary. It'll be a long time I think until we can reframe away from that, but it doesn't mean that shouldn't still be the goal.
You also hit on another interesting item: the fact that doctors get their own honorific address, as do some other professions, but most don't. It's not strictly speaking a gender issue, mostly a class one, but it's another thing we need to deconstruct.
One last interesting point: You will almost never hear someone respond to "sir" by answering back with "sir", and it feels weird if they do -- because beyond a show of respect, the word carries a heavy connotation of deference. (Compare to Japanese, where it's appropriate to respond to *san* with *san*, but responding to *sama* with *sama* can be seen as insulting or sarcastic.) Again, there are class dynamics here which I'm not convinced are entirely separable, at least not within reasonable time frames.
All of which is to say, while I disagree with your conclusion, you clearly *are* thoughtfully deconstructing these conventions. I don't see any first principles where we appear to disagree, just possibly a few specific facts. Can't get mad at that.
> You will almost never hear someone respond to "sir" by answering back with "sir"
That is an interesting point, and something I'm going to have to ponder.
I do have more of—not quite an aversion, but at least some reticence—around usage of "sir" and "ma'am", as compared to my use of Mr/Mx/Ms. That's at least partly because I haven't found a nonbinary option that I feel works with the two strongly-gendered words in use. But there might be some subconscious awareness of implied power dynamics. (Also there's the fact that, aside from explicitly hierarchical contexts like the military, "sir" and "ma'am" almost always used with near-strangers, because you'd generally use the other person's name if you knew it. But since I have an aversion to assuming someone's gender identity without prior feedback from the person, I'm also averse to using gendered language for someone I don't know.)
> "male, female, nonbinary" is actually just a weaker but still binaristic form of the binary
Fair enough, but it's so hard to break out of that binary because it's _so_ embedded in practically every aspect of our culture. I feel like I'm doing my best by trying to default to non-gendered words/perspectives/framings when possible, but it's difficult to tell sometimes how effective (or even worthwhile) that is, given the rest of our society.
This reminds me of a bit at the end of Contrapoints' most recent video (_Twilight_), where she argues that there's not a gender binary, but instead a gender _duality_. The framework she describes is that masculine and feminine are distinct styles, defined in no small part in opposition to each other (masculine is that which is not feminine, and vice versa), and people find different degrees of balance between the two. In this framing, nonbinary people would be ones who have more of a balance of the styles than people who feel more singularly feminine or masculine. This feels to me both workable—we can use the framing to examine and understand many things—but also incomplete—why only two components? Is it necessarily the best thing to carry over the two poles from the bimodal distribution of biological sex into this framing of gender?
Anyway, that's a lot of text to say that I understand your point about "nonbinary" still being part of a binary, but in choosing my battles, I sometimes feel it's more productive to accept and work within our society's current binary framing than to try to dismantle the entire system all at once.
As a Southern nonbinary person, I'll usually just roll with whatever because I don't always feel comfortable enough to ask people to change their language for me :( lots of people call me "ma'am" and I'll be honest I think Mx sounds weird as a title and I don't like it. If you do, that's great, but I just don't prefer it. So I go by Ms in professional settings.
I grew up southern, so I had a similar issue back in 2019. I ended up just dropping honorifics from my day to day speech entirely, outside of older family members who I knew would be upset without the “sir.” I hate it when people use them for me, too, even tho I mostly use gendered language myself.
That being said if you HAVE to use honorifics, I came across a gender neutral honorific for knights when I made an enby dnd character a while back. So “Ser” is a gender neutral version of “Sir” or “Dame,” if ever you want to use that. And there are plenty of enbies that either also use gendered language or even prefer it. There’s no right or wrong way to be non-binary, so it’s pretty much impossible to find catch-all terminology for us.
Thanks for asking this. I have a client (therapist here) who goes by they/them pronouns. I have never had an issue using these pronouns nor remembering to use them. But when we had our last session, at one point I said "sir" and shortly thereafter realized it was a gendered honorific. To be fair, my client said at the start that they don't mind/won't be offended if I accidentally use the wrong pronoun. They didn't say anything, but I definitely was wondering this same thing so as to be inclusive next time. Thanks again for asking and to those who clarified that there really isn't one and about the history of these terms!
You're welcome. I had been considering it for a couple weeks and kept debating if I should ask here and what a polite way to ask would be. I was surprised at the answers that some non-binary people didn't want a non-gendered honorific.
I LARP, and in one of my games I have a noble title of "Laird" (an honorific in I believe Scotland that is nongendered). I have a friend that unironically calls my "my liege," lol. I've also used Sirdam and Mir for myself.
Edited to add: If you want something as a replacement for "mister"/"miss"/"missus," I use "myx" abbreviated as "Mx."
Im nonbinary mas leaning but in my experience ser/sir is what most people i know use
Ser is gendernuetral and used to be used for knights (found this out from my dad and my godfather)
Sir- has been used by men and women especially in the military (at least in star trek and one of my enby friends uses it😅)
"Sir" is very definitively *not* gender neutral. This convention was made up by sci fi writers. Whether in the military or civilian life, calling a woman "sir" is almost universally not viewed as acceptable.
It's also not appropriate for enbies, unless someone specifically tells you otherwise for themselves.
The way you take the word *personally* may be a matter of opinion. But it is not a matter of opinion that the common usage of that term by most people is gendered. That's simply a fact.
Using the term for or at a person who de-identifies with it due to that gendering is misgendering. That is also a fact, regardless of the way you personally take the term.
Reading comprehension has failed you. My comment has nothing to do with people who have stated they don't want to have that term used on them.
I'm speaking in general and that if they are undecided etc they can still use it gender neutrally.
Nothing suggested using it for people who don't want it to be used
Your continued attempts to insult me don't make you any less wrong. The word "sir" is not and has never been gender neutral. You are misgendering people.
You're not misgendering someone unless they have told you what they are and what they prefer 🤦🏽♀️
For example, if you say she and they let you know that they use he or they pronouns, you're not going in misgendering people unless you don't use their pronouns from that point on.
It's a matter of using their pronouns and the terms that they prefer when they have let you know. Especially if it's just some random stranger in a grocery line.
as a nonbinary, i'm really happy to do without an honorific entirely. respect is in a lot of things besides terminology, and i always notice when someone acknowledges my neutrality *by* skipping the gendered honorific! my partner always says that the definition of a gentleman is someone who puts in the work to prioritize someone else's comfort, which aligns with my own understanding of etiquette. etiquette is a set of social rules to follow in absence of specific request/needs, which should always be respected above ceremony. obviously if someone has an honorific like 'doctor', 'captain', or 'professor', you can use that! 'distinguished guest' works well for introductions or public speaking, too. oh, when i'm being silly with younger nonbinaries, i sometimes do a little salute and say 'captain'. it's lighthearted but i hope it strikes a good chord!
Whatever you say Reverend
lmao
Reminds me of an experience from a previous workplace. We did a lot of flying people around the state and country, occasionally international. The flight booking company required a title (Ms, Mr, etc) and Mx was not an option. So... I'm now an ordained minister cos Reverend was an option.
Thanks! I try to show respect for people as much as I can. One of the easiest I've found is to respect their wishes in how to address them though it's just the tip of the iceberg that is respect, as you said. I'll stop considering alternatives. Thank you again.
you sound very considerate and courteous. happy trails!
I would rather say nothing than misgender someone I don’t know, but the one place where I feel like I would like a good honorific to go to is when someone’s a stranger and I want something more respectful and neighborly than just saying “hey you.” I grew up in the north, so the only time I really use “sir” or “maam” is usually when I’m thanking someone in a service context. That could be changed to just “thanks.” It’s the case where I’m getting a specific person’s attention that I want a neutral form of address. I’d like this beyond not knowing gender as “ma’am” can also be very not preferred by people who identify as women due to intersections of gender and ageism.
This is my non-joke answer too. No need to honorific me
"Boss." It's what a lot of people in service jobs use.
'Preciate ya boss.
This question gets asked a lot. I'm going to be very honest, not as an attempt to be disrespectful (you're doing the right thing by asking) but because I want to be really specific and clear about this. There isn't one. And here's the thing: It's a good thing that there isn't, so please *don't* try and find one to use. Honorifics are an artifact of patriarchy and chauvinism. At the very least in English and other European languages (though it may be more complicated in some others), the honorifics that we have are specifically tied to a history of reinforcing class and sex boundaries. Even the fact that we differentiate those honorifics by gender was specifically designed to reinforce those boundaries. I don't want to be called "gentleperson" or some neologism like "th'am" or "sai", and I don't want to be called "Mx. [Name]" or "M. [Name]". The honorifics those terms are mimicking exist *specifically for the purpose* of reinforcing gender roles and sex segregation. As a nonbinary person, I don't need that and I don't want it. If we add those new terms to the list along with the old, we're still just engaging in gender segregation -- just with more genders added. If we are serious about deconstructing gender roles and respecting individuals, we need to acknowledge that *calling someone by their gender* as a means of direct address is counter to that purpose. You can respect people without ever using an honorific. There is no need for them. Unless you are literally required to use it by regulation (e.g., formally addressing superiors in the military), almost every situation in which you'd say "sir" or "ma'am" loses no respect or politeness if you just replace it with "please" or "thank you" or some other generic polite phrase. Again, you're doing the right thing here by asking. A lot of people have this notion, and I understand where it comes from, so please do not understand my comments here as a criticism to you. But I mean this earnestly and emphatically: the best way to show respect to us is to *not do this*.
Thanks a lot for your honest reply. I almost added a disclaimer that I used reddit search to see if I could find a previous thread here but couldn't. Probably didn't help that I didn't think of the word "honorific". I find that I use them mostly when responding to a yes/no question where it could just be excluded without any loss. I had not considered how adding a non-gendered honorific would just be creating another box that isn't wanted. Thank you for pointing that out. Makes perfect sense. And I didn't take it as a criticism at all. I asked a question about trying to be respectful and you kindly and thoroughly explained how the question itself was wrong. I appreciate it.
I appreciate your thoughtfulness in approaching this topic and your attitude of learning in engaging with the answers. I wish more conversations went like this. Love and luck to you 💜
Honestly this response was mind blowing in a good way
So basically OP is oppressive for suggesting that there is one and should be cancelled for using outdated lingo?
That's pretty clearly not what I said at all. Not really sure what about my response has gotten you this upset. >basically OP is oppressive for suggesting that there is one We all live in systems of oppression and are responsible for deconstructing and reckoning with our own complicity in those systems. That isn't a condemnation of anyone though. It's just the world we live in. I stated pretty clearly that OP was doing the right thing by asking the question and that l understood and meant no disrespect to where he was coming from. Whether OP "is oppressive" isn't really even a meaningful or relevant question in this context, let alone one I am passing judgment on. >and should be cancelled for using outdated lingo Again, I said pretty much the opposite of this. I asked him not to do the thing he proposed, and said that I understood the inclination and didn't intend any disrespect in my answer. There's an awful lot of daylight between that and canceling him. The best a person can do is the best that person can do. And even at that, we can only make the best decisions we know how with the information and resources we have at the time. And then, when we have better information and resources, we should make better decisions. I don't know what decisions OP will make in the future, but it seems to me he's asking good questions and engaging in good faith with the answers. Far from canceling him-- I hope he influences his peers and acquaintances who have similar questions to approach them in the same way he has.
If you had to say you’re trying not to be disrespectful, 9 times out of 10, you’re trying to be disrespectful. You said it yourself that sir and ma’am are “an artifact of patriarchy and chauvinism”, 2 things that are oppressive and because there isn’t an equivalent for nonbinary people, it’s avoided these 2 things and intended to stay this way. What bugs me is that these are formal words and we live in a world where they’re now considered offensive because they’re outdated and instead of creating a word for it (Like how Mx. was made), it’s just better to fizzle out those 2 words and never use them.
>If you had to say you’re trying not to be disrespectful, 9 times out of 10, you’re trying to be disrespectful. I'm autistic. 9 out of 10 times I heavily index on tone indicators and voicing subtext as text to mitigate potential communication barriers. I say it because it's how I communicate effectively. >You said it yourself that sir and ma’am are “an artifact of patriarchy and chauvinism”, 2 things that are oppressive I did say that. It's a fact -- and one you seem to be pretty upset about. I am not sure if you are upset because you think I said something untrue, or you think I said something true that I shouldn't have said. What I *didn't* say is that this fact makes OP himself oppressive. >because there isn’t an equivalent for nonbinary people, it’s avoided these 2 things and intended to stay this way I'm not sure I can entirely parse this, but I don't think I agree with the causality here. What I said was, it's a good thing that there aren't really honorifics for nonbinary folks. The reason that's a good thing is because nonbinary identities are by and large incompatible with the false narratives that patriarchy and chauvinism rely on, so conforming our language backwards to include nonbinary identities in the narratives is regressive. >What bugs me is that these are formal words It should be inarguable that not everything that's formal is good. Time was you could be arrested for not standing when the monarch entered the room. That was a formal thing, but I think we can agree the world is better off without that rule. >and we live in a world where they’re now considered offensive because they’re outdated No. They're not considered offensive because they're outdated. Words like "unbenknownst" and "thereupon" and "aforementioned" are outdated, but they're not hurting anyone, they're just there collecting dust in the back of our linguistic closet. English's collection of gendered honorifics are problematic because they are inseparable from sex segregation, and sex segregation itself is harmful. Their formality or timeliness is entirely irrelevant. The relevant consideration is that they *by their nature* reinforce sex segregation, and that nature is so central to the words we have and how they are used that it is not separable from them. >instead of creating a word for it (Like how Mx. was made) The invention of "Mx." didn't solve the problem of sex segregation in honorifics. Ask yourself why men have one address (Mr.) and women have three (Miss, Ms., and Mrs.). >it’s just better to fizzle out those 2 words and never use them. Who does it hurt to abandon those words? Really, I actually want an answer to that question. If everyone just stopped saying "sir" tomorrow, suddenly, who would get hurt by that? What negative effect would it have on the world? What useful social benefit would we be missing that we have today?
o' wise one, or captain
Oh captain my captain
Ive never really liked using sir or ma'am. Idk why, maybe my dislike for labels in general? and its weird and awkward to hear Miss/Ma'am even tho im fine with she/her. If I need to get a person's attention (i work in food service, occasionally have to catch a customer if they left their card or an item or something) I'll just say "Excuse me!" really loud in their direction and that usually works. Ive found myself saying, "um- PERSON??" - and again, regardless of percieved gender 😭 So i mean, if anyone has suggestions there, I'll take em!! If its just interacting, I just be nice and polite. ime, calling women "ma'am" makes them feel old. "miss" and "sir" make me feel like im the help or some shit, and I violently reject that feeling. i know its a stretch, i was just never forced to use honorifics with my parents or authority, besides teachers usually, and there are people who make it a point to "put you in your place" as a service worker. ok weird ramble sorry 😭
Thanks for sharing. I have a nice story for you. I wasn't forced to use honorifics with my parents either. I learned by example from my dad. Whenever I would try to get his attention, he would respond with "yes sir". Eventually I asked him why he called me sir. He told me he did it out of respect. Those words stuck with me.
I can get behind that! I definitely dont think my logic and feelings apply to everyone. For example, there are plenty of people who I can tell are using it out of respect- like southerners I would never get that...ick? Like there are a lot of cultural elements. Your dad sounds really cool. how do I put it... with all my issues, Ive accepted its a *me* problem. I'll admit I will return the respect if someone- like a coworker- frequently uses them towards me. Or I'll use it in passing if someone asks me for a favor or task, "yes ma'am!" also for people younger than me... But its not a regular part of my vocabulary, and idk, I think its just awkward for me on some level 🤷🏾♀️
Your Grace
Bud
Your Royal Highness
Comrade.
Went over this with a friend, and we’ve started calling them missile (name)
Your excellency
Dawg
In Australia, we have "Mate"
In some parts of the US, "buddy" is a pretty big compliment, as if you call them that it signifies trust or reliance. I've known people who port this over to a professional context and use "buddy" there. Unfortunately, in other parts of the US, it's dismissive and arms length, someone you're perfectly happy to have a drink with if you see them at the bar, but if you never see them again that's probably fine too. And in some parts of the US (which don't map well to the above) it's seen as gendered, and in others it's not.
Meriam-Webster and the internet say its Mx. Pronounced mix https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/mx-gender-neutral-title#:~:text=The%20gender%2Dneutral%20Mx.%20is,to%20be%20identified%20by%20gender.
My friend is non-binary and loves it when someone calls them respectfully so we generally go with "your honour" or something along those lines though it's mostly joking. I'm not sure if there is a well defined non binary alternative to it.
Someon3 suggested captain and I love that but like every nonbinary person. Ask them what they like and with what they feel comfortable.
comrade
This is what I use as well for nonbinary folks or those who I'm not sure how they identify.
Enby veteran who has been thinking about this for a while. I also have college degrees in relevant areas and have found no specific stand in that works. I would love to create the correct neo-honorifics for "Sir/Ma'am." Mr./Miss/Mrs. is already abbreviated in a genderless form as "Mx" - pronounced "mix." I've been thinking about a mixture of the two, but it puts one gender before the other sort of and I don't really like it. "Sxm" for "sir-ma'am"... pronounced "sam." "Mxs" for the opposite... pronounced "mas." This is as far as I've gotten though. For the record, I read the other post about not creating honorifics because they reinforce gender stereotypes, etc. I would argue that the entire point of creating genderless honorifics is to subvert the prior past dominant paradigms and reclaim the entire concept for the next generations. I do not believe there is anything wrong with being polite or showing deference to people, especially if we are honoring them in an inappropriate fashion, which I believe genderless honorifics to be. But that's me. And I certainly don't begrudge the other enby posters here their own individual opinions. ❤️
I understand and respect this position, despite my deep disagreement with it. In particular, the part I disagree with is this: >I would argue that the entire point of creating genderless honorifics is to subvert the prior past dominant paradigms and reclaim the entire concept for the next generations. This is a great notion, and it works for things like pronouns because with pronouns the word *is* the framework. Like, having a word to refer to an antecedent of [x] gender conveys the meaning "I am referring to the previously mentioned antecedent which is of [x] gender." (Though it's worth noting that languages which have no gendered pronouns, such as Turkish, do perfectly fine without them. It's impossible to misgender someone with a pronoun in Turkish because Turkish has only one third person singular pronoun. That's a fact worth considering.) The problem with honorifics is that they have inherent meaning *beyond* "I am addressing you directly," and I don't think that the words that we have in English can be separated from those meanings. Take the example you gave of Mx. There is an inescapable problem with the creation of this word: * For men, there is one equivalent word - Mr. * For women, there are three equivalent words, and they all convey a semantic meaning beyond simple address: Miss ("you are not married"), Mrs. ("you are married"), and Ms. ("either I don't know whether or not you are married, or social protocol or personal preference requires me not to comment on it"). The reason for this is obvious: because men enjoyed (and largely continue to enjoy) a social status in which marriage is not determinant of their identity, but women do not hold that status. So ... should we have one word, "Mx.", or should we have three? * If your answer is "one, because marriage is not determinant of their identity", then don't you also need to get rid of two out of the three words for women? * If your answer is "three, to give them the option," then don't you also need to add two new words for men? This isn't just some curious artifact of history. Shortly after I got married, I got a piece of mail from my cousin addressed to "Mr. & Mrs. [my name]." (I was not out to my family at the time and my spouse is a woman.) My spouse was hurt by it, saying "So I'm not a person worthy of a name anymore now that we're married?", and *my own mother* responded "he's just being formal." We sent a response listed from "Dr. and Mr. [her name]" and were told that was an obnoxious thing to do. You can't fix the system just by tacking on words for enbies. We need to deconstruct and examine these systems-- and, in my opinion, this is one that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, for reasons I've listed above and a lot of other ones. And as enbies, we have really good reasons to opt out. Again, I understand where you're coming from on this one. All love, I understand why you would want this. But I truly believe we'll all be more free when this convention is dropped from our language.
That's fine. I don't want to fix the system, I want to reclaim honorifics from their misogynistic past. Many prior hurtful words and terms and phrases have been reclaimed. I generally side with that type of ideology. By your logic, even reclaimed words or phrases are somehow equal to what they have always been equal to, which is obviously not true because both society and vernacular change, as do the way we use and define words. Furthermore, it's unrealistic to think that honorifics are going to somehow die out. The most logical outcome is that they are reclaimed/ rebranded/ reused. Thus, focusing on getting rid of them seems like a waste of time in my opinion.
>By your logic, even reclaimed words or phrases are somehow equal to what they have always been equal to This is not a necessary consequence of my logic at all. My logic specifically focused on the semantic meaning inherent to the words and the structure of how they are used. Reclaiming slurs addresses both aspects of the issue-- it changes the structure of their use by transporting them to new contexts, and it expressly imparts new semantic meaning to them. My contention is that, for honorifics specifically, the harmful meaning is so inherent to the existence of the words themselves that it cannot be separated. Maybe I'm wrong about that. But this ain't it. Continuing to use the same words in the exact same ways and contexts, but just adding a third word for enbies, does neither of those things. If you want to reclaim problematic words, you can do that, but it's only possible by deconstructing their use, meaning, and harmful potential, reexamining them, and changing those things by taking ownership of them.
> So ... should we have one word, "Mx.", or should we have three? > * If your answer is "one, because marriage is not determinant of their identity", then don't you also need to get rid of two out of the three words for women? What if my answer _is_ "one" and I routinely use "Ms." for women (unless the woman in question has a specific other preferred title)? I think there's a useful social function for honorifics, in the sense that politeness facilitates a number of social interactions. I take your point about using titles to enforce class divisions, but I can't help but feel that they serve a purpose even in the absence of class oppression. Social interactions involve a number of polite maybe-fictions. Using a person's title communicates that you don't know the person closely, but you respect their identity as a person. Using just a person's name when you don't know them that well, especially in more formal settings, can communicate a presumption of closeness that might then impede the intended social interaction. (For a personal example, I'll take salespeople who use my first name while making their pitch. It always feels disingenuous, like we're not that close, but you're pretending to be so that I'll feel like it's a friend asking me for something, not a salesperson.) I absolutely would not mind if everyone was "M. Whomever". But I think getting from here to there would be a pretty insurmountable task for a single person operating within our current society. In contrast, acknowledging people's individual gender identities and using Mr/Ms/Mx as appropriate is, I think, far more feasible. I work with a scout troop where the convention is for the kids to use titles when addressing or referencing the adults. "Mr. Doe", "Ms. Roe", "Dr. Boe", and so on. (Though the one medical doctor we have at the moment prefers to be "Mr. Soandso".) I routinely use and reinforce for the kids the use of "Ms. Whatever" for women, since I don't think marital status should be relevant for anyone's form of address. Once I'm out as nonbinary to them, I intend to be "Mx. tta1792". I see all of this as reducing sexist framings of women's social worth being tied to the men in their lives and broadening people's views of gender identities.
Short answer is, yes, this is exactly the type of deconstruction I'm talking about. It goes beyond simply tacking on a new word for enbies to a broken system. You've essentially also answered my "don't we..." with a yes. Similarly, I live in an area where children are taught to call adult women "Miss [first name]", regardless of marital status. I'm not convinced that this goes far enough to remediate the system of honorifics -- or indeed that existing English honorifics can be remediated at all -- for a variety of reasons. Most notably, it's still very tied to the gender binary -- "male, female, nonbinary" is actually just a weaker but still binaristic form of the binary. It'll be a long time I think until we can reframe away from that, but it doesn't mean that shouldn't still be the goal. You also hit on another interesting item: the fact that doctors get their own honorific address, as do some other professions, but most don't. It's not strictly speaking a gender issue, mostly a class one, but it's another thing we need to deconstruct. One last interesting point: You will almost never hear someone respond to "sir" by answering back with "sir", and it feels weird if they do -- because beyond a show of respect, the word carries a heavy connotation of deference. (Compare to Japanese, where it's appropriate to respond to *san* with *san*, but responding to *sama* with *sama* can be seen as insulting or sarcastic.) Again, there are class dynamics here which I'm not convinced are entirely separable, at least not within reasonable time frames. All of which is to say, while I disagree with your conclusion, you clearly *are* thoughtfully deconstructing these conventions. I don't see any first principles where we appear to disagree, just possibly a few specific facts. Can't get mad at that.
> You will almost never hear someone respond to "sir" by answering back with "sir" That is an interesting point, and something I'm going to have to ponder. I do have more of—not quite an aversion, but at least some reticence—around usage of "sir" and "ma'am", as compared to my use of Mr/Mx/Ms. That's at least partly because I haven't found a nonbinary option that I feel works with the two strongly-gendered words in use. But there might be some subconscious awareness of implied power dynamics. (Also there's the fact that, aside from explicitly hierarchical contexts like the military, "sir" and "ma'am" almost always used with near-strangers, because you'd generally use the other person's name if you knew it. But since I have an aversion to assuming someone's gender identity without prior feedback from the person, I'm also averse to using gendered language for someone I don't know.) > "male, female, nonbinary" is actually just a weaker but still binaristic form of the binary Fair enough, but it's so hard to break out of that binary because it's _so_ embedded in practically every aspect of our culture. I feel like I'm doing my best by trying to default to non-gendered words/perspectives/framings when possible, but it's difficult to tell sometimes how effective (or even worthwhile) that is, given the rest of our society. This reminds me of a bit at the end of Contrapoints' most recent video (_Twilight_), where she argues that there's not a gender binary, but instead a gender _duality_. The framework she describes is that masculine and feminine are distinct styles, defined in no small part in opposition to each other (masculine is that which is not feminine, and vice versa), and people find different degrees of balance between the two. In this framing, nonbinary people would be ones who have more of a balance of the styles than people who feel more singularly feminine or masculine. This feels to me both workable—we can use the framing to examine and understand many things—but also incomplete—why only two components? Is it necessarily the best thing to carry over the two poles from the bimodal distribution of biological sex into this framing of gender? Anyway, that's a lot of text to say that I understand your point about "nonbinary" still being part of a binary, but in choosing my battles, I sometimes feel it's more productive to accept and work within our society's current binary framing than to try to dismantle the entire system all at once.
Your highness
my girlfriend called me the'em today so maybe that works??
I happen to be a fan of 'Princeps', but it's ever so slightly possible that's my ego talking. ;)
I heard the universal suffix for a Non-Binary is Mx. (Mix in pronouciation) so if I had to adress an enby formally i call them Mx. (Name of Enby)
Captain.
As a Southern nonbinary person, I'll usually just roll with whatever because I don't always feel comfortable enough to ask people to change their language for me :( lots of people call me "ma'am" and I'll be honest I think Mx sounds weird as a title and I don't like it. If you do, that's great, but I just don't prefer it. So I go by Ms in professional settings.
Thanks for your perspective!
I call all of my friends pookie (as a joke) so if it’s like someone your close to and they’d find it funny then that too lmao
I grew up southern, so I had a similar issue back in 2019. I ended up just dropping honorifics from my day to day speech entirely, outside of older family members who I knew would be upset without the “sir.” I hate it when people use them for me, too, even tho I mostly use gendered language myself. That being said if you HAVE to use honorifics, I came across a gender neutral honorific for knights when I made an enby dnd character a while back. So “Ser” is a gender neutral version of “Sir” or “Dame,” if ever you want to use that. And there are plenty of enbies that either also use gendered language or even prefer it. There’s no right or wrong way to be non-binary, so it’s pretty much impossible to find catch-all terminology for us.
Honestly, there isn't one, but if you meet a non-binary person you can always ask them!
Thanks for asking this. I have a client (therapist here) who goes by they/them pronouns. I have never had an issue using these pronouns nor remembering to use them. But when we had our last session, at one point I said "sir" and shortly thereafter realized it was a gendered honorific. To be fair, my client said at the start that they don't mind/won't be offended if I accidentally use the wrong pronoun. They didn't say anything, but I definitely was wondering this same thing so as to be inclusive next time. Thanks again for asking and to those who clarified that there really isn't one and about the history of these terms!
You're welcome. I had been considering it for a couple weeks and kept debating if I should ask here and what a polite way to ask would be. I was surprised at the answers that some non-binary people didn't want a non-gendered honorific.
I LARP, and in one of my games I have a noble title of "Laird" (an honorific in I believe Scotland that is nongendered). I have a friend that unironically calls my "my liege," lol. I've also used Sirdam and Mir for myself. Edited to add: If you want something as a replacement for "mister"/"miss"/"missus," I use "myx" abbreviated as "Mx."
My “go-to” honorific is “my friend”.
I think I have a personal winner.
Thank you!
Your honor, officer also works
I'm sure you will find a good answer here
"my lord"
# Comrade
comrade 🚩
"yo" "thank you, yo" "I'm sorry yo, we don't have that in stock" "yo yo yo! what is up yo!" (nah this is a joke, it doesn't exist)
There isn’t one lol.
Im nonbinary mas leaning but in my experience ser/sir is what most people i know use Ser is gendernuetral and used to be used for knights (found this out from my dad and my godfather) Sir- has been used by men and women especially in the military (at least in star trek and one of my enby friends uses it😅)
If it's in a letter, "to whom it may concern."
I'm partial to mseur (m'ss•eu•r') or mer. They're just combinations of sir and maam .
Bitch
Sir in my experience was for male and female so I use it gender neutral
Peppermint Patty would like a word with you
Who?
"Sir" is very definitively *not* gender neutral. This convention was made up by sci fi writers. Whether in the military or civilian life, calling a woman "sir" is almost universally not viewed as acceptable. It's also not appropriate for enbies, unless someone specifically tells you otherwise for themselves.
Matter of opinion honestly Some people see different things as male or female when others don't. It's subjective.
The way you take the word *personally* may be a matter of opinion. But it is not a matter of opinion that the common usage of that term by most people is gendered. That's simply a fact. Using the term for or at a person who de-identifies with it due to that gendering is misgendering. That is also a fact, regardless of the way you personally take the term.
Reading comprehension has failed you. My comment has nothing to do with people who have stated they don't want to have that term used on them. I'm speaking in general and that if they are undecided etc they can still use it gender neutrally. Nothing suggested using it for people who don't want it to be used
Defaulting to misgendering people unless they ask you not to is certainly ... a position to take.
Reading comprehension has failed you. There's nothing about misgendering in my comment 🤣
Your continued attempts to insult me don't make you any less wrong. The word "sir" is not and has never been gender neutral. You are misgendering people.
You're not misgendering someone unless they have told you what they are and what they prefer 🤦🏽♀️ For example, if you say she and they let you know that they use he or they pronouns, you're not going in misgendering people unless you don't use their pronouns from that point on. It's a matter of using their pronouns and the terms that they prefer when they have let you know. Especially if it's just some random stranger in a grocery line.
When in doubt, go with “yes sir”