Staff said she could not have her preferred honorific, but could call herself ‘Mx’ instead – an exchange that left her ‘feeling like a fake’. The bank has now apologised and blamed human error
I knew this would happen as Mx became more well-known, and some errors in the recent media flurry about Mx (namely that Mx is a title for transgender people) are probably part symptom, part cause.
Time to share the misconceptions post again, and a few points pertinent to this post:
Transgender people are protected by law, in this case in that they are entitled to have whatever title they feel best fits their gender.
Mx is not a title for transgender people - it is a title that has no gender, similar to the way Ms has no marital status.
Titles are not legally binding, and you should not require any “proof” of your gender to change your title on any records regardless of gender presentation.
Title limitations are not a security issue - we have much more sophisticated ways to confirm identity.
Degendering trans people is horrible as well as illegal.
I’ve updated the Mx PDF! It’s now divided into handy sections like Government, Banks, and Utilities. Plus there’s a few more bits of evidence; the list of banks is looking very respectable.
It’s worth noting that Mx was never intended to be a specifically nonbinary title; it’s just a title that has no gender connotations, that anyone can use. It is really useful for nonbinary folks though.
It’s Creative Commons licensed so please feel free to download and share the PDF. It’s small enough to send as an email, it’s 18 pages long, and it’s really useful for throwing at anyone who tries to tell you, subtly or otherwise, that Mx is not a “real” title, or that they won’t update their systems to include it because they’ve never heard of it.
