Mx | Campus Safe Words

TERM: Mx
RISK LEVEL: High

Definition

“Mx” is a gender-neutral honorific intended as an alternative to traditional titles such as Mr., Ms., or Mrs. It is used by individuals who do not identify strictly as male or female, including nonbinary and genderqueer persons. The term has gained limited usage in higher education in email signatures, class rosters, and administrative forms.

Why It’s Risky

The use of “Mx” is closely tied to gender identity discourse, which is under active political challenge in several conservative-led states. Incorporating “Mx” into institutional materials—such as admissions forms, faculty directories, or training modules—can be interpreted as endorsing a specific ideological stance on gender. Laws like Florida’s HB 1069, which restricts the use of preferred pronouns and gender identity instruction, reflect broader efforts to limit the influence of gender theory in public education. Including “Mx” in official documentation may therefore be seen as noncompliant with such legislation or as an ideological signal that invites scrutiny from trustees, lawmakers, or parent groups.

Additionally, critics argue that the term represents a departure from traditional social norms and introduces confusion into administrative processes that rely on standardized forms of address. Use of “Mx” may also be cited as part of a broader pattern of compelled speech, especially when students or employees feel required to use or recognize the title in classroom or HR settings.

Common Critiques

One of the primary conservative critiques of “Mx” is that it promotes the concept of gender fluidity or self-defined identity in a way that conflicts with biological and traditional frameworks. Legislators and advocacy groups opposing gender identity policies often view the term as part of a broader cultural push to dismantle what they describe as objective truth about sex and gender. Its presence in institutional systems—especially when integrated into default options—can therefore be interpreted as politically motivated rather than neutral accommodation.

Critics also raise concerns about administrative clarity. They argue that expanding forms of address to include ideologically charged titles like “Mx” introduces ambiguity into recordkeeping, disrupts standard procedures in legal documents, and may complicate compliance with federal and state laws that require sex-based data collection.

Some opponents frame the inclusion of “Mx” as compelled affirmation of beliefs they do not share. In this view, institutions that encourage or mandate recognition of “Mx” may infringe on individual conscience rights, particularly for faculty or students with religious or philosophical objections to nonbinary gender identity.

Finally, critics assert that widespread adoption of “Mx” risks alienating stakeholders who expect institutions to reflect traditional values. This includes alumni, trustees, donors, and parents—especially in politically conservative regions—who may view the term as emblematic of cultural overreach by higher education.

Acceptable Alternatives

1. No honorific (use full name instead)

2. First and last name only (e.g., Taylor Jordan)

3. Role-based title (e.g., Professor, Doctor, Instructor)

4. Opt-in pronoun disclosure separate from honorifics

5. Courtesy title left blank or listed as “Other (please specify)” when optional

When It’s Still Appropriate

Use of “Mx” may still be appropriate in one-on-one communications with individuals who specifically request it, or in disciplines where gender identity is a relevant area of study. It may also appear in voluntary disclosures, such as email signatures or class introductions, where its use is entirely optional and not institutionally mandated. However, caution is advised when incorporating “Mx” into official records, default forms, or public communications.

Notes:

Avoid listing “Mx” as a default option on institutional forms unless required by state law. If honoring individual preference, do so privately and without compelling others to adopt or acknowledge the term. Where feasible, use role-based identifiers to sidestep gendered language while maintaining formality.