Michigan Supreme Court on Pronouns and Titles

From an order issued yesterday:

Parties and attorneys [listed in a caption] may also include Ms., Mr., or Mx. as a preferred form of address and one of the following personal pronouns in the name section of the caption: he/him/his, she/her/hers, or they/them/theirs.

Courts must use the individual's name, the designated salutation or personal pronouns, or other respectful means that is not inconsistent with the individual's designated salutation or personal pronouns when addressing, referring to, or identifying the party or attorney, either orally or in writing.

My quick reactions:

1. "Mx." and "they" are concessions to gender-neutral preferences, but more exotic pronouns ("ze" and the like) aren't acknowledged.
2. The second sentence makes it possible for judges who prefer not to use "Mx." or "they" (or even a "he" or "she" that they view as incorrect) to instead use the person's name without a title or a pronoun, at least in writing. (Presumably such judges would then generally omit the title for all people listed in the case, so as to avoid mixing "Mr. Smith" and the unadorned "Jones," but it's common enough for courts not to include titles in their opinions.) Likewise, judges remain free to refer to lawyers orally as "counsel" rather than with a title.

Thanks to Michael F. Smith for the pointer.

Comments

[Krayt]

They should also allow Mrs. or Miss. There may not be many old school ladies who would use those anymore, but government has no business obviating them.

[jb]

Why allow a bunch of variants for women but not terms like "ze"? Seems like a pretty reasonable attempt to generally treat everyone with respect without judges needing to try to support dozens or even hundreds of pronouns.

[SomeGuy 2]

Jumped out at me too. Anybody can declare themselves a woman, but a woman can't decide to be a little old-fashioned. Pretty much where we're at these days.

[theobromophile]

Why allow women to be old fashioned only in the ways it suits them? If Edith Jones marries James Smith and changes her last name to Smith, she is technically Mrs. James Smith, not Mrs. Edith Smith. So presumably you would want a court to refer to her as such?

[Krayt]

They should refer to her as she wishes, yes.

[Longtobefree]

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
No.

[Frank Drackman]

Do I swear?? No, but I know all the words!
Whoo Whoo Whoo!!!!

[Estragon]

Kyle Duncan could not be reached for comment

[AmosArch]

For all of human history across all known major societies and cultures and probably all minor ones we got along fine without this pronoun nonsense. Well except maybe kings and popes which I thought we wanted to get away from. And everybody was fine.

Now all of a sudden its the most important thing in the universe. SJWism really is an exhausting cult.

[jb]

LOL, "for all of human history". You know, sometimes it's probably better to not just say anything than make noise that proves you're an idiot.

There are other languages that have existed perfectly fine with either gender-neutral or genderless pronouns for centuries or millenia. In English there's a history of gender netural pronouns dating back to the 14th century and even A. A. Milne proposes the use of the word "heesh" as a gender neutral form of address nearly a hundred years ago in the The Christopher Robin Birthday Book.

[AmosArch]

In what way when I was saying we never had this widespread pronoun madness before did I imply languages without a grammatical gender never existed or nobody in the world ever proposed different pronoun schemes?

[Nige]

When you put it like that what IS the big fucking deal? War on pronouns is the dumbest war.

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty sure you are talking out of your ass here, Amos.

Your study of all of history and all ‘major(?)’ societies has not proven particularly broad in past comments

[Nige]

‘SJWism really is an exhausting cult.’

The difference between SJWs as a cult and MAGAs as a cult, is that MAGA consists of people who call themselves MAGA and say culty things about Trump, whereas nobody calls themselves an SJW and the whole pronouns thing is the simplest thing in the world, it’s literally just ‘I prefer *pronoun*’ and ‘Ok.’ I would say getting mad at people doing that is WAY more exhausting.

[Brian Kennedy]

”

[Bored Lawyer]

My pronoun is: Supreme Ruler of the World. Deal with it.

[Frank Drackman]

Oughta call you "Dork"

[Nige]

More of a title than a pronoun.

[Bored Lawyer]

It IDENTIFIES as a pronoun, you bigot!

[Magister]

No Dr. allowed?

The second sentence might make the salutations pointless, unless perhaps there are two individuals differing only in salutation.

But does the second sentence mean salutation alone, so it's OK to refer Mr. John Smith as Smith, Mr. or he/him? More likely it meant "must use the individual's name, with or without the designated salutation, or the preferred pronouns, or other respectful means".

It would seem disrespectful to Jones to refer to Jones alongside Mr. Smith, if Jones had also specified a salutation.

I guess that an "other respectful means" might be something descriptive, such as by profession or relation to another party.

[Bruce Hayden]

No “Dr” because then there is a question of who to address in that manor: MD? PhD? JD? EdD? Very many of those addressed by the courts are attorneys, and should those with JD degrees are addressed as Dr? I was addressed as Dr Hayden by most of my foreign associates when I was still practicing as a patent attorney. On the one hand, my sister-in-law’s father insisted that he (MD, PhD) was the only “Dr” in the family, despite 3 of 4 of his kids having PhDs. On the flip side, our FirstLady insists on being addressed as Dr, despite hers being a summer school doctorate (EdD) and her husband and two sons having been granted JDs. Big mess, easily avoided.

[Voize]

The pronouns and forms of address used in legal proceedings of any kind should be those that minimally distract from the substantive business at hand.

[Tom for equal rights]

I agree - the court should also avoid using pronouns that misrepresent facts or pronouns which hide or misidentify or designed to confuse the parties in the case.

[shawn_dude]

Identifying a trans woman in a court room with male pronouns is both distracting (in that it is clearly rude) and confusing (does the judge need glasses?) If the gender identity of the individual is not relevant to the case before the court, showing equal courtesy to all participants is the best course of action.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

How is 'Mx' pronounced? Mix? Mehk (like Mexico)? Will I be in trouble for not using a pronoun beyond 'that ahole over there'?

[loki13]

"How is ‘Mx’ pronounced? Mix? Mehk (like Mexico)?"

Mix is the majority pronunciation. There are some that pronounce it Mux.

" Will I be in trouble for not using a pronoun beyond ‘that ahole over there’?"

Trouble? Probably not. But really, who is the ahole in that situation? Sometimes it is better to keep your mouth close and be thought an ahole, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[Jacob Grimes]

The one who demands special treatment from everyone to cater to their own delusions is always the a-hole.

And the fact that the proper pronunciation of "Mx" is an ethnic slur is hilarious.

[loki13]

Language is always changing; there is no "delusion" involved.

I am quite sure that you are one of the people who would have kept saying, "I am quite sure that CASSIUS CLAY will get beat any day now."

If you feel the need to constantly disrespect people, I'm sure you understand when they no longer feel the need to communicate with you as well. Gramps.

[Jacob Grimes]

We both know that "Mx." is not the result of linguistic drift. It is traceable to a very specific phenomenon involving self-perception and was invented by academia about the same time they tried to make "Latinx" a thing.

I have no problem with name changes.

[loki13]

How do you think language changes? What, do you think that "Ms." just came out of nowhere, and wasn't resisted with the exact same arguments? The widespread usage of that term (which is now unexceptional) was certainly the result of "some people" wanting to make a statement, and was met with exactly the same level of derision that you are providing.

Treat people with respect. It's not hard.

Correction- it's not hard for most people.

[Jacob Grimes]

Language changes gradually over time from the bottom up. "Ms." was devised a few hundred years ago as an abbreviation for "Miss" and didn't actually become commonplace until the last 60-70 years.

"Mx" was literally created out of nowhere and has no linguistic relation to the spoken word. Academics and activists with nothing better to do declared "x" to be a gender-neutral letter and decided to just invent words like "Latinx" and "womxn." It's purely artificial and unlike words like "Ms," has comparatively negligible potential usage given the extremely small numbers of people who it could ever be applied to.

Treat people with respect. Don't ask them to change the way they speak and discuss reality just for you because you're confused. It's really easy.

[loki13]

"Language changes gradually over time from the bottom up. “Ms.” was devised a few hundred years ago as an abbreviation for “Miss” and didn’t actually become commonplace until the last 60-70 years."

That's ... yeah, nice try person who just googled stuff. Ms. was completely forgotten about, and only received prominence again with the feiminist movement (as an alternative to "Miss" and "Mrs." especially with Gloria Steinem) and people, especially people like you, fought HARD against it using exactly the same arguments.

And language changes slowly over time? Really? Sure, daddy-o. I am quite positive that you are hip to the youth of today. That you and your ideas are lit, and you're not just one of the Olds that starts huffing and puffing when the tour guide on a college tour announces their pronouns, and you get all red and angry, while all the high school seniors (including your grandchild) roll their eyes.

[Jacob Grimes]

Yes. Real language changes slowly over time. Slang comes and goes and is forgotten about. No one says “rad” anymore.

“Mx” isn’t slang, which seems to be the only concept of language you understand because you continually insist I’m an old person who isn’t in tune with what the kids say these days. “Mx” is an attempt to change longstanding modes of address for the sake of an incredibly tiny minority of people with mental problems and has no basis in natural language whatsoever. But just keep ignoring these basic facts and try to absurdly claim it’s just like “Ms.”

[Josh R]

Mx […] was invented by academia about the same time they tried to make “Latinx” a thing.

Isn’t there a difference between using “Latinx” to refer to a class of people and “Mx” as the preferred way to address a particular individual?

“Mx” is an attempt to change longstanding modes of address for the sake of an incredibly tiny minority of people with mental problems

What mental problems?

[loki13]

"for the sake of an incredibly tiny minority of people with mental problems "

....and there it is. It's not really about language, or respect, is it?

[Nige]

‘Language changes gradually over time from the bottom up.’

That’s not the only way language changes. Deciding it's the only correct way for language to change is arbitrary.

[virginia]

“Ms.” only caught on when women entered the professional workforce in large numbers and it became convenient for speakers or letter-writers to be able to address them without having to research their marital status first. I’m old enough to remember the tail end of the evolution. It was driven by the choices of the speakers, not the demands of the people being spoken to.

Perhaps our society will reach the point where so many people identify as non-binary that speakers will choose to use they/theirs to avoid having to ascertain the gender of the person spoken to. But we’re not there yet.

[Josh R]

Shouldn't common courtesy apply when a particular person requests "Mx", "Ms" or even "Mrs" or "Miss"?

[Jacob Grimes]

Ms., Mrs., and Miss, yes.

Mx., Zir., Xir, and "her majesty," no. It is not common courtesy to acquiesce to the unreasonable requests of others. It is indulgence. Neither it is courteous to make unreasonable requests of others.

The requests are unreasonable because they do not reflect any coherent concept. Ms. is for the unmarried. Mrs. is for the married. Mx. is for people who erroneously believe that genetics and common sense to not apply to them. This belief is based not upon any empirically observable or quantifiable characteristic, but their own personal feelings (the "mental problem" I described above) on broad sexual stereotypes.

[shawn_dude]

Lots of coherent descriptions on why and how "Mx" exists and is used upthread. These days, "Ms" is understood to refer to a woman without regard for any relationship she may have with a man. These concepts are easily understood and simple to apply. The only incoherence I see here are your ramblings which boil down to "get off my lawn!"

No need to take offence at other people living their lives freely, in their own way, without harming you or others. But if all else fails, try to follow the Golden Rule: don't be a dick.

[Josh R]

In short, you don't accept gender identity as a trait even though the clinical experience of those with gender dysphoria suggests it is. Thus as loki pointed out, your objection has nothing to do with language.

[Toranth]

"Language changes" is the worlds most facile argument. I'm glad to see you agree with Jacob Grimes on everything, though.

Oh, you thought you were disagreeing? Well, language changes, and what you said was actually agreement now.

In the mean time, can you explain how it is disrespectful for me to not use the language of your beliefs, but not disrespectful for you to not use the language of my beliefs?
"Courtesy" and "respect" always seem to go one way in your world.

[F.D. Wolf]

Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.

- George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language" (1946)

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

Government compelled speech is government compelled speech, even if the Courts (Oracles) so ordain. Strict scrutinty applies. And there is no compelling government interest in polite pronoun usage. Read and understand what Orwell said.

[loki13]

That's ... just not true. When you are in court (and this is directed to judges) you do not have the same speech rights.

Thank you, come again!

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

Well, you accept the premise the the First Amendment covers only the Executive Branch. I don't. It applies to all of the federal government, and protects the speech rights of all citizens. Why should judges get to violate the Constitution?

[loki13]

That is just a lot of nonsense. Have you been writing your own legal treatise with Dr. Ed?

So let's try this again. Can courts promulgate rules regarding the conduct of judges within the courtroom? Or outside?

So, for example, when there is a Judicial Code of Conduct in state court that prohibits the judge from holding membership in certain organizations, can the Judge say, BUT MAH RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION!!!11!! Why or why not?

If the Judge is prohibited from having an ex parte communication can the judge say, BUT MAH RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH!!11!! Why or why not?

If a judge is prohibited from praising or criticizing jurors for a verdict, why can't you, oh legally wise one, bring your spankin' awesome lawsuit to DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF YOU AND DR. ED TO KNOW BETTER THAN OTHERS??!!!???

I could keep going, but it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[jorgyusa]

Bunch of nonsense and a waist of time for the courts that the tax payers are forced to fund. Please spend your time on things that are actually important.

[Dan Schiavetta]

We are in a period of transition.

My experience with non-binary people is that they are ok with calling them the wrong pronoun so long as you don’t have an “attitude” about it. Most of the commenters here are all attitude.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[repetitive comment deleted]

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I thought an article like this would exist somewhere, and I was right:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/arts/television/julia-sweeney-pat-snl.html

And this one is so offensive it makes Andrew Dice Clay look like Mr. Rogers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_Saturday_Night_Live_characters_and_sketches_introduced_1989%E2%80%9390#Lyle_the_Effeminate_Heterosexual

[NvEric]

Fifteen (15) pages to the ruling.
Law at its best !

[SimonP]

I wonder sometimes, Eugene, whether the decision to move to Stanford was partly motivated by the expectation that your anti-trans attitude was likely to get you into trouble at UCLA, sooner or later.

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

Please define "anti-trans". If one believes that transparency is a mental health issue, dies that count? If one believes it is a very small percentage of the population and should not be legally protected/promoted? If one believes that, like all leftism, it is aanti-Christian motivated and therefore, bigoted? I reject bigotry, therefore, I reject transgenderism.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I wonder sometimes, Eugene, whether the decision to move to Stanford was partly motivated by the expectation that your anti-trans attitude was likely to get you into trouble at UCLA, sooner or later."

Is this meant as a criticism of Prof. Volokh, or of UCLA?

[John F. Carr]

The vote to impose this rule was 5-2.

[loki13]

Boiled down, this is basic common sense. Be respectful to the people in the courtroom (the parties and the counsel).

That's how it should be.

[SimonP]

Well, Eugene posted the OP specifically to point out ways that the rule could be evaded, so I guess that tells us what he thinks about courtroom decorum.

[loki13]

I wouldn't ascribe such negative connotations to him. It's entirely possible for Judges to use pronoun-free phrases (such as "Counsel") or to refer to parties solely by their names in written documents ... in fact, I generally prefer that when I'm in Court.

TBH, I think that the spirit of this directive is simple. Be respectful. Don't deliberately use terms that you know are offensive to the people in front of you- such as misgendering the people that are before the Court.

[SimonP]

I wouldn’t ascribe such negative connotations to him.

You're welcome to derive an alternative explanation for why Eugene felt that the Michigan Supreme Court's rule change was noteworthy, and why he felt the need to point out a "loophole" in the rule that could be exploited by anyone not interested in using an attorney's chosen title or pronoun.

Eugene has consistently written about trans issues in a way that reveals an antagonism towards people who identify as trans (or, one would presume, NB). He has not, to my knowledge, ever said, "Trans people are groomers who should be expelled from society," unlike many of the VC's commenters. But it is clear that he cares far more about people being forced to acknowledge trans folks' right to exist than he does about trans folk just trying to live their lives without being constantly deadnamed and misgendered.

I expect that, when he has had a trans student, he has probably acknowledged their chosen name and identity and tried to use their chosen name and pronouns. But I doubt he's been happy about it.

[M L]

“reveals an antagonism towards people who identify as trans compelling or restricting speech . . .”

I won’t pretend to have read and analyzed everything he ever wrote like you have, but I think I fixed that for you.

But yeah. “Disagreeing with me denies my right to exist! You must be compelled to say you agree with me otherwise I can’t live my life!”

[Josh R]

I think the argument is not using the preferred pronoun hurts the person (literally goes against what the doctor ordered).

I get the impression Eugene is not sold on the diagnosis and/or treatment and thus (in addition to being opposed to compelled speech) does not want to use the preferred pronoun himself. I could be, and hope I am wrong.

[SimonP]

Eugene is in favor of compelling speech, at least, when it comes to what social media companies may be required to host, publish, and distribute on their own platforms.

“Disagreeing with me denies my right to exist! You must be compelled to say you agree with me otherwise I can’t live my life!”

You asshats think you’ve found the silliest of strawmen to beat into a pulp on this. But imagine we were talking about racial slurs. Eugene, in his quest to protect even bigoted speech, could say that he’s opposed to measures prohibiting professors from referring to their students using racial slurs. In that scenario, I would be on the side of students who don’t want to be called racial slurs.

And your response would be tantamount to characterizing my position as: “Waaah! I don’t want to be referred to with racial slurs! You must be compelled not to use them!”

But I think we would agree – wouldn’t we? – that, whatever a professor’s free speech interests in using racial slurs, students have every right to expect that their professors won’t use racial slurs to refer to them. Right?

[loki13]

"I expect that, when he has had a trans student, he has probably acknowledged their chosen name and identity and tried to use their chosen name and pronouns. But I doubt he’s been happy about it."

Maybe. Given the amount and number of times he has written about how he approached language from a descriptivist standpoint, it would seem ... way hypocritical of him. And I'd prefer to think that he was (1) principled, and (2) not personally bigoted.

So until and unless I learn otherwise for sure, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

It's not being respectfully to people who reject the transgender cult and who believe in biological truth. It's making sane people agree with a delusion. Have you read 1984????

[loki13]

Sure. I read it. I've read all of Orwell.

That's not the actual question. The actual question is ... did you understand it? I'm guessing ... no. That said, I do love the love that you are giving to Orwell; I sincerely doubt it would be reciprocated.

[KenveeB]

That's why I just refer to folks as "counsel," "opposing counsel," "counsel for [party]," etc. Letters get addressed to "Firstname Lastname" with no title. Much simpler.