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.

The post Michigan Supreme Court on Pronouns and Titles appeared first on Reason.com.