As opposed to commonly accepted titles. Not made up, flavor of the day nonsense. Your generation can put up with this shit after mine is gone. Good luck, you are most definitely going to need it.
I have a friend named Richard. He prefers to be called Rich but his boss calls him Rick.
Should his boss adjust to call him Rich because that is what he prefers, or should he just accept being called Rick because it is a commonly accepted nickname for Richard?
I did give a valid and correct answer to the question. You either didn't understand or know I'm right so dropped back to the default... ItS sO WeIrD tO mE
All titles are "made up," and Mx. as an honorific has been around for almost fifty years. A better question would be why our two main honorifics for people are so pointlessly gendered.
It has barely any history prior to 10 years ago. Just because some nobody said it once in the 1970's doesn't mean its been colloquially around for 50 years. The source of it "being around from the 1970's" is a dubious article written in 2015. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11597192/Whats-it-like-to-be-a-Mx.html
Your claim as to its history is simply not true, and its use has, obviously, been mostly limited to the community that generated it. Did you expect Ronald Reagan to use it in his inauguration speech?
Other than that, I don't see what point you're actually trying to make here.
You just read an article about a non-binary person, so I think we can assume they are, indeed, "a thing." Something tells me you don't interact with a lot of queer people anyways, so your acceptance of their terms of address feels pretty irrelevant.
There's words that develop organically and then there's words that people make up to validate the feelings of women who would have been emos like 10 years ago. Neopronouns and titles like this are stupid and no person outside the progressive bubble will ever use them.
Organically developed, like, a community making a new word that fills a lexical need to describe a concept? Sounds a lot like "Mx." to me. What's stupid about it?
You want people to conform more? Do you live in the 1950s? This is 2023 when people have the freedom to express themselves and identify as who they want to identify as. Get out of the 20th century.
I am also one of those people and I will never recognize any of that other than ridiculous ultra left bullshit. People have freedom to play make believe, I have the freedom to not participate in their foolishness.
Yes, you can also never recognize that "f*g" and "n****r" are not acceptable in society anymore and still use them. You have the freedom to do that too. You have the freedom to be as big an asshole as you want to be.
But you shouldn't have that freedom to fire people over how they express themselves.
I would go further than that and assert that when you say most people, because of your specific demographic, you really just mean the people you know, who are outside of the range of groups actually accepting the kind of change you're against.
In a way, you're right. Most people that you find to be rational would agree that it's just plain ridiculous. It's just that the groups that you don't find rational are growing and the groups that agree with your mindset are shrinking.
The evidence of that can be found by just observing how often this kind of thing happens at all. It used to not happen. Now it does enough to make news kind of often.