I am legally Vivian void null. Case and all.

I have my new driver's license, and have submitted for passport renewal. The passport renewal comes with the change of the sex marker from M to X.

Many trans/nonbinary persons I talk to or read about don't have any interest in doing this sort of change. Their gender is their own business, and they don't need to give government entities more opportunities to hassle them or weaponize personal details. The US government website even offers a note reminding that some sovereign states may not recognize it, and cause all sorts of trouble at the border.

I'm more about making a statement, myself. This is probably unsurprising, that the FLOSS-diehard vegan would make their life more difficult on philosophical grounds. Furthermore, there's a case to be made, that any entity which would deny or scrutinize such a declaration, probably defends a territory I would not be safe in anyway.

Anyway, why the X in the first place? I am nonbinary, and identify with terms in the direction of agender, neutrois, nullgender (though not voidgender). To the casual onlooker, it might almost appear as though I craft my whole identity around this null aesthetic. ;)

With this, I show preference for the common (though not necessarily given) pronouns they/them. Hundreds of years of established legacy, increasingly widespread in usage, and... neutral.

I will take a moment to stress the "preference" element here. Some decry the phrase "preferred pronouns": "They're not my preferred pronouns, they're my pronouns". I acknowledge that philosophy, but with it still hold the word "preference" in place: My pronouns, are the ones that are used for me. I happen to have favorites. I suppose that puts me in the camp of "gender is an interpretation": "it takes two to gender". I don't mind being interpreted differently than I view myself, in fact I always will be.

I like they/them becuase it is easy to use as an interpretation. It is a clear way to show acknowledgement of an unassuming expression. But I get he'd and she'd all the time and while sometimes jarring (and other times endearing), I accept that that is how I am read.

I have a few other sets I like too. This reaches from neopronoun territory, to challenges of semantics altogether. Suggestion of their use is almost necessarily ironic, though I do identify with what they mean and would be happy to answer to them.

• vi/vim: These have just too much going for them. Obvious text editor joke (I am indeed a vim user; I am composing this post in it now!), though vi would be pronounced "vee". Which. Is kinda my name, too. If I were to have lowercased my first name too, use of this in subject form would be indistinguishable from a common abbreviation of my first name. Plus, just look at all those vs!

• ey/em: A variety of Spivak pronoun. Less common than they/them, but equally neutral and unassuming.

• this/that: I know, that's not how it works. This is actually from several comments I've overheard from persons who don't quite know what to think of me. Sort of like being it-ed but with a bit more whimsy. As a note, I would accept it for myself as well, if I believed the user was using it respectfully, and not in bad faith.

• one: This pushes my "entity" abstraction, "dehumanizing but not objectifying". Seemingly at odds with null, but my very being validates the contradiction. This one is best shown with examples:

  • "What was one's name again?" ... "Oh, one is called Vivian"

  • "Oh yes, I talked to one about this"

  • "One will do it oneself"

Very much not practical—contextually confusing; doesn't very well serve to communicate effectively (my one major criticism of neopronouns in general), and is really more philosophical/theoretical.

I conclude by reiterating the idea, that "my pronouns are the ones that are used for me", and expand with the contemplation: Is similarly my gender the one people assign me?