Pronoun/Gender Wars Continue Apace

[smac97]

On 8/7/2026 at 12:10 PM, smac97 said:

The Economist (June 2024) : 

Research into trans medicine has been manipulated

A Grok summary:

Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy (January 2023) :

The Myth of “Reliable Research” in Pediatric Gender Medicine: A critical evaluation of the Dutch Studies—and research that has followed

A Grok summary:

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (June 2025) :

The Façade of Medical Consensus: How Medical Associations Prioritize Politics Over Science

A Grok summary:

Thanks,

-Smac

Trump administration accuses hospitals of improper billing over gender care for minors

Quote

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services accused dozens of hospitals and healthcare providers on Thursday of improperly billing for gender-affirming care and referred them to the Office of Inspector General and the Justice Department ‌for investigation.

 

HHS released a report titled "Wolves in White Coats" that argued some gender-related treatments were paid for under unspecified conditions or, in some cases, based on diagnoses of early puberty. The report includes contributors who have been critical of gender-affirming care.

 

HHS said the providers billed for the therapies to treat minors aged 9 to 17, documenting an unspecified endocrine ⁠or hormone-related disorder diagnosis rather than gender dysphoria. The report alleged inaccurate diagnoses resulted in payments from both private and government-sponsored health plans.

 

HHS said that as gender care for minors has grown, it has become a larger revenue source for hospitals, creating financial incentives for more frequent billing. Citing conservative medical advocacy organization Do No Harm, the agency said hospitals and clinics billed nearly $120 million for the services provided to minors since 2019.

 

Gender-affirming care for minors can include clinical counseling, puberty blockers or hormone therapy.

 

Advocates for transgender minors say the services can reduce mental ‌distress ⁠and support social wellbeing.

Do No Harm has legally challenged gender-affirming care and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in healthcare.

 

A spokesperson for the American Hospital Association declined to comment on the report.

 

The Trump administration finalized a rule this week barring two major federal health programs from funding puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgeries ⁠to treat gender dysphoria, which is distress from a mismatch between a patient's sex at birth and gender identity.

 

HHS, based on Do No Harm data, named Mount Sinai Hospital, based in New York City, and Boston ⁠Children's Hospital as some of the top billing providers of the services for minors.

 

"In an era of razor-thin pediatric margins and pressure on hospital reimbursements, this new patient cohort — young, insured ⁠or Medicaid-eligible, and requiring perpetual follow-ups — represented a strategic area of growth," the report said.

 

Mount Sinai did not respond in time to a request for comment. A spokesperson for Boston Children's Hospital said it is reviewing the report.

Here is a link to the report itself.  A Grok summary:

Quote

Summary of the HHS Report: “Wolves in White Coats: How Doctors and Hospitals Pushed and Profited from the Fraud of ‘Gender Medicine’”

This is an official U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report (released around August 13, 2026) examining how hospitals and doctors promoted and financially benefited from “sex-rejecting” medical interventions (puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries) on minors with gender dysphoria.

Core Thesis

The rapid expansion of these interventions on children in the late 2010s and early 2020s was driven by a combination of:

• Strong financial incentives (creating lifelong patients who require ongoing, expensive care),
• Ideological capture of medical institutions and professional societies, and
• Active promotion and facilitation by the Biden Administration.

The report argues these interventions were experimental, lacked adequate evidence of long-term safety or benefit, and in some cases involved questionable or fraudulent billing practices.

Key Chapters / Findings

Chapter 1 – Financial Incentives Hospitals and clinics gained unique, recurring revenue streams. Once a minor begins medical transition, they often require continuous hormone therapy, monitoring, possible surgeries, and treatment for complications—creating “captive patients” for life.

Chapter 2 – Coding and Billing Practices (central focus) The report details how providers allegedly used vague or inaccurate diagnostic codes (especially “Endocrine Disorder, Unspecified” and codes for Central Precocious Puberty) to obtain insurance/Medicaid coverage for interventions that might otherwise have been denied. It cites presentations to WPATH, public statements by industry actors, advocacy-group guidance, and whistleblower accounts suggesting these coding practices were deliberate and widespread. An accompanying claims analysis flagged tens of millions of dollars in suspicious billing.

Chapter 3 – Federal Government Role Documents how the Biden Administration actively promoted access to these procedures, including through funding, guidance, and pressure on institutions.

Chapter 4 – Professional Society Influence Argues that major medical organizations became ideologically biased in favor of affirmative care, shaping hospital protocols and individual clinicians’ approaches.

Chapter 5 – Patient and Parent Accounts Presents first-hand stories from detransitioners and parents (including names such as Sydney Aviles, Lily Burns, Clementine Breen, Layla Jane, and others) describing pressure to pursue medicalization, lack of exploratory therapy, and later regret or harm.

Overall Framing

The report portrays the pediatric gender-medicine apparatus as a system in which financial profit, ideological commitment, and government policy reinforced one another, resulting in irreversible interventions on minors with weak evidence of benefit. It was commissioned under the current (Trump-era) HHS and is presented as part of a broader effort to investigate and reverse these practices.

The document is lengthy, contains an appendix with claims-data analysis, and includes contributions from physicians (including whistleblower Dr. Eithan Haim and endocrinologist Dr. Quentin Van Meter), lawyers, and policy analysts.

Very troubling.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BlipBlap]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Trump administration accuses hospitals of improper billing over gender care for minors

Here is a link to the report itself.  A Grok summary:

Very troubling.

Thanks,

-Smac

Chapter 4 is especially concerning since it opens the door for pointing out the likely possibility of not only infiltration of the medical system by ideologues, but external pressure from special interest groups to effectively force prioritization of affirmative care.  We already know that doctors have been successfully sued for refusing to provide, and while the lawsuit was based on non-discrimination laws, that creates other problems, namely at what point does that end and "do no harm" begin?  They'll get sued for not providing the care and then get sued again years later by the same people for providing the care that has caused them harm.  It's a constant Catch-22 brought about by the shrill, jackbooted trans lobby.

[The Nehor]

The HHS is now so politicized I don’t trust their report at all. It has regularly been spouting nonsense for the last two years about all kinds of quackery. Why should I believe them now?

[longview]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The HHS is now so politicized I don’t trust their report at all. It has regularly been spouting nonsense for the last two years about all kinds of quackery. Why should I believe them now?

I'm sure you think Fauci is a beautiful human being. It was proper for him to fund "gain of function" lab work in Wuhan, red china. </sarcasm>

"at all" ? Why the absolutes?

[smac97]

On 7/24/2026 at 11:00 AM, smac97 said:

I think mandatory "pronoun" usage is, in the end, problematic.  It is compelled speech.  It is coercive and dishonest, in an "Emperor's New Clothes" sort of way.  It contravenes the Proclamation.  It is a manipulation of language, not evolution of it.  I view it a subversive ideological endeavor.  I view it as perhaps initially innocuous, but now unhealthy and potentially damaging, exercise relative to those with mental health disorders (I do not think incongruent-with-reality notions should be endorsed or incentivized or normalized).  I think the social pressure/harassment associated with it are unreasoned and intended to stifle free inquiry and discussion and debate. 

These things are, or ought to be, antithetical to the thought processes I deploy as a Latter-day Saint.

Another example of compelled speech:

Universities threaten students with investigations, disciplinary actions over 'deadnaming'

Quote

Several colleges and universities discourage students from “deadnaming,” with some threatening investigations under policies that classify the practice as a form of harassment against transgender-identifying students.

Deadnaming is the act of referring to a transgender- or nonbinary-identifying individual by his or her birth name rather than the name the individual currently uses after “transitioning.”

I think the State and its extensions should not regulate speech as to either "preferred pronouns" or "deadnaming."

Quote

If deadnaming occurs on campus, CSU Northridge states on its “Office of Equity & Compliance (Title IX)” website that if faculty or fellow students deadname or fail to use a person’s chosen pronouns, hearings can be held following a report to the office. 

CSU Northridge’s website adds that “If a violation is found, discipline through the relevant counterparts will be discussed.”

On a University of Oregon website, the public university’s “Prohibited Discrimination and Retaliation” policy allows officials to categorize deadnaming as harassment. It specifies that instances qualify as harassment when there is “intentional or repeated deadnaming or misgendering.” 

In response to deadnaming policies, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) Director of Policy Reform Laura Beltz told Campus Reform about the policies on university campuses. 

“At a public university, deadnaming, like other protected speech, does not lose First Amendment protection merely because someone finds it offensive, upsetting, or disrespectful,” Beltz said. 

“A university may punish the use of a former name when it is part of independently unlawful or unprotected conduct, such as a true threat or a targeted pattern of conduct that meets the legal standard for discriminatory harassment. But a blanket rule prohibiting any use of a person’s former name would be unconstitutional,” Beltz added. 

Other universities, including private institutions such as Tufts University, also have policies on deadnaming and “misgendering” for students and faculty. 

The University at Buffalo states on its “Preferred/Chosen Names and Pronouns” web page that it “recognizes that individuals may use a name other than their legal name to identify themselves.”

The university also states that it categorizes deadnaming as an act of misgendering and requires its Equity, Diversity and Inclusion office to “Investigate and respond to complaints regarding misuse of a preferred/chosen name or pronouns,” while its Office of the Registrar is responsible for the maintenance of school records to reflect a student’s “chosen name.”

Additionally, a National University handbook on “Equal opportunity, harassment, and nondiscrimination policy and procedures” says that deadnaming and misgendering “can be very traumatic to a person who is transgender, transitioning, or gender diverse.”

Beltz added, “Requiring students or faculty to use another person’s chosen name raises compelled-speech concerns. The First Amendment protects not only the right to speak, but also the right not to be coerced by the government to express a particular message.”

“Universities may encourage the use of chosen names and use those names in their own records and communications, but encouragement is different from requirement,” Beltz said.

"{E}ncouragement is different from requirement."

Yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[longview]

On 8/17/2026 at 1:00 PM, smac97 said:

Another example of compelled speech:

Universities threaten students with investigations, disciplinary actions over 'deadnaming'

Quote

Several colleges and universities discourage students from “deadnaming,” with some threatening investigations under policies that classify the practice as a form of harassment against transgender-identifying students.

Deadnaming is the act of referring to a transgender- or nonbinary-identifying individual by his or her birth name rather than the name the individual currently uses after “transitioning.”

I think the State and its extensions should not regulate speech as to either "preferred pronouns" or "deadnaming."

No ifs, ands, or buts . . . this is more than just politics . . . https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1DLiZ1f9yb/

[longview]

should society stoop to accommodate the "insanity" of woke social engineers?

[The Nehor]

On 8/15/2026 at 10:21 AM, longview said:

I'm sure you think Fauci is a beautiful human being. It was proper for him to fund "gain of function" lab work in Wuhan, red china. </sarcasm>

"at all" ? Why the absolutes?

Soviet-style Whataboutism.

Keep it up Comrade.

[The Nehor]

On 8/24/2026 at 10:04 AM, longview said:

should society stoop to accommodate the "insanity" of woke social engineers?

Why did you put that in quotes? Are you suggesting it is not actually insanity?

Based.

[The Nehor]

On 8/17/2026 at 2:00 PM, smac97 said:

Another example of compelled speech:

Universities threaten students with investigations, disciplinary actions over 'deadnaming'

I think the State and its extensions should not regulate speech as to either "preferred pronouns" or "deadnaming."

"{E}ncouragement is different from requirement."

Yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

So are you consistent on this?

If someone decides to take their spouse’s last name and someone has a ‘moral’ objection to that practice and deadnames with their old name out of malice that should not result in any kind of discipline? If someone legally changes their name and someone chooses to use the old name out of malice that shouldn’t be a discipline thing?

Are you philosophically consistent on this point or do transphobes just get a special carve-out where they are allowed to be jerks?

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I think the State and its extensions should not regulate speech as to either "preferred pronouns" or "deadnaming."

So are you consistent on this?

I think so.

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If someone decides to take their spouse’s last name and someone has a ‘moral’ objection to that practice and deadnames with their old name out of malice that should not result in any kind of discipline?

Discipline from the State?  No.  None.  At all.

Private parties generally lack authority to mete out "discipline."

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If someone legally changes their name and someone chooses to use the old name out of malice that shouldn’t be a discipline thing?

No.  None.  At all.

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Are you philosophically consistent on this point

I think so, yes.

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

or do transphobes just get a special carve-out where they are allowed to be jerks?

"{A}llowed to be jerks" seems to presuppose that the State is doing the allowing or disallowing.

Are there segments of society, outside of the "trans" community, that is seeking - with some success - to use the coercive and punitive power of the State to compel others to speak certain words (e.g., pronouns, former names, etc.) or be punished for failing/refusing to?  I can't think of any offhand, but I am open to any input on this point.

The State and its extensions should not regulate speech as to either "preferred pronouns" or "deadnaming."  Doing so is inimical to the First Amendment.

I am not a big fan of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "Book of Mormon" musical, as it profanes things sacred to me.  However, I would strongly object to and resist any effort by the State to suppress that speech, or punish it, or compel it.  If the State were to curb their right to speak in this way, it could do the same to me and my right to speak.

Nevertheless, I would be open to hearing what you have to say.  Do you think the State - let's say in the U.S. - should regulate speech as to either "preferred pronouns" or "deadnaming"?  If so, what sorts of regulation do you have in mind, and on what philosophical/legal basis would that regulation be built?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think so.

Discipline from the State?  No.  None.  At all.

Private parties generally lack authority to mete out "discipline."

No.  None.  At all.

I think so, yes.

"{A}llowed to be jerks" seems to presuppose that the State is doing the allowing or disallowing.

Are there segments of society, outside of the "trans" community, that is seeking - with some success - to use the coercive and punitive power of the State to compel others to speak certain words (e.g., pronouns, former names, etc.) or be punished for failing/refusing to?  I can't think of any offhand, but I am open to any input on this point.

The State and its extensions should not regulate speech as to either "preferred pronouns" or "deadnaming."  Doing so is inimical to the First Amendment.

I am not a big fan of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "Book of Mormon" musical, as it profanes things sacred to me.  However, I would strongly object to and resist any effort by the State to suppress that speech, or punish it, or compel it.  If the State were to curb their right to speak in this way, it could do the same to me and my right to speak.

Nevertheless, I would be open to hearing what you have to say.  Do you think the State - let's say in the U.S. - should regulate speech as to either "preferred pronouns" or "deadnaming"?  If so, what sorts of regulation do you have in mind, and on what philosophical/legal basis would that regulation be built?

Thanks,

-Smac

Is it a first amendment violation if a school disciplines a student for calling another student the "n-word"? Honest question. I don't know. Is a first ammendment violation if a school punished its students for saying "F*** the mormons" and a football game?

[Doctor Steuss]

[Deleted... the path will inevitably lead to darkness.]

Edited 18 hours ago by Doctor Steuss

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think so.

Discipline from the State?  No.  None.  At all.

Private parties generally lack authority to mete out "discipline."

No.  None.  At all.

I think so, yes.

"{A}llowed to be jerks" seems to presuppose that the State is doing the allowing or disallowing.

Are there segments of society, outside of the "trans" community, that is seeking - with some success - to use the coercive and punitive power of the State to compel others to speak certain words (e.g., pronouns, former names, etc.) or be punished for failing/refusing to?  I can't think of any offhand, but I am open to any input on this point.

The State and its extensions should not regulate speech as to either "preferred pronouns" or "deadnaming."  Doing so is inimical to the First Amendment.

I am not a big fan of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "Book of Mormon" musical, as it profanes things sacred to me.  However, I would strongly object to and resist any effort by the State to suppress that speech, or punish it, or compel it.  If the State were to curb their right to speak in this way, it could do the same to me and my right to speak.

Nevertheless, I would be open to hearing what you have to say.  Do you think the State - let's say in the U.S. - should regulate speech as to either "preferred pronouns" or "deadnaming"?  If so, what sorts of regulation do you have in mind, and on what philosophical/legal basis would that regulation be built?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is it a first amendment violation if a school disciplines a student for calling another student the "n-word"? Honest question. I don't know. Is a first ammendment violation if a school punished its students for saying "F*** the mormons" and a football game?

Further let’s say I know when someone was endowed and find their temple new name. If I mockingly address a Latter-day Saint classmate with this name, is that protected first amendment speech? The school should not be able to do anything about that?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Further let’s say I know when someone was endowed and find their temple new name. If I mockingly address a Latter-day Saint classmate with this name, is that protected first amendment speech? The school should not be able to do anything about that?

Now that is an interesting question.

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think so.

Discipline from the State?  No.  None.  At all.

Private parties generally lack authority to mete out "discipline."

No.  None.  At all.

I think so, yes.

"{A}llowed to be jerks" seems to presuppose that the State is doing the allowing or disallowing.

Are there segments of society, outside of the "trans" community, that is seeking - with some success - to use the coercive and punitive power of the State to compel others to speak certain words (e.g., pronouns, former names, etc.) or be punished for failing/refusing to?  I can't think of any offhand, but I am open to any input on this point.

The State and its extensions should not regulate speech as to either "preferred pronouns" or "deadnaming."  Doing so is inimical to the First Amendment.

I am not a big fan of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "Book of Mormon" musical, as it profanes things sacred to me.  However, I would strongly object to and resist any effort by the State to suppress that speech, or punish it, or compel it.  If the State were to curb their right to speak in this way, it could do the same to me and my right to speak.

Nevertheless, I would be open to hearing what you have to say.  Do you think the State - let's say in the U.S. - should regulate speech as to either "preferred pronouns" or "deadnaming"?  If so, what sorts of regulation do you have in mind, and on what philosophical/legal basis would that regulation be built?

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t think a university having rules about respectfully addressing people counts as ‘the STATE’.

If people were being arrested for deadnaming people I would be concerned. Getting disciplined at a university? That is not using the state’s power of violence to force speech.

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is it a first amendment violation if a school disciplines a student for calling another student the "n-word"? Honest question. I don't know. Is a first ammendment violation if a school punished its students for saying "F*** the mormons" and a football game?

No, it is not. It is a first amendment violation if you end up prosecuted for it. You can see the transphobes trying to come up with stories to stoke the hysteria so they conflate a university with the government and run with it because they can’t find any actual government persecution. They do the same with their imaginary bathroom and locker room invasions and spin hypotheticals about the dangers of Drag Queens because they don’t have any good incidents of it actually happening. It is like the Satanic panic as those warning about the dangers of cultists have to accept the flimsiest stories since they can’t find any real ones.

This isn’t a spoof.

 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is it a first amendment violation if a school disciplines a student for calling another student the "n-word"? Honest question. I don't know. Is a first ammendment violation if a school punished its students for saying "F*** the mormons" and a football game?

Usually no, not if it is a public school acting on on-campus (or school-controlled) speech directed at another student.

The First Amendment applies to public schools as government actors. Private schools generally are not bound by it.

Public-school student speech is protected, but not as fully as adult speech off campus. Under Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), schools may discipline speech that would substantially disrupt school or invade the rights of other students. Calling a classmate the n-word is routinely treated as the second category: targeted racial harassment, not political debate. Courts have repeatedly upheld discipline for slurs and similar personal attacks at school.

Regarding "preferred pronouns," the Supreme Court has not issued a clean nationwide rule, and the federal circuit courts appear to be split as to teachers, but for students, recent appellate law is moving against compelled pronoun use.  Public schools can still punish harassment; they are on much weaker ground when they treat ordinary refusal to use preferred pronouns as punishable speech.

See, e.g., here: The Latest Legal Battle of the Pronouns

A little long, so here's a Grok summary:

Quote

Joshua T. Katz’s Law & Liberty essay (Nov. 17, 2025) is a commentary on the Sixth Circuit’s en banc decision in Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District.

The case. Ohio’s Olentangy district tried to discipline students for using “biological” pronouns instead of classmates’ preferred pronouns. On Nov. 6, 2025, the full Sixth Circuit (10–7) granted a preliminary injunction for the students. The majority (Judge Eric Murphy) held the district failed Tinker: it showed no evidence that biological pronouns would disrupt school or amount to harassment under Ohio law. The dissent (Judge Jane Stranch, who had written the earlier panel opinion the en banc court reversed) said the district could reasonably forecast substantial disruption.

The vote. All ten Republican-appointed judges joined the majority; all seven Democratic-appointed judges dissented.

Why Katz finds the opinions more interesting than the holding. Several concurrences worry that Tinker is the wrong frame. Judge Batchelder argues Tinker should not drive a viewpoint-discrimination or compelled-speech analysis. Judges Thapar and Nalbandian stress that pronouns are a serious political issue and that allowing preferred pronouns while banning biological ones is viewpoint discrimination. Judge Kethledge, skeptical that modern free-speech doctrine is clear here, would also ground the result in historic common-law liberty to use pronouns one honestly thinks correct. Judge Bush treats the policy as an unprecedented government attempt to regulate English grammar: if ordinary pronoun use can be relabeled “bullying,” almost any speech can be banned.

Katz’s own view. He agrees with the result. Pronouns are basic building blocks of English; students cannot realistically speak without them, so a mandate forces them to express a contested viewpoint. He notes Meriwether (same circuit, professor vs. university) as the earlier landmark. He slightly corrects Bush: no language is truly governed by law rather than custom, though English-speaking governments have historically not tried to police ordinary usage this way.

Close. Kethledge (and Stranch, agreeing on this point only) say having the right to refuse preferred pronouns does not mean one must make an example of a classmate; Katz endorses “grace” where it does not offend conscience. He wonders whether the fight will fade if youth identification with trans/queer labels continues to decline.

But see here: Policy Requiring Teachers to Use Preferred Pronouns Upheld

Quote

A recent ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that a teacher’s official duties can include using a student’s preferred pronouns and withholding their gender transition from parents, even if it conflicts with the teacher’s religious beliefs.

And here: Trans Students’ Rights Suits Will Test Split Circuits in 2026

A Grok summary:

Quote

Bloomberg Law (Dec. 29, 2025) previews a 2026 wave of federal appeals on transgender students in public schools—sports, bathrooms, and pronouns—against a circuit split on whether the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX cover transgender status.

Title IX / “sex.” The Trump administration’s view is that Title IX “sex” means sex at birth. Circuits disagree. The Fourth has treated gender-identity discrimination as sex discrimination under Title IX; the Seventh has held that forcing students into restrooms that don’t match gender identity violates Title IX. The Eleventh has treated gender identity as distinct from Title IX “sex.” Sports cases are teed up in the Eighth (Minnesota inclusion policy, Female Athletes United) and Third (Pennsylvania). The Supreme Court in 2026 is set to decide two state bans on transgender girls in girls’ sports: West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox. Commentators say the real issue is how far government may rest a rule on biology without that counting as sex discrimination. United States v. Skrmetti (upholding Tennessee’s ban on medical transition for minors) is cited as a signal that defining sex biologically is not automatically unconstitutional.

Bathrooms. The Tenth has an Oklahoma birth-sex restroom law (students lost below on privacy/safety). The Ninth is hearing an as-applied Idaho restroom challenge after rejecting a facial attack. The Seventh will hear a cisgender girl’s challenge to an Illinois district policy allowing gender-identity bathrooms without “objective assessment.”

Pronouns (teachers/parents). Suits are pending in the Second, Third, and Fourth. Kimberly Polk is pressing the Fourth Circuit on Montgomery County’s preferred-pronoun mandate (speech and religion). The Eleventh (divided) allowed Florida to require a transgender teacher to use birth-sex identifiers as a government speaker in class. The Seventh (split, August) revived Indiana teacher John Kluge’s challenge to a preferred-name/pronoun rule.

Takeaway: 2026 is expected to deepen, not resolve, the split unless the Supreme Court uses the sports cases (or a later pronoun case) to say how much “biology still matters” under equal protection and Title IX.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Further let’s say I know when someone was endowed and find their temple new name. If I mockingly address a Latter-day Saint classmate with this name, is that protected first amendment speech?

Broadly, yes.

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The school should not be able to do anything about that?

I think that would depend on the application of the Tinker test:

Quote

The substantial disruption test is a criterion set forth by the United States Supreme Court, in the leading case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).^[1] The test is used to determine whether an act by a U.S. public school official (State actor) has abridged a student's constitutionally protected First Amendment rights of free speech.

The test, as set forth in the Tinker opinion, asks the question: Did the speech or expression of the student "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," or might it "reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities?" The case holds that to justify suppression of speech, school officials would need to show that the conduct in question would "materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of the school.^[2]

 So is using a person's "temple name" better analogized to a racial epithet (which are generally regulated by schools) or to preferred pronouns (which are generally not regulated)?

Under Tinker, schools may discipline speech that invades other students’ rights or that they can reasonably forecast will materially disrupt school. Mocking someone with a sacred, private name is the kind of personal attack anti-harassment rules are typically built for. 

Preferred-pronoun cases (including the Sixth Circuit in Olentangy) draw that same line: schools may punish bullying—severe, persistent, or objectively offensive conduct—without being able to compel a political or theological statement. Using “he” or “she” for a student’s sex is ordinary English. It is how speakers have referred to males and females for as long as the language has existed. Students cannot talk without pronouns. A mock temple name is not ordinary address. It is extra, acquired for the purpose of humiliation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t think a university having rules about respectfully addressing people counts as ‘the STATE’.

Public schools, being funded by the State, are extensions of it.

As for "respectfully addressing people," I assume you refer here to using preferred pronouns, instead of biologically/linguistically accurate pronouns.  See the above Bloomberg summary.

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If people were being arrested for deadnaming people I would be concerned. Getting disciplined at a university? That is not using the state’s power of violence to force speech.

I'm not sure what you mean by "power of violence."  The State can compel or punish speech via means other than violence.

Your distinction here - the State arresting people for their speech versus the State punishing people in some other way for their speech ("disciplined at a university"), that is a difference of degree, not kind.  Both involve the State punishing speech, just in different ways.

The First Amendment limits the power of government, not only the criminal code. A public university is the government, a part of it. When it suspends you, fails you, fires a professor, or withholds a diploma unless you say particular words, that is state compulsion. West Virginia v. Barnette was about a school pledge, not handcuffs. Janus v. AFSCME was about a union fee. Meriwether v. Hartop was campus discipline:

Quote

The United States (U.S.) Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the free-speech and free-exercise holdings of a district court to favor a professor who was disciplined by his university for improperly addressing a transgender student in his class. Nicholas Meriwether refused to address a transgender student by her preferred pronouns. He sought to compromise but this was ultimately rejected by officials at Shawnee State University. A written warning was issued by the university to Mr. Meriwether for violating its nondiscrimination policies. Mr. Meriwether brought a lawsuit against the officials at Shawnee State arguing his constitutional rights were violated. The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge who dismissed the claims; the district court adopted the magistrate’s report and recommendation in full. Judges Amul Thapar, David McKeague, and Joan Larsen of the Sixth Circuit held that Meriwether’s free-speech and free-exercise rights were violated. Under U.S. Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent, the Court noted that Meriwether’s academic speech was protected by the First Amendment, particularly on an issue of public concern. Additionally, Shawnee State’s application of its gender-identity policy was not neutral because of hostility exhibited towards Meriwether’s religious beliefs and circumstances that permitted a plausible inference of non-neutrality.

None of those cases asked whether anyone had been booked into jail.

“Violence” is a narrower idea than “state power.” The state has many tools short of a nightstick: grades, housing, employment, professional licensure, remaining enrolled. Those tools are why public schools and public employers have always been First Amendment defendants.

Two distinctions still matter:

1. Public vs. private. A private college can generally enforce a speech code without a First Amendment problem. A state university cannot treat “say these pronouns or face discipline” as a mere house rule.
2. Harassment vs. compelled affirmation. A school may punish targeted ridicule. That is not the same as requiring every student or employee to use designated pronouns as a condition of staying.

So if the worry is only “no one is being arrested,” the constitutional concern is already in play at a public university. The question is whether the institution is stopping abuse or conscripting speech. Those are different things, and only the first is an easy First Amendment win for the school.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 17 hours ago by smac97

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, it is not. It is a first amendment violation if you end up prosecuted for it.

I don't think that is correct.  Many, perhaps even most First Amendment lawsuits do not involve someone being criminally prosecuted.  

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You can see the transphobes trying to come up with stories to stoke the hysteria so they conflate a university with the government

Public universities are part of "the State."  This is not a matter of personal opinion or hysteria, but of legal reality.

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

and run with it because they can’t find any actual government persecution.

I encourage you to give this matter some further consideration and study.  First Amendment cases routinely center on "government prosecution" that falls short of criminal charges.

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They do the same with their imaginary bathroom and locker room invasions and spin hypotheticals about the dangers of Drag Queens because they don’t have any good incidents of it actually happening. It is like the Satanic panic as those warning about the dangers of cultists have to accept the flimsiest stories since they can’t find any real ones.

Again, the First Amendment limits government. A public university is an arm of the state. When it disciplines a student or fires a professor for refusing to say required words, that is government action. Barnette was a school board, not a criminal court. Meriwether was campus discipline. Olentangy was a public school district. Treating “only an arrest counts” as the rule would wipe out most of student-speech and public-employee law.

Private colleges are different. Conflating BYU with, say, Ohio State would be legally improper. Conflating a state university with “not the government” is the actual error.

As for the rest, there are real cases pending in various courts, with actual disputes, not fabricated or "imaginary" ones: students and teachers disciplined over pronouns, Title IX sports suits now at the Supreme Court, and bathroom/locker policies that courts are actively splitting over. You can think those policies are wise and still admit they are government rules backed by real penalties.

If the claim is “no one is being jailed for deadnaming,” that is mostly true and worth saying. If the claim is “therefore nothing the state does here raises a speech issue,” that does not follow. The live dispute is compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination in public schools, not whether the sheriff should make an arrest.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A mock temple name is not ordinary address. It is extra, acquired for the purpose of humiliation.

Ok so it’s fine for schools to punish speech acquired and used for the purposes of humiliation. Unless an individual acquires, uses and mocks a trans person with their dead name. Then it’s bad government compelled speech. Is that fair to say?

[smac97]

15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Ok so it’s fine for schools to punish speech acquired and used for the purposes of humiliation.  Unless an individual acquires, uses and mocks a trans person with their dead name. Then it’s bad government compelled speech. Is that fair to say?

Not quite.

First, your scenario is not about the State punishing speech, not compelling it.

Second, that the legalities play out as they do does not mean I endorse "deadnaming." 

Third, abstaining from "deadnaming" should, I think, be a matter of personal choice, and not a matter for compulsion or punishment by the State.

Fourth, the courts have allowed some constraints student student during school hours on school property.  That's a fairly narrow circumstance relative to "Speech" overall and in other circumstances.

Fifth, I do see some distinctions, both ethically and legally, between preferred pronouns/deadnaming and your scenario.  A person can have a legitimate and good faith and non-harassing basis for declining to use preferred pronouns, or for declining to use a person's fabricated name rather than their actual one.  Preferred pronouns and using someone's fabricated name (instead of the "dead" name) are, if required, compelled speech, whereas using someone's temple name is not.  The Tinker test would, I think, put targeted religious harassment within the category of speech which a school can regulate, but I am less persuaded that the test would put preferred pronouns or "dead names" there.  

Sixth, your hypothetical scenario is fairly contrived.  I doubt it has ever happened in the real world.

Seventh, I have strong sentiments about the State compelling the use of "preferred pronouns."  It is Orwellian.  It is anathema to Free Speech to coerce U.S. citizens into speaking words they do not want to speak, particularly when they disagree with those words.  "Deadnaming" is slightly different, as if a person legally changes his name, then I think there is less justification to use his/her former name.  But even then, I object to the State compelling use of the new name or punishing use of the old one (subject to narrow exceptions, such as for student speech during school hours on school property).

Eighth, if I were to refrain from using preferred pronouns, it would not be to "mock" anyone, but rather to decline to go along with a falsehood or delusion, and to protest against compelled speech.

Ninth, if there were some effort by the State to compel you to refer to Joseph Smith as "the Lord's prophet," or if it were to punish you for speaking critically of him, I think you would object to that.  

Tenth, I think efforts by some in the trans community to use the power of the State to compel and/or punish speech is one of the faster ways for it to lose legitimacy and respect in society.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 1 hour ago by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 Fifth, I do see some distinctions, both ethically and legally, between preferred pronouns/deadnaming and your scenario. A person can have a legitimate and good faith and non-harassing basis for declining to use preferred pronouns, or for declining to use a person's fabricated name rather than their actual one.

I had a longer reply, but I'd like to understand this a little better. What makes a person's name fabricated vs actual? Is a temple name fabricated or actual?

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Fifth, I do see some distinctions, both ethically and legally, between preferred pronouns/deadnaming and your scenario. A person can have a legitimate and good faith and non-harassing basis for declining to use preferred pronouns, or for declining to use a person's fabricated name rather than their actual one.

I had a longer reply, but I'd like to understand this a little better. What makes a person's name fabricated vs actual?

I was speaking in the legal sense.  If someone legally changes their name from "John" to "Mary," then that becomes his legal ("actual") name.  Otherwise, the name has just been made up by the individual.

31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is a temple name fabricated or actual?

In a legal sense?  Neither.  

In a sociological sense?  Neither, since it is never used in society.

In a religious sense?  I'm not sure.  See here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 49 minutes ago by smac97