I'd like to highlight the "compelled speech" aspect of this. This is very important precedent going forward. I am thinking in terms of religious laws. (you know me! :)
AI:
While the final rule text did not explicitly state "you must use a specific pronoun," critics pointed to Section 106.44(e)(2) — which defined harassment based on sex — as the source of the compelled speech concern. Specifically, the Department of Education’s accompanying "Dear Colleague Letter" and regulatory commentary indicated that intentionally and persistently using a student’s previous name or incorrect pronouns (known as "deadnaming" or "misgendering") could constitute harassment under Title IX if it created a hostile environment.
This interpretation led to the legal argument that the rule compelled individuals — students, faculty, or staff — to use specific pronouns or names that aligned with a transgender person’s gender identity, even if doing so violated their own beliefs. Opponents argued this amounted to compelled speech, forcing individuals to express a message with which they might disagree, in violation of the First Amendment.
In United States v. Kentucky (January 2025), the federal court agreed in part, ruling that the Department of Education exceeded its authority and that treating misgendering as harassment could compel speech in a way inconsistent with free speech protections. As a result, the court vacated the rule nationwide, and enforcement was halted.
Therefore, while no section explicitly said "you must use X pronoun," the application of Section 106.44(e)(2) — combined with official guidance — created the legal effect that led to the compelled speech ruling.
Bookmark this one anons. Just in case sometime down the line we are "compelled" in other ways.
The government cannot compel speech, nor can it censor speech! MAGA
I'd like to highlight the "compelled speech" aspect of this. This is very important precedent going forward. I am thinking in terms of religious laws. (you know me! :)
AI:
While the final rule text did not explicitly state "you must use a specific pronoun," critics pointed to Section 106.44(e)(2) — which defined harassment based on sex — as the source of the compelled speech concern. Specifically, the Department of Education’s accompanying "Dear Colleague Letter" and regulatory commentary indicated that intentionally and persistently using a student’s previous name or incorrect pronouns (known as "deadnaming" or "misgendering") could constitute harassment under Title IX if it created a hostile environment.
This interpretation led to the legal argument that the rule compelled individuals — students, faculty, or staff — to use specific pronouns or names that aligned with a transgender person’s gender identity, even if doing so violated their own beliefs. Opponents argued this amounted to compelled speech, forcing individuals to express a message with which they might disagree, in violation of the First Amendment.
In United States v. Kentucky (January 2025), the federal court agreed in part, ruling that the Department of Education exceeded its authority and that treating misgendering as harassment could compel speech in a way inconsistent with free speech protections. As a result, the court vacated the rule nationwide, and enforcement was halted. Therefore, while no section explicitly said "you must use X pronoun," the application of Section 106.44(e)(2) — combined with official guidance — created the legal effect that led to the compelled speech ruling.
Bookmark this one anons. Just in case sometime down the line we are "compelled" in other ways.
The government cannot compel speech, nor can it censor speech! MAGA