Key Points
- Idaho enacts law to prevent forced usage of incorrect pronouns or names.
- The law protects teachers and government employees from penalties for using a student’s or colleague’s legal name or biologically accurate pronouns, unless a parent or guardian consents for minors.
- Critics argue the law could harm LGBTQ+ students by not respecting their preferred pronouns, while supporters believe it upholds free speech and parental rights.
Idaho has passed a new law protecting individuals from being compelled to use pronouns or names that do not align with a person’s legal name or biological sex.
This legislation specifically provides protections for teachers and government workers, stating that they cannot be reprimanded for using a student’s or colleague’s legal name or pronoun corresponding to their biological sex. The only exception is if there is explicit consent from a parent or guardian in the case of minors.
The law has sparked controversy, with opponents arguing it could negatively impact LGBTQ+ students by failing to acknowledge their preferred pronouns. Supporters, however, view the law as a necessary measure to protect free speech and parental rights.
Catholic News Agency reports:
HB538, which the Idaho Legislature passed last week, is set to take effect July 1. The new law provides for “a prohibition on any governmental entity in the state of Idaho from compelling any public employee or public school student to communicate preferred personal titles and pronouns that do not correspond with the biological sex of the individual seeking to be referred to by such titles or pronouns.”
“Such prohibition is essential to ensure that the constitutional right to free speech of every person in the state of Idaho is respected,” the bill reads.
Government, public school, and higher education employees “shall not be subject to adverse employment action” for declining to use a person’s preferred pronouns or addressing a person with anything other than his or her legal name. The act also covers students, saying they “shall not be subject to adverse disciplinary action” for declining to use a person’s preferred pronouns or addressing a person by a name other than his or her legal one.
| Themes | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Free Speech | Upholds individuals’ rights to free speech by allowing them to choose the pronouns they use. | Could be perceived as sanctioning speech that denies recognition of LGBTQ+ identities. |
| Parental Rights | Affirms parental rights to decide on the use of pronouns for their children. | This may limit the ability of LGBTQ+ youth to express their identities, particularly in school environments. |
| Social Inclusion | – | Potentially alienates LGBTQ+ individuals by not recognizing their chosen names or pronouns. |
Questions to Consider
- How does the balance between free speech and respecting individual identity play out in educational and governmental settings?
- What are the broader implications of this law for the LGBTQ+ community and their rights?
- How might laws like this affect the mental health and well-being of transgender and non-binary students?
About Post Author
