The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that cisgender students can repeatedly and intentionally misgender transgender classmates, invalidating an Ohio school district’s policy that sought to prevent the practice.
In a 10-7 decision, the court found that the Olentangy Regional School District’s ban on the use of “sexualized language known to be contrary to the identity of other students,” including pronouns and honorifics, violated the rights of students who believe there are only two genders.
The policies at issue include anti-harassment rules that prohibit “discriminatory harassment” or bullying based on gender identity or other protected characteristics that “subjects students or school staff to reasonable fear of harm,” interferes with education or work, or interferes with school operations. Associated Press.
Other policies include an electronic device rule that prohibits the transmission of “subversive” material that could be considered harassment of LGBTQ students, and applies both inside and outside of school. Another code of conduct prohibits discriminatory language, including “derogatory oral or written comments, jokes, and slurs” targeting protected characteristics, including LGBTQ identities.
Parents Defending Education, a national parental rights organization, filed the lawsuit two years ago. They argued that the district’s anti-harassment and anti-bullying rules are unconstitutional and violate free speech and religious freedom by forcing speech on cisgender students.
The group also argued that the policy violates the 14th Amendment rights of parents by unlawfully extending to off-campus conduct and extending “far beyond the classroom and into the privacy of the home.”
federal judge received a contrary judgment Parents Advocating Education argues that “intentional misgendering has the effect of creating a hostile environment for transgender students” and causes significant disruption. Subsequent three-judge Sixth Circuit panel supported That verdict.
Afterwards, parents who advocated for education demanded big bank A retrial sent the case to the full Sixth Circuit (a court with two-thirds Republican appointments), which resulted in a 10-7 decision last week.
The majority believed that repeated intentional misgendering would not cause “significant confusion” for transgender students. Rather, they argued that a ban on misgendering would have a negative impact on misgendering students by restricting their freedom of speech and religious expression.
“Unlike, for example, political slurs about transgender rights in math class, the mere use of biological pronouns does not involve ‘offensive and disruptive behavior,'” Justice Eric Murphy wrote for the majority.
Murphy continued, “Our society, like many other issues surrounding transgender rights, continues to debate whether biological pronouns are appropriate or offensive. School districts must not distort this debate by forcing one side to change its message or express a different viewpoint.”
The majority emphasized that the ruling does not prevent school districts from enforcing anti-harassment policies against mistreatment of transgender students, just as they can act against bullying based on religion, race, ethnicity, or physical characteristics.
inside her Erin in the morning Substack’s Erin Reed criticized the ruling, arguing that it gave “special status” to undefined “biological pronouns.”
“At one point, the justices were faced with the obvious implication of the logic: If intentional gender reassignment is protected, students could just as easily target their cisgender classmates, such as by calling a smaller or weaker cisgender boy ‘she’ and mocking them by using her pronouns,” Reed wrote. “To counteract this, the court argued that such conduct amounted to ‘mocking the physical characteristics’ of cisgender students, but declined to extend similar protections to transgender students who were subjected to similar conduct. Based on this reasoning, while cisgender students may intentionally and repeatedly misgender transgender classmates, transgender students would be prohibited from doing the same.”
The ruling sends the case back to U.S. District Judge Algernon Mabry, who will reportedly have to issue a preliminary injunction barring local governments from enforcing pronoun policies. ABC News.
The ruling suggests that public schools in the Sixth Circuit’s jurisdiction (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) will likely rescind policies that protect transgender students from intentional gender reassignment. Without these rules, schools could be effectively forced to permit harassment stemming from students’ refusal to acknowledge the gender identity of their transgender peers.
Source: Metro Weekly – www.metroweekly.com
