At a time when division too often pretends to be debate, a new Colorado law has come under fire not for what it does, but for what some claim it forces them to say.
Four far-right groups in May filed a federal lawsuit against Colorado’s recently enacted House Bill 1312, claiming that requiring schools and public entities to respect the names and pronouns of transgender individuals infringes on their First Amendment rights.
This lawsuit is not about freedom of speech. It is about denying respect and dignity to transgender people under the guise of constitutional protection.
Colorado’s updated anti-discrimination law doesn’t force anyone to believe anything. It simply requires institutions that serve the public to treat all individuals, including transgender people, with respect and equality. The law does not mandate that anyone abandon their personal beliefs about sex or gender.
What it does mandate is that public schools and government-funded institutions cannot discriminate against individuals based on their gender identity. That includes using their chosen name and pronouns.
The argument that having a transgender girl call herself “Carroll” could cause any kind of consternation by asking another child or teacher to call the girl by her name is without any merit. It’s especially a specious argument in that someone could become unhinged by calling a boy or man a “female” name at birth, such as actor Carroll O’Connor or Brigadier General Carroll Edward Adams.
It’s bigotry defended by sham.
In the eyes of the law, this is not a culture war issue. It is a civil rights issue.
The groups challenging the law, Defending Education, Colorado Parent Advocacy Network, Protect Kids Colorado, and Do No Harm, claim the statute “punishes those who refuse to speak using chosen names and pronouns” and “suppresses traditional beliefs about sex and gender.”
This is about calling someone by their name. That’s it. The argument is a smokescreen for justifying misgendering and deadnaming transgender individuals, both of which are widely recognized as forms of verbal harassment.
One group even cited its members’ use of “Brian Titone” instead of Colorado House Rep. Brianna Titone’s name as a justification for their claims. Such language is not a benign expression of opinion. It is a deliberate act of disrespect designed to invalidate someone’s identity and belittle them. It’s harassment.
The idea that public institutions should be allowed to participate in or condone such behavior runs counter to the very foundations of anti-discrimination law.
The First Amendment guarantees Americans the right to express their views freely. But freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to demean others, especially those acting on behalf of government entities.
Just as a teacher cannot, in the name of “free speech,” call a Latino student by an anglicized nickname against their wishes, or refer to a Black student by a racial slur, they cannot insist on calling a transgender student by a name or pronoun that undermines their identity.
Respecting a student’s name and pronouns is not compelled speech. It is basic decency, long upheld as a cornerstone of educational ethics and public accommodation laws.
The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to discriminate in a public setting, even if they claim religious or philosophical grounds. Just as a pharmacist cannot deny birth control based on personal convictions while on duty, a school official cannot misgender a student while on the job.
Just as importantly, House Bill 1312 is not an extreme departure from precedent. It is consistent with a growing number of state and federal policies aimed at ensuring equal treatment for transgender people in education, healthcare, and public services. The legislation simply updates Colorado’s anti-discrimination framework to reflect contemporary understandings of gender identity. This is an understanding supported by leading medical, psychological, and educational organizations.
As state Sen. Chris Kolker, a co-sponsor of the bill, said, “Let’s return to what this is about. Keeping kids safe, preventing bullying, and ensuring our public systems reflect the dignity of all people.”
For transgender students, something as basic as being called by their correct name and pronouns can be the difference between inclusion and alienation, between safety and risk. Numerous studies have shown that trans youth who are affirmed in their identities experience lower rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide. That is not a political talking point. It’s a public health imperative.
This lawsuit is not about protecting constitutional freedoms. It is about preserving the ability to discriminate in the public sphere. That is not a liberty worth defending.
These laws evolved from left-wing ideology that people’s feelings are all that matter and that their feelings should reign supreme. It is why we got rid of competition and trophies for winning and instead substituted “participation trophies.” It led to getting rid of grades in schools because it made some people feel bad. It is the reason health care professionals cannot counsel obese individuals about the consequences of their being overweight. Their feelings are deemed more important than their health. It also led to the elimination of “a league of their own” for girls and women’s sports as biological men are now allowed to compete against women simply because they feel like they are women. And now we have individuals demanding that everyone refer to them by their desired pronouns because not doing so might make them feel bad.
Has anyone realized that this constant catering to feelings might be why young people now grow up without any coping skills whatsoever. They seem unable to handle any disappointment and need “safety zones” to cope with any stress. Instead, they have to call a “hotline” for assistance. Or, they may seek release of their frustrations by shooting up a school. Most of us can sympathize with those individuals who experience the feeling that they are of a different gender than their biological bodies. But passing laws and regulations that everyone else must cater to their feelings is quite unrealistic and sets them up for further disappointment as they go through life. People need to understand and learn to cope with the fact that “your problem is not mine.”
Ok Mary.
spot on.
Your understanding of the Constitution is flawed if you believe the First Amendment does not protect a person’s right to demean another. Dumb ass. As to whether public employees should be allowed to purposefully demean persons they are employed to serve I would say no. They may have the right to do so but they have the responsibility to not do so and should be subject to employment discipline up to and including dismissal.
“Respecting a student’s name and pronouns is not compelled speech.”
If this isn’t about compelled speech and the First amendment, than nothing is.
These obviously sick kids need to be institutionalized for a month in a psych ward and I bet they would drop all the bullshit that they just do for attention.
Do you think a month in a psych ward could make you believe you are a woman? What makes you think it could change anyone else?
A little kindness isn’t going to hurt anyone. The paradox with the lawsuit is that groups of Christians are fighting for their perceived rights to prove points and make people feel bad. Prove me wrong.
Prove what wrong, that dumb dialectic you’re trying out? No one is required to lie that a man in a dress is a woman.
As usual, with you the cruelty is the point.
Amen, Jeff. I don’t even bother reading Factory’s comments.
That’s because your side is so intellectually stunted that you need to pay a fat lesbian $20 million to figure out how to talk to young men now.
As usual, you get upset when your political opponents don’t want to subject themselves to demoralization by caving in to your obvious lies.
I’m sorry but I disagree, specifically on the portion you didn’t talk about.
Section 2 provides that, when making child custody decisions and
determining the best interests of a child for purposes of parenting time,
a court shall consider deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to
publish material related to an individual’s gender-affirming health-care
services as types of coercive control. A court shall consider reports of
coercive control when determining the allocation of parental
responsibilities in accordance with the best interests of the child.
My daughter went through the phase of deciding that they wanted to be called something else. No reason, not trans, just what they chose to do. As her parent, I’m suddenly a bad guy to my child because I chose not to agree with their decision. Furthermore, now the courts will punish me by not going with what my child thinks is acceptable. Outside influence (internet) played a huge role in that whole conversation. To fit in, they chose to follow the other sheep. She has been 18 and fully capable of changing her name legally since October 2024….still nothing. The courts need to stay out of this conversation.