|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Marie Tiemann
SPEAKVT is very grateful for the recent Federal Court decision that upholds the First Amendment free speech rights of public school students.
According to the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, public school students cannot be forced to use “preferred pronouns” when referring to others who claim to be “transgender.” The Court ruled that doing so is compelled speech and a violation of students’ First Amendment rights.
Before 2023, schools in Olentangy Ohio practiced such censorship. But parents, with legal support from Defending Education, a national organization that fights for student and parental rights in schools, sued. Before the suit, students who misgendered their peers risked school punishment (including suspension or expulsion) even if the misgendering took place off school grounds or on social media!
Quoting from Court’s decision, “The School District has not just entered this policy debate. It has taken a side…Over hundreds of years, grammar has developed in America without governmental interference. Consistent with our historical tradition and our cherished First Amendment, the pronoun debate must be won through individual persuasion, not government coercion. Our system forbids public schools from becoming ‘enclaves of totalitarianism.”
The court also ruled that even when the school would permit students to avoid misgendering by not using pronouns at all, such practices are still forcing students to change their preferred activity to align with school-imposed ideology.
SPEAKVT is very proud to be working with Defending Education in Vermont to stand up for the rights of Vermont students, parents and educators.
SPEAKVT calls on the Vermont public school system to stop violating the First Amendment rights of students.
If you know of incidences where free speech is being violated in a Vermont school, please contact us at speakvermont@gmail.com
Author is President, SPEAKVT for Parents in Education, Inc..
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Education
What this is NOT is license to attack or bully people who are already confused as to who they are.
And just WHO is confusing them in the first place?
Agreed, they should be treated as the very sick people they are, with love. But love does not mean lying to someone’s face.
This is a victory.
And right on time, here’s a 410-page, peer-reviewed summary from HHS:
https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/gender-dysphoria-report.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
“This is an official, peer-reviewed, HHS publication — stamped, numbered, and signed by the very agency that once carried water for the gender-medicine guild.
Now, every lawyer representing an injured patient, every parent blindsided by a catastrophic complication, can walk into discovery with a federally sanctioned, peer-reviewed document saying what the medical cartels insisted could never be said: that the entire diagnostic framework rests on subjective impressions, that no objective pathology exists, that the evidence base is weak, and that the risks are grave.
In malpractice litigation, that’s solid gold. It’s an engraved invitation to ask juries the critical question: “Why was the hospital doing irreversible surgeries on minors when federal regulators warned them the science was junk?”
Hospitals know exactly how dangerous that is. So do insurers. So do the academics who built their careers on affirm-only dogma. They’re suddenly staring down the barrel of a government report that not only undercuts their talking points but becomes a plaintiff’s Exhibit A.
The liability clock just started ticking loudly.”
– Jeff Childers
I find it odd that people are seemingly personally inflamed about something that wasn’t ever stated. If people want to denigrate someone rather than support them in healing, that’s unrelated to objective facts like gender.
So… can I continue to insist that everyone address me as Napoleon Bonaparte? Are only gender related identity disorders covered under this ruling?
Nice! Now I don’t have to be careful of what I say, not that I did before. Now I have backing. Amen!
“Can’t Force” has to mean NO…….NO COERCION –D. Morrisseau ltmrebellion@gmail.com
I’m aware of someone that was written up by HR for calling a co-worker he instead of she. He began wearing “women’s” clothes so felt entitled to be referred to as “she.” This is indeed pandering to ideology not reality.