ALEX MCFARLAND: 'Pronoun enforcement' is unjust and unconstitutional

People should not be legally compelled to acquiesce to what is untrue or is a matter of preference.

People should not be legally compelled to acquiesce to what is untrue or is a matter of preference.

Today’s LGBTQ+ activists have moved far beyond seeking tolerance. We live in an age of pronoun enforcement, a view a step beyond past progressive activism that is at odds with the sacred triumvirate of the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

Former Republican President Ronald Reagan said during his 1967 inauguration speech after becoming California’s governor that freedom is not genetic. It is not just automatically passed on. Our Constitution is based on natural law consistent with the Judeo-Christian worldview — including when it comes to issues of gender identity and preferred pronouns.

People should not be legally compelled to acquiesce to what is untrue or is a matter of preference. Leftists who seek to enforce the use of gender pronouns must consider the fatal flaws of their view: Sexual behaviors, fetishes, and preferences are not the same as ethnicity.

First, gender pronoun enforcement is inconsistent with free speech. The freedom of speech that allows a person to identify as a different gender (she/her, he/him, they/their, or one of the 400-plus genders now available that are supposedly fluid and changing) is the same freedom that allows other Americans to reject using a transgender person’s preferred pronouns. Preferred pronoun enforcement should not be about feelings; it is about freedom.

Second, gender pronoun enforcement blurs biological facts. Yes, a person can identify as male, female, and even as an inanimate object such as a tree or rock, but that doesn’t make it true. A transgender person’s desire to identify as a gender different from one’s birth does not require that others accept their choice.

Third, gender pronoun enforcement is inconsistent with other areas of life. In 2016, a Florida man faked being a doctor despite being only 18 years old. He was arrested for impersonating a doctor and practicing medicine without a license. American law does not accept a person identifying as something he or she is not in the medical field or other areas of life. Why would such a view be enforced when it comes to a person’s preferred pronouns?

Europe is a step beyond our nation in the ongoing slippery slope regarding preferred pronoun enforcement. A teacher in Ireland was arrested in 2022 and spent 100 days in jail over a controversy for refusing to use “gender-neutral pronouns” at the school where he worked. In Scotland, a recently enacted Hate Crime Act led to over 7,000 online reports in its first week. Many of the reports were filed as claims of prejudice against people opposing the view that a person can identify as a different gender, or simply put, claiming that a man cannot become a woman and a woman cannot become a man.

How long until such actions come to America’s schools, workplaces, and even churches? In some places, this is already happening. Last year, a federal appeals court ruled that an Indiana school district did not violate former teacher John Kluge’s rights by forcing him to resign over refusing to use the preferred pronouns and transgender names of students.

Rory Gray, an attorney with the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, released a statement in support of Kluge, noting that the group is considering additional steps in the case.

“Congress passed Title VII to prevent employers from forcing workers to abandon their beliefs to keep their jobs,” Gray said in a statement. “In this case, Mr. Kluge went out of his way to accommodate his students and treat them all with respect. The school district even permitted this accommodation before unlawfully punishing Mr. Kluge for his religious beliefs.”

Psychologists define a delusion to be a fixed belief counter to reason, counter to reality, and/or personally detrimental, and which is not relinquished even when shown facts to the contrary. For the first time in American history, the general population is expected to acquiesce to the demonstrably false assertion that gender is a matter of changeable choice.

But wouldn’t the respectful, moral, and Constitutional things be for the rest of us to just come along and “agree” with those who say they’re trans? No. By analogy, allow me to share a dilemma our family faced beginning in the early 1970s.

My older sister was, at that time, the first or second person in our home state of North Carolina ever to be diagnosed with anorexia nervosa. She was convinced that she was overweight, unacceptable in appearance, and “fat” in comparison to her teen counterparts. Despite my parents' efforts to intervene, by age 16 my sister had starved herself down to 69 pounds.

Her doctor was on the phone with specialists in California, where there was a bit more experience with eating disorders. I well remember counseling sessions in which my anorexic sister insisted, “Look at me! I’m so fat!” as her weight continued to plummet. An emergency admission to Duke University Medical Center and several years of therapy rescued her physically, and eventually, psychologically.

But by the trans definitions of “rights” and “tolerance,” we should have just played along with her self-identification. But would that have truly been a loving thing to do? I watched my sister (and other anorexics our family met in the late 1970s during some group therapy sessions) become viscerally angry when doctors would say, “But you’re not fat . . . “Yet continued affirmation of their self-perception at that moment would have resulted in death.

The most mature, reasonable thing to do when one is deluded about their ontological state is not to passively agree — but to speak the truth.

Our country currently struggles over the alleged “rights” insisted upon by advocates of trans ideology. According to pro-gay lobbyists since the 1970s — and trans “Reichsleiters” now — there must be additional rights apportioned beyond the natural rights guaranteed for “all” by our Constitution. This cannot be.

Should those confused about their gender be treated with compassion and respect? Absolutely. But special/contrived rights for any reason — not to mention compelled speech and forced acquiescence to that which is rooted in personal delusion — are unconstitutional; Anti-misgendering laws will be (and are) illegitimate.

Dr. Alex McFarland is a youth, religion and culture expert, a national talk show host and speaker, educator, and author of 20 books. McFarland directs Biblical Worldview and apologetics for Charis Bible College in Woodland Park, CO. Via the American Family Radio Network, Alex is heard live on Exploring the Word, airing daily on nearly 200 radio stations across the U.S. As one of the weekly hosts of the Truth & Liberty Live Call-in Show, Alex discusses current events affecting our nation while taking callers’ questions. He is also the host of “The Alex McFarland Show,” which airs weekly on NRB TV.

Image: Title: its maam
ADVERTISEMENT

Opinion

View All

JACK POSOBIEC: 'The regime still exists'

"The military-industrial complex does not want to nominate someone who is best known for being a vete...

UN leaders brace for change in US climate policy under Trump admin

“The American people re-elected President Trump by a resounding margin giving him a mandate to implem...

Russian law to criminalize 'child-free propaganda' moves ahead amid demographic crisis

The move comes as Russia’s statistical agency reported that the first half of the year saw the lowest...

CIA agent charged with leaking top secret materials on Israeli retaliation plans against Iran

The files were prepared by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and contained specific satelli...