Transgender Litigants Not Entitled to Preferred Pronouns in Court
A federal inmate—a biological male—serving time in Texas for child pornography offenses, asked the federal courts for two things: 1) to change the name on his judgment of committal from Norman Keith Varner to Kathrine Nicole Jett, to reflect that he “came out” as a woman in 2015, and 2) that the court use his new name and his “preferred” female pronouns whenever it conducted proceedings with regard to his first request, lest the court be guilty of “gender identity discrimination.” Both requests made it all the way to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals headquartered in New Orleans.
Regarding his first request, the 5th Circuit denied Varner the right to change his name on the legal papers that ordered him to prison. It then looked at his second request and ruled that no court, and no government entity, has any legal obligation to address litigants by their preferred pronouns.
Why is that important?
Forcing courts and government entities to comply to such a request/demand “could raise delicate questions about judicial impartiality,” said the majority opinion. Courts are already in the very center of the heated public debate over issues of sex and gender identity. To require them to use preferred pronouns would give the impression that it had taken sides on the ultimate issues they are being asked to decide. Congress can and has legislated with regard to transgender identity, but it has remained silent on subjects such as pronoun use by federal agencies and courts. The 5th Circuit was loathe to create such a right and usurp Congress’ authority.
Next, the court observed that according to the various lexicons regarding gender identity circulating across the Internet, there are numerous pronouns that could be involved, not just “he” and “she.” For example, other choices on the lists include “fae,” “e/ey,” “per,” “they,” “ve,” “xe,” and “ze/zie,” among others. If courts and all the parties were required to use everyone’s preferred pronouns, it would create chaos.
The 5th Circuit’s ruling should help refute the transgender lobby’s argument that transgender people are entitled to change the English language to suit them. Forcing the rest of us to use terms that are in contradiction to God’s Word regarding the creation of men and women and are an affront to our First Amendment free speech rights, is a form of tyranny. The 5th Circuit was right to reject the prisoner’s request.
’Tis the season for holiday reading!
Check out Daily Citizen’s cheery winter reads.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Bruce Hausknecht, J.D., is an attorney who serves as Focus on the Family’s judicial analyst. He is responsible for research and analysis of legal and judicial issues related to Christians and the institution of the family, including First Amendment freedom of religion and free speech issues, judicial activism, marriage, homosexuality and pro-life matters. He also tracks legislation and laws affecting these issues. Prior to joining Focus in 2004, Hausknecht practiced law for 17 years in construction litigation and as an associate general counsel for a large ministry in Virginia. He was also an associate pastor at a church in Colorado Springs for seven years, primarily in worship music ministry. Hausknecht has provided legal analysis and commentary for top media outlets including CNN, ABC News, NBC News, CBS Radio, The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe and BBC radio. He’s also a regular contributor to The Daily Citizen. He earned a bachelor’s degree in history from the University of Illinois and his J.D. from Northwestern University School of Law. Hausknecht has been married since 1981 and has three adult children, as well as three adorable grandkids. In his free time, Hausknecht loves getting creative with his camera and capturing stunning photographs of his adopted state of Colorado.
Related Posts
The FBI Deeply Needs Reform – and Fast
December 6, 2024