The Quiet Tyranny of Pronouns: Why Forced Speech Isn’t Progress

As a kid, I was raised to address adults and those in authority with a high level of civility: using only their last name with either Mr. or Mrs. and always including “sir” or “ma’am” in my replies. By high school, I realized I was one of the few among my peers who still used this civil language. Many adults would ask me to call them by their first name or say they were too young to be called “sir” or “ma’am.” But despite their protestations, I was still allowed to say “No sir” out of habit or “Yes ma’am” when reflex took over. I was never sent to the principal’s office, but neither were my classmates when they addressed teachers with a dismissive “Yeah, sure, whatever man.” Sadly, our legislature and governor have decided to insert themselves into literal public discourse. With the passage of HB25-1312, they have ensured that personal expression is now subject to government oversight. What was once a habit of civility could now send me before the tribunal of anti-discrimination enforcement. Compelled speech does not have a record of producing genuine progress, in fact quite the opposite. That is precisely why the First Amendment was designed to safeguard against it.

The argument made in favor of the bill is that public accommodations require individuals to use others’ preferred pronouns. But how is this different from a performance that reinforces an ideological belief? This kind of policing of private speech is only a step away from the public recanting of “wrong thinking” and participation in “struggle sessions” required in Maoist China. However, compelled speech is not unique to communism or fascism, it is thousands of years old. Socrates was charged with corrupting the youth and was told to stop speaking or face death. He chose the latter and famously declared, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Did our state legislature realize they are retracing the same missteps as the Athenians? Long before our Founders penned the First Amendment, history was filled with regimes, monarchs, and religious authorities who used speech control as a means to control the people.

Even beyond historical warnings, the question remains: does compelled language achieve what its proponents claim? Does forcing individuals to affirm pronouns they don’t agree with actually change their hearts and minds? Research suggests it does not. Social psychologists have noted that compelled speech teaches compliance, not inclusion or compassion. Compliance may silence disagreement, but it does not produce sincerity. As William Edmundson wrote: “Mandates can mimic virtue, but do not cultivate it.” Just ask any religious scholar what matters more: rote words or inner conviction. A 2019 study on psychological reactance found that peer pressure to express support for social causes not only failed to produce understanding but it instead reinforced opposing views. Far from building empathy, ideological coercion tends to backfire.

This leads to the natural objection: it is just a couple of pronouns so why make such a big deal? But once we accept forced speech in one area, where do we draw the line between protecting rights and policing thought? The authoritarian impulse behind compelled language is especially dangerous because it is never satisfied. The slope from pronouns to broader ideological enforcement is steep. And deeper than that, speech is not just a social function, it is the vessel for personal thought. When the right to express words is violated, it undermines the very foundation of a free society and more importantly an individual’s right to even think freely. It is cruel to strip away an individual’s conscience under the guise of kindness. It is dangerous to erode free thought in the name of civility. This is not just a mandate about manners but an attack on the right to think.

There is a certain irony in the final version of HB25-1312. In its original form, the bill required government agencies to adopt new gender identities and language on official forms. But in order to gain enough votes to pass, the sponsors removed that provision. Now, the government continues using legal names, while the public is compelled to participate in a redefinition that the government needs not adopt itself. That is not civility – it is coercion. This is not a ban on yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. It is a ban on speaking any truth not approved by the ideological proposed. Progressives should fear this precedent and ideological coercion with as much vigor as conservatives. Would they support forcing all Americans to recite the Pledge of Allegiance under a right-wing administration? Thankfully, the judicial branch has historically protected us from compelled speech as they did in West Virginia v. Barnette. We can only hope and pray that it will do so again with this deeply misguided law.