Missouri’s New Speech Police
from the criminalizing-speech dept
Republican state Rep. Jamie Gragg of Ozark is a freshman lawmaker with no discernible accomplishments on his record. However, it isn’t to say that the man doesn’t break from the party line when it comes to the Republican Party’s fascistic campaign against transgender rights.
Gragg introduced House Bill (HB) 2885. It makes it a sex crime – yes, a sex crime – if a school psychologist or teacher “contributed” to a trans child’s social transition in some capacity.
A social transition is the socio-environmental element of a gender-divergent person transitioning to the gender they identify as. Social transitioning includes adopting someone’s name, appropriate pronouns, physical appearance, and behavioral expression.
These are crucial elements to successful outcomes for individuals who transition – especially as it relates to positive mental health outcomes.
Rep. Gragg wants to take the Missouri Republican Party’s ongoing war on the transgender community further in a manner that is beyond appalling, even by Missouri standards.
If HB 2885 became law, educators could be charged with a Class E felony. They would be forced to register as a Tier I sexual offender for simply recognizing a student by their preferred pronouns and gender identification. He presents this bill as a child protection measure – a cruel joke.
Social transition and the affirmation of an identity in transgender youth is healthy – it’s crucial. The Journal of Adolescent Health published the findings of a landmark study that found social transition to provide strong mental health outcomes in the short term.
The study’s authors go on to encourage clinicians to ensure trans youth are in safe and affirming social environments – like schools. Overwhelming evidence also shows the necessity of including everyone involved in the child’s life – especially the parents, if possible – to ensure success and health outcomes.
It’s like Gragg wants the government to be a speech police. It’s ironic.
For years, Republicans have criticized political correctness and speech codes on college campuses. They say leftists are the “speech police” – a woke force of tyranny suppressing freedom of expression. Indeed, a large part of the modern culture war against trans individuals was kicked off by claims that people were going to “force” people to use preferred pronouns.
Gragg’s bill has no realistic chance of getting passed. It’s a statement bill to show his far-right benefactors that he’s doing something.
While the bill is most definitely extreme, the right wing’s effort to restrict social transitioning is steeped in the misleading claim of parental rights. Extremist organizations like Moms for Liberty tout this definition of parental rights. The types of people who are attracted to groups like these believe that leftist elites perpetrate a secret plot to sexualize children.
This is not only not true, it shows how infatuated a lawmaker like Rep. Gragg is with this conspiracy theory. A bill like this doesn’t protect kids. All of the research shows that it harms kids. It harms their families. It harms teachers and administrators. It harms Missouri.
Teachers, especially, are leading figures in a student’s schooling. Restricting their use of language violates the First Amendment, regardless of whether it is being used to support a social transition or not. Parental rights shouldn’t violate an individual’s rights – no matter their age.
If a bill like this were to be law, it would signal to teachers that they shouldn’t do their jobs and aren’t even allowed to utter simple pronouns.
Lawmakers like Gragg want to criminalize the use of “he,” “her,” and “they.” They want to limit expression and personal liberty. How does that help? Simply put, it doesn’t.
Michael McGrady covers the legal and tech side of the online porn business, among other topics.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, free speech, hb 2885, jamie gragg, missouri, pronouns, sex crime, social transitioning


Comments on “Missouri’s New Speech Police”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Aka, “special rights for mentally-ill biological males and females.”
Re:
Oh look I found the kkk member
Re:
…said no human, ever.
Re:
Tell me you don’t understand transgender people without saying it.
Re:
Funny, I’ve never known anyone be held in an inpatient psychiatric facility just because they’re a woman with a penis (for example).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Aka, “entirely reasonable campaign against degenerates, groomers, neo-Marxists, and other predators.”
Re:
Says a child rapist
Re:
Weird of you to provide your own characteristics, but okay.
Re: Re:
TBH, I think they’re his vital statistics.
Re:
You mean priests, family members, and people of power?
Re: Re:
This is the most insightful comment ever. Everybody knows that priests are closet rapists, right bhull242?
Re:
Actually, Senator McCarthy’s witch hunt was anything but reasonable. As for the rest, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act has dealt with them since 2000. No need for any extra laws.
Years ago, when the bathroom bans were first revving up, I wrote a dystopian scifi story wherein being trans had been made a sex crime. Seems we are on track for that future to obtain.
Re:
Title of that story, please.
Teaching kids the reality that trans people exist and are normal is no more grooming them than teaching kids that frogs exist is grooming them to become amphibians.
Re:
True. I got taught that frogs exist and are normal way back in science, which had absolutely no bearing on me becoming a newt. 🤪
Re: Re:
Did you get better?
Re: Re: Re:
I got newtered.
Re: Re: Re:2
Don’t worry, some newts change sex in response to social conditions and I guess getting newtered may count as a condition.
They want to conflate LGBTQ+ with CSA, and then punish “CSA” with the death penalty.
Anyone who points this out is jumped with bad-faith right-wing rhetoric pretending it’s confirmation of the “LGBTQ groomers” conspiracy theory.
Literally, 100%, from the Nazi playbook.
Re:
Sorry, I seem not to be up on current terminology.
When I googled “LGBTQ” and “CSA” what I got was a Congressional Staff Association. While there might be folks willing to make membership in one a death penalty, I expect you had some different TLA in mind?
Re: Re:
CSAM/CSEM, ie, child pornography.
Ironic to put people on the sex offender registry for refusing to sexually harass children, which is what intentional misgendering is — imagine a cis boy consistently called “she” due to his sexual characteristics and this becomes obvious.
Re:
Most people, though, never identify themselves as masculine or feminine, or male or female. I wonder whether Gragg has ever identified as masculine, or if Michael is ironically doing the very thing (identifying a person by their sex) they’re criticizing.
If we’re gonna say that pronouns are up to the person being referred to, we shouldn’t half-ass it by only applying that rule to those who complain loudly enough. That makes their situation even more awkward.
Re: Re:
If you identify as a woman, you identify as female if you never actually say that. If you identify as a man, you identify as male if you never actually say that. And if you identify as non-binary, you identify as outside the artificial gender binary if you never actually say that. Now what about that was so hard, MAGAT?
Re: Re:
If you identify as a woman, you identify as female even if you never actually say that. If you identify as a man, you identify as male even if you never actually say that. And if you identify as non-binary, you identify as existing outside the artificial gender binary even if you never actually say that. Now what about that was so hard, MAGAT?
The driving motive behind Republican policy is dead Americans. They give themselves bonus points for murdering children.
Re:
and copy russia and china apparently
Re:
The GOP is a death cult.
Re: Re:
alwayshasbeen.gif
Re: Pro-life…
…in the womb. After that, who cares about post-natal abortion?
Re: Re:
LEOs are specialists in post-natal abortion. Just ask Eric Garner and George Floyd.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
What rights do trannies need?
The right to tell others what words they use? The right to tell others what they are or are not seeing with their own eyes?
Re:
That isn’t anything anyone demands of the law.
On the other hand, you and your ilk demand the law criminalize people who do recognize someone’s preferred pronouns. Oh, right, and the existence of trans* people themselves.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
You know me so well. So, guess my gender. I’ll give you a hint, one of my pronouns is “highness.”
Re: Re: Re:
As in that bitch be highness offa his own supply
Re: Re: Re:
Re:
The same fucking rights as stated in the UN Human Rights Charter, insurrectionist scum.
Re:
The right to be themselves and encourage others to treat them accordingly.
And yeah, that’s kinda how free speech works. You don’t have to do what they ask, but they still have the right to ask—or even demand—regardless so long as it doesn’t cross the line into harassment and just sticks to speech. Given that this law prohibits that sort of speech, that’s a problem.
Re: Re:
No, the real problem is that this bill, if passed, will require harassment, since regular misgendering/deadnaming of trans people is trans-based harassment.
I think one overlooked group that’s contributed a lot to the false idea that political correctness has been running amok and given alt-right culture warriors a lot of room, has been Greg Lukianoff’s The FIRE. They haven’t gotten any flak for helping to fan the flames when they really, really need to. Lukianoff was the co-author of the “Coddling Of The American Mind” article that kicked a whole lot of this off. The FIRE to this day keeps leaping to the defense of transphobes and more in their pursuit of casting aspersions on universities and organizations that try to treat marginalized groups with respect and dignity. The FIRE’s objective seems to be to make colleges treat every argument as if there are two sides to each, and they both hold the same merit and value.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
1995- love is love, we just want acceptance.
2005- we just want equality.
2012- bake the cake or go to court.
2015- say my pronouns or lose your job.
2024- your kids will watch drag shows.
Re:
Oh look it’s someone who doesn’t live in reality
Re:
So you lost your mind some time between 2005 and 2015. That really narrows things down I guess.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Two very well thought out responses showing how wrong I am
Re: Re: Re:
Admitting you have a problem is truely the first step.
Re: Re: Re:2
WPATH Files
Re: Re:
It was the black president. That broke a lot of chuds’ brains.
Re: Re: Re:
Can’t imagine why, I mean I’ve been assured that the party is most certainly not a haven for bigots(among other flavors of asshole) so why they’d lose the tattered remains of their minds over a black president is a complete mystery.
Re:
First off, The Rocky Horror Picture Show predates your delusions.
Secondly, while there’s been at least one trans jerk willing to weaponize their status to try and win their court case, it is rare.
The LGBTQ+ community is still saying the same message as in 2005, you’re either delusional or believe in insurection.
Re: Re:
And The Rocky Horror Show predates the The Rocky Horror Picture Show, adding more teeth to your argument.
Re:
You don’t need to decorate the cake. You do need to bake the cake.
If my name was James and someone at my workplace kept calling me Jennifer, I would expect that company’s management to discipline that other employee if they didn’t correct their abusive behavior. Pronouns are under that same umbrella.
Show the evidence that LGBTQ+ people are forcing kids to watch drag shows against their will and in opposition to the approval of their parents, and additionally, show the evidence that supports the claim that seeing someone in drag is psychologically harmful in any way.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Confuse nouns with pronouns, cool trick!
Really shows your intelligence!
Re: Re: Re:
It’s called “parallel reasoning.” Your problem in understanding it was that it involves reasoning. The confusion is yours.
Re: Re: Re:2
Haven’t you heard? Sound reasoning is just like sound facts — a woke, progressive, liberal conspiracy.
Re:
Given that 2015 and 2024 are complete nonsense, and 2012 is oversimplified, you need to get back to reality.
Re:
2012 – bake the cake or go to court.
1912 – bake the cake or go to court.
1812 – bake the cake or go to court.
I could go back to 1712, but the US didn’t exist back then.
Re:
2012 – bake the cake or go to court – homosexual people.
1912 – bake the cake or go to court – black people.
1812 – bake the cake or go to court – Mormons.
Your point?
Re:
Kids have been seeing drag shows longer than I’ve been alive — and I’m retired.
Until very recently, “drag shows” have been widely recognized as simple entertainment, and anyone worried about far-fetched “groomer” conspiracy theories would have been universally laughed out of the room. In fact, I’ll bet you can still see classic movies like Some Like It Hot (1959) and Bringing Up Baby (1938) on family-oriented television. (I’m pretty sure that Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon, and Cary Grant weren’t ever accused of being “groomers”.)
The whole “issue” appears to be blatant political vehicle, dressed up as “protect the children” “culture war” to bamboozle and motivate the credulous.
I swear, the reactionary “Right” wing appears to be actually opposed to exercising the slightest critical thought before plunging into the moral panic du jour — and then they have the chutzpah to insist that they’re only spouting self-evident “common sense”.
Gay bashing, take 2
Trying to criminalize the existence of trans people by making it a crime to admit that anyone could be one, the genitalia obsessed perverts are really going above and beyond in trying to force their bigotry down everyone else’s throats by enshrining it into law.
This bill is Aktion T4 for gender divergent adolescents – the cruel reality.
Irony
This is the kind of thing the Christian Nationalists want, but a law criminalizing being kind to children has to be one of the least Christian things ever.
Re: 'I don't need to read it, I know it already agrees with me!'
Well yes, but that assumes they actually read the bloody book and give a damn what that socialist, liberal hippy Jesus said.
The real sex offenders are the Republicans. Fuck them with a spiky bat.
here's an idea......
how about the politicians work real hard at doing nothing instead of pushing BS to show there butt-buddies that they are doing something!
Not just a war on the transgender community
This is another part of the war on teachers.
Think
how about the politicians work real hard at doing infonothing instead of pushing BS to show their butt-buddies that they are doing something?