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: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Missouri’s New Speech Police”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
67 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

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.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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?

Anonymous Coward says:

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?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

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.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

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.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

2012- bake the cake or go to court.

You don’t need to decorate the cake. You do need to bake the cake.

2015- say my pronouns or lose your job.

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.

2024- your kids will watch drag shows.

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.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
BernardoVerda (profile) says:

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”.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...