Pronoun Police at the University of California Were Just Sidelined

No student should be threatened with discipline for saying what is true, that God made us male and female’

In response to a free speech lawsuit filed by the grassroots organization Defending Education, a federal judge this month enjoined the University of California from enforcing the component of its sexual harassment policy that punishes students for the so-called misgendering of classmates. Namely, using pronouns and names that comport with biological realities. So men can still wear dresses on UC campuses; they just can’t force other students to participate in their charade.

United States District Court for the Central District of California Judge Fred Slaughter ruled that Defending Education made a compelling case that the UC policy “compels speech and is viewpoint-based” in violation of the First Amendment.

Slaughter issued a temporary injunction that prohibits UC from enforcing the policy against Defending Education student members on campus while the lawsuit proceeds.

Rejecting the University of California’s argument that the pronoun policy should be permitted to prevent harassment, the judge quoted from another Ninth Circuit ruling that “There is no categorical ‘harassment exception’ to the First Amendment’s free-speech clause.”

Interestingly, Slaughter, who graduated from UCLA and UCLA law school, was appointed by President Joe Biden.

But Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression lawyer Robert Shibley told the California Globe the judge’s ruling is “in line with other [recent] rulings. Courts are recognizing that the choice to use pronouns is expressive conduct” protected by the First Amendment.

He added that it is well-established case law that the state cannot force someone to use”words that violate their beliefs.”

Defending Education’s Nicole Neilly said in a statement about the ruling that, “We are gratified by today’s district court decision enjoining the University of California system’s coercive speech policy against our members. It is unconstitutional for public universities to compel student speech, and we will continue to defend this principle in California and other schools across the country as needed.”

The organization declined to comment to the California Globe beyond the statement.

But California Family Council Vice President Greg Burt said in a telephone interview that the ruling makes clear that“the government can not compel people to say something that they do not believe. For a person who believes sex is determined by biology, using them to use certain pronouns is requiring them to lie.”

Defending Education filed the lawsuit this June on behalf of student members on several UC campuses.

The complaint said that “In line with this growing—and unconstitutional—trend, the University of California System has adopted a “Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment” (SVSH) Policy that unconstitutionally impinges on students’ free speech rights. UC issued a revised version of the SVSH Policy on December 22, 2025. The Policy became effective on January 1, 2026. The Policy “applies at all University campuses,” including UCLA, UCI, and UCSD. And it applies to everyone connected with the UC System, including all undergraduate, graduate, and professional students.”

“The revised SVSH Policy violates the Constitution in two ways: One, the SVSH Policy prohibits broad categories of protected speech that do not constitute actionable harassment. Two, the SVSH Policy punishes students who use language that does not affirm another person’s gender identity—through the use of preferred pronouns, chosen names and other so-called gender-affirming language—when that identity is inconsistent with the person’s biological sex.”

The complaint cited the experiences of several student members forced to self-censor their own speech out of fear of running afoul of the sexual harassment policy.

For example, it said that a UCLA senior, “Student A,” believes “that people are either male or female. She does not believe that ‘gender identity’ is a coherent category separate from biological sex. She does not believe people can switch between genders. She does not think it is appropriate to refer to someone using biologically inaccurate ‘preferred pronouns’ or ‘chosen names.’ Using non-biological pronouns would conflict with her deeply held beliefs, both based on her religious views and biological reality.”

“Student A self-censors, however, because she fears that expressing her belief that sex is immutable—by using biologically accurate pronouns or otherwise explaining her views—will cause her to be punished for violating UC policies.”

The lawsuit had asked for an injunction enjoining the entire sexual harassment policy as overly broad and vague and violating the First Amendment.

“UC leaves no doubt that its ban on hostile-environment harassment covers protected speech.”

Judge Slaughter, however, rejected the request to enjoin the entire policy as “over broad.” He said UC could continue to prohibit harassment based on gender; it just could not force students to use preferred pronouns.

Despite the judicial rebuke, the University of California is still defending the pronoun policy.

Spokeswoman Rachel Zaentz said in a statement that the policy is “designed to protect members of the university community from discrimination and harassment, not to regulate protected speech.”

As of this writing, the University has not appealed the judge’s ruling; so the injunction remains in place.

But Greg Burt of the California Family Council notes in a detailed analysis of the UC ruling, that many California school districts are continuing to enforce the exact kind of pronoun policy that was just invalidated at the University level.

Elk Grove Unified, one of the largest districts in the state, re-approved the language on November 10, 2025, in its AR 5145.18. Employees who violate the regulation face discipline “up to and including dismissal,” and students in grades 4 through 12 face possible suspension or expulsion. Long Beach Unified includes the same example in its AR 5145.3. Lodi Unified‘s policy page, revised March 10, 2026, still displays it. Exeter Unified has it as well. San Francisco Unified says its rule applies to “an intentional and persistent refusal to respect a student’s gender identity.”

“No student should be threatened with discipline for saying what is true, that God made us male and female,” Burt said. “Now every school board in California has to ask why the same unconstitutional rule UC just lost in court is still sitting in its own policy manual.”

No one in America should ever be forced to say something that they don't believe, and that's exactly what these messed up weirdos were trying to make us do.

When the yoots marched to ban the R word it was already too late.

2 posted on 09/30/2026 9:37:34 PM PDT by TornadoAlley3 ( I'm Proud To Be An Okie From Muskogee)

“Representative Keith Self (R-Texas) stated that he is not obligated to participate in a “fantasy” after using male pronouns to refer to transgender Representative Sarah McBride (D-Del.) during a congressional hearing.”

“I don’t have to participate in his fantasies,” [Keith Self] added. “I am under no obligation to participate in something he chooses to portray himself as.”

“I’m an IRS agent.

“”Give me all your money”

Forcing someone’s speech is a bullies tactic. And most transgenders are nothing more that a garden variety bully. They know it and swing their bats to hurt the most people.

Ive said this before if you look like a guy in a dress do not be surprised if some looks at you as says “Hey you look like a guy in a dress.”-—And in you want the people that see that to call you Karen -— Ware a F-ing name tag because the rest of us really do not want to waist our precious time catering to a mentally challenged moron.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.