In a recent development, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has introduced a new gender pronoun policy that is raising concerns among experts and former officials. The policy has been criticized for potentially violating employee rights and may result in firings for “misgendering.” This news comes as Tammy Fournier, a parent, shares her experience of removing her daughter from a school district’s “affirmative care” model, which she believes led to her daughter desisting from her gender dysphoria.
Roger Severino, the vice president for domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation and former head of civil rights at HHS during the Trump administration, first brought attention to the policy on social media. Severino argues that the policy forces employees to speak falsehoods, a violation of their First Amendment rights. He claims that federal employees should not be compelled to adopt a state-approved ideology or deny their own faith.
The push for this policy began with two White House executive orders in January 2021 and June 2022, aimed at combating “gender discrimination” based on “gender identity.” The U.S. Office of Personnel Management also issued guidance stating that all applicants and employees should be addressed by the names and pronouns they use to describe themselves, creating an inclusive work environment.
However, Severino believes that the policy goes too far, referring to it as “Orwellian.” He argues that misgendering someone could now be considered a violation of anti-discrimination law, potentially leading to termination. Additionally, the policy allows individuals to use restrooms and wear clothing based on their self-identified gender, which Severino believes could create uncomfortable situations in locker rooms and bathrooms.
Severino points out that this policy contradicts previous civil rights laws that protected women from being subjected to nudity in the workplace. He believes that it is unfair to place the burden on women to leave uncomfortable situations, rather than protecting their rights.
Despite the Biden administration’s support for this policy, Severino suggests that employees may have legal recourse to challenge it and protect their rights. He cites the Supreme Court case West Virginia vs. Barnette, where dissenting from saying the pledge of allegiance was protected as a form of political dissent. Severino argues that employees should also have the right to dissent from policies that force them to deny gender reality or go against their beliefs.
The introduction of this HHS pronoun policy has sparked controversy and concern among employees. Many fear the negative impact on morale and productivity. Some employees may choose to keep a low profile to avoid potential repercussions, while others may stand up and fight for their rights, knowing that they could become targets.
Digital reached out to both HHS and the White House for comment but did not receive a response at the time of publication.
In conclusion, the HHS pronoun policy has ignited a debate on employee rights, freedom of speech, and the effects on workplace dynamics. Critics argue that it violates employee rights and may lead to firings for “misgendering.” Supporters believe it fosters an inclusive work environment. As the controversy continues, employees face a difficult decision between keeping a low profile or fighting for their rights.
