The Sixth Circuit temporarily blocked Ohio officials from enforcing a policy requiring students to use classmates' preferred pronouns. The case, Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, involves parents concerned about the school's transgender policies and their children's religious beliefs. Parents, supported by Defending Education, argued that the policy violated their beliefs by forcing them to affirm gender identities different from biological sex. The parents, who have religious objections to the policy, feared repercussions for not using preferred pronouns.
14 days ago
In February 2023, parents in Ohio's Olentangy Local School District challenged the board's policy on transgender inclusion, which prohibited discrimination based on gender identity, including the use of preferred pronouns.1
One parent raised concerns for their devoutly Christian child, who believes only two biological genders exist and feared reprimand for not using pronouns matching a classmate's preferred identity over biological sex.1
Three additional parents joined, supported by Defending Education, arguing the policy violated their children's scientific and religious beliefs without evidence of disruption.1
A federal trial court and initial Sixth Circuit panel rejected the parents' claim, but an en banc review on November 6, 2025, reversed in a 10-7 decision, temporarily enjoining the policy.1
The majority opinion, spanning 112 pages, emphasized that schools cannot compel speech without showing material disruption, citing the policy's failure to meet this standard under Ohio law.1
Amici support came from diverse groups, including the ACLU of Ohio and 22 state attorneys general, highlighting free speech concerns.1
The court heavily referenced Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), invoked 35 times, which protects student expression unless it substantially disrupts school activities or infringes rights.1
It ruled that using biological pronouns does not qualify as harassment and lacks evidence of disrupting classwork.1
Broader First Amendment precedents against compelled speech were cited, including West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), Janus v. AFSCME (2018), and 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023), prohibiting forced expression contrary to beliefs.1
Seven judges dissented, arguing the policy aimed to prevent trauma and disruption to transgender or nonbinary students, potentially affecting their learning amid rising bullying and suicides.1
The dissent contended that refraining from preferred pronouns could harm vulnerable students, though it did not link the policy directly to reducing these issues.1
Five majority concurrences offered varied rationales, with three separate opinions and a joint one reinforcing the free speech victory.1
The decision marks a setback for school policies enforcing preferred pronouns, prioritizing religious and free speech protections over gender affirmation mandates.1
It critiques efforts to impose gender ideology, urging respect for biological realities and beliefs without proven disruption.1
As courts remain divided on similar educator compulsion cases, this ruling may influence future protections for students and teachers opposing such policies.1
Does Catholic doctrine permit religious objections to mandated pronoun use?
Catholic doctrine strongly affirms the right to religious objections rooted in freedom of conscience, particularly when civil mandates conflict with the moral order or Church teachings on human dignity. This principle is foundational to the Church's understanding of religious liberty, as articulated in Vatican II and subsequent magisterial documents. In the context of mandated pronoun use—often tied to contemporary gender ideologies that separate personal identity from biological sex—the Church's teachings on sexual difference provide a basis for such objections, viewing compelled speech as a potential violation of conscience that undermines the truth about the human person as created male and female by God. Below, I explore this through key aspects of Catholic teaching.
At the heart of Catholic doctrine is the inviolable dignity of the human person, which includes the freedom to act according to a well-formed conscience, especially in matters of faith and morals. The Church teaches that no one may be forced to act against their convictions, nor restrained from acting in accord with them in religious matters. This right persists even for those who err in seeking truth, as it is grounded in the person's inherent dignity and openness to divine revelation.
Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae emphasizes that faith must be a free act, free from any coercion, and that religious freedom contributes to an environment where individuals can profess their beliefs without hindrance. The declaration underscores that the act of faith involves "reasonable and free submission," excluding "every manner of coercion on the part of men." This extends to civil society, where the state must not impose obstacles to the exercise of conscience.
Furthermore, citizens are obliged in conscience not to follow civil directives contrary to the moral order, echoing the biblical imperative: "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). Conscientious objection is not merely permissible but a moral duty when laws demand cooperation in evil or contradict Gospel teachings. The Church protects this right, insisting that objectors be shielded from penalties, including professional repercussions. In pluralistic societies, this balances respect for others' freedoms while safeguarding one's own fidelity to truth.
Catholic doctrine rejects ideologies that deny the intrinsic link between biological sex and personal identity, viewing them as contrary to the Creator's design. Human life, in its physical and spiritual dimensions, is a gift from God to be accepted gratefully, not reshaped through self-determination that competes with divine order. Gender theory, which posits identity as fluid and detached from the body's sexual differentiation, is critiqued as an "age-old temptation to make oneself God."
The Church affirms that bodiliness and sexual differentiation are fundamental to human existence, forming an intrinsic unity of body and soul. Interventions or mandates that aim to alter or ignore this order—such as affirming a gender identity contrary to biological sex—do not respect human dignity. Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have warned that such ideologies eliminate the anthropological basis of the family by denying the reciprocity of male and female, promoting instead a view where identity is a personal choice unbound by nature.
In pastoral care, the Church calls for compassion toward those experiencing gender incongruence, urging mitigation of suffering through morally appropriate means that honor the body's order. However, this does not extend to approving changes that mutilate or redefine the sexually differentiated body, as such actions violate the principle of totality and the truth of the person as imago Dei (Gen 1:27).
Mandated pronoun use often enforces a separation of gender from sex, compelling individuals to affirm an identity that Catholic teaching holds as incompatible with revealed truth about human nature. In this light, religious objections are not only permitted but align with the duty to witness to the faith. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has opposed legislation like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which lacks robust protections for religious liberty and could force employers or individuals to act against convictions on sexual ethics and identity. Such laws threaten to penalize speech or actions rooted in belief in sexual difference's biological and moral basis.
For Catholics, refusing mandated pronouns that contradict Church teaching constitutes conscientious objection, akin to resisting cooperation in immoral acts like those in healthcare mandates. The Church extends pastoral sensitivity to all persons, rejecting unjust discrimination while upholding that same-sex attraction or gender struggles do not justify redefining moral norms. Where civil authority demands affirmation of gender ideology—potentially through workplace policies, education, or public speech—this intrudes on the freedom to profess faith, echoing historical coercions the Church has condemned. Recent documents like Dignitas Infinita (2024) reinforce that such impositions violate human dignity by prioritizing ideology over God's gift of embodied life.
In summary, Catholic doctrine unequivocally permits—and indeed requires—religious objections to mandated pronoun use when it conflicts with the truth of sexual difference and the freedom of conscience. This stance upholds the Church's commitment to human dignity, inviting dialogue while firmly resisting coercion. Catholics are called to form their consciences through prayer, Scripture, and magisterial teaching, ensuring objections are rooted in charity and truth rather than animus. For those facing such mandates, seeking counsel from Church authorities can provide guidance on living faithfully in challenging times.