For the publisher:

In recent weeks, the Journal has published a series of letters dealing with the issue of LGTBQ “rights” and their application in public schools. The editor (and some readers) will be relieved to learn that I do not intend to continue debating the intended meaning of the word. “intentional” in state anti-bullying law. The wording of the law is ambiguous, as previous letters have shown.

At the heart of this debate is a basic truth, supported by one side and denied by the other: men cannot be women, and women cannot be men. There are two genders, and a person is either one or the other.

In her previous letters, Ms. Casey McMullen describes a public school policy that, in effect, would prohibit teachers and students from expressing this truth in their choice of pronouns by which to refer to certain LGBTQ students. If a student uses a pronoun that correctly identifies the gender of another student rather than using a pronoun that effectively denies the person’s gender, Ms. McMullen insists that that student is “Gender error” the other student, and should be seen as a tyrant to be corrected and disciplined. She insists that this is the intention and correct meaning of our state’s anti-bullying law.

If this is true, then we as a society are headed in the wrong direction. If students in our schools are no longer allowed to speak the truth in whatever words they choose, but are instead forced, under the threat of punishment, to speak only state-approved words that deny the truth, then we are losing our freedom. Then we move on to state control over all aspects of our lives.

Forced speech is not freedom of speech. We must not allow our government or its schools to abuse its power in this area. We must not allow them to suppress the truth or apply a language code that forces our children to deny the truth.

Michel thom

New Ulm