WoLF has just filed a friend-of-the-court brief (also known as an amicus brief) with the Supreme Court of Virginia, in a case where a public school French language teacher was fired after attempting to avoid the use of incorrect male pronouns for a female student who believes she is a boy. This case is incredibly important: The outcome will affect the rights of employees throughout Virginia, and may impact similar situations throughout the United States.

Mr. Vlaming brought suit against the West Point School Board and several school officials, alleging that their decision to fire him violated Virginia’s state constitution and statutory free-speech protections, as well as Virginia’s constitutional clause on the free exercise of religion. Vlaming argues that Virginia’s state constitution provides more robust guarantees for free speech and free exercise of religion as compared to the federal constitution.

As WoLF stated in its motion requesting permission to file the brief:

WoLF brings a unique perspective to this appeal as a non-partisan, secular, radical feminist organization. The concept of “gender identity” is extremely contentious in the U.S. and abroad. Yet it is commonly portrayed as a highly partisan issue, as if disagreement and opposition to the gender identity belief system stems solely or primarily from a traditional religious perspective. That is not true; in fact, WoLF’s members and supporters include many individuals who are concerned that government-mandated support for gender identity ideology carries adverse effects for secular interests in free speech, free association, and freedom of conscience, in addition to its adverse effect on the rights, privacy, and safety of women and girls. Accordingly, WoLF believes that the Court would benefit from hearing the additional arguments of a radical feminist organization.

Mr. Vlaming’s story has become all too familiar, as gender identity ideology has gripped local school boards and classrooms with lightning speed. 

His story began when a female student and her parents announced to the school that the student had adopted a male-typical name and had thus, in their minds, “undergone a gender transition.” This put the teacher in a tough spot. He did not want to draw undesired attention to the student’s decision to identify as a male. Yet, as he explained in his petition to the Virginia Supreme Court, he “also knew that he could not affirmatively express his agreement with that choice based on his sincerely held religious and philosophical beliefs about human nature.” Accordingly, Mr. Vlaming decided to refer to the student by the French first name she chose for herself at the beginning of the semester, consistent with the way he addressed all his French-language students.

Unfortunately, the school board rejected Mr. Vlaming’s proposed accommodation and, despite 6 years of exemplary teaching service and community protests, they promptly fired him. Relying on an obsolete “fact sheet” from a trans activist group, school officials claimed that their nondiscrimination policy (which prohibits harassment and discrimination based on “gender identity”) requires that teachers engage in positive, affirmative speech consistent with the student’s subjective belief that she is “the same as other male students.” This means that the policy could be violated simply by avoiding the use of pronouns, and that teachers were required to go out of their way to use pronouns, even incorrect ones.

While WoLF does not take any position on Mr. Vlaming’s religious-freedom claims, we are keenly aware that his lawsuit may never have found its way to the Virginia Supreme Court were it not for that aspect of his case. This is because workplace protections for free speech and freedom of conscience are extremely narrowly construed. Only religious beliefs receive explicit legal protection in the workplace; most private employers have almost no limits on whether they can discriminate based on non-religious speech or beliefs.

It is therefore vitally important for the Virginia Supreme Court to understand that the consequences of this particular case will extend far beyond the realm of religion. Millions of people in this country do not have a formal religious belief, yet we reject gender identity ideology out of our sincere personal and political convictions. For many of us, this is rooted in feminist analysis, but for all of us, it stems from a straightforward commitment to the truth, and a belief that truth can only be revealed by factual evidence and careful examination of material conditions of our lives and our world.

Compelled Speech

Our brief serves to highlight the ways in which this case has implications not just for Mr. Vlaming, but for many millions of individuals. Policies that force people to use “preferred,” “gender identity”-based pronouns have a profound chilling effect on individuals’ freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Over 100 students from the West Point school district held a protest and rally in support of their beloved teacher’s civil rights. But now, having seen their teacher lose his job over the matter, those students are undoubtedly suppressing their own opinions for fear of adverse consequences.

It stands to reason that Mr. Vlaming’s colleagues fear that they will also be terminated if they express personal beliefs about “gender identity” that do not align with the school’s ideological belief system. If the ruling below stands, students – and all employees – will receive the message that they must cater to subjective and irrational beliefs they do not share, while suppressing their own views and preferences.

If our government has the power to force us to use incorrect pronouns, this means that we live in a society in which government has undue influence over its citizens’ perceptions and beliefs. We can see this influence in the way that gender extremists have succeeded in convincing otherwise intelligent people that men who claim to be women really are women, and must be treated as such, even when they bring their male bodies into women’s restrooms, locker rooms, domestic violence and homeless shelters, and prisons.

Never before in the history of our country has an “oppressed minority” gained such influence that it could invoke the government’s power to enforce ideological conformity and punish its opponents. Of course, as radical feminists, we know that this is because the “transgender” movement is far from oppressed. Gender activists enjoy the support of many official agencies, international corporations, including mainstream entertainment and the sexual exploitation industry, and they even leverage their influence to blatantly elevate abusers and fetishists.

WoLF is proud to present its radical feminist arguments to the Virginia Supreme Court. 

Related Articles

Support WoLF