Mexico Reveals What’s at Stake in the Pronoun Debate

Free-speech defenders have long warned against government censorship, invoking the lessons of history. The suppression of dissent enables political power to consolidate and go unchecked.

Brought on by the surge of pronoun policies in the 2010s, speech-related legislation in the Americas has expanded.

The ongoing case of Rodrigo Iván Cortés, which is currently pending before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, involves an attack on freedom of speech and freedom of belief at the hands of gender ideology.

In September 2022, Salma Luévano Luna, who identifies as “transgender” and was then a member of Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies, addressed the chamber wearing the vestments of a Catholic bishop and introduced a bill that would penalize the assertion of Christian views on sexuality as “hate speech.”

Rodrigo Iván Cortés, a former member of the Mexican Congress and leader of the political advocacy organization National Front for the Family, expressed concern about the bill with a series of critical social media posts, stating that the bill constituted serious violations of free speech and religious freedom, and referred to Luévano as a “man who self-ascribes as a woman.”

Luévano then filed a complaint, arguing that the posts violated a “right to be acknowledged as a woman,” and constituted a “denial of identity.”

Mexico’s Specialized Regional Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judicial Branch agreed.

It found Cortés guilty of digital, symbolic, psychological, sexual, and gender-based political violence, holding that Cortés’ critiques undermined the “political and electoral rights of women.” You read that right: A former elected legislator was found responsible for violence for posting words that his political opponents didn’t like.

Cortés was ordered to pay a fine of 19,244 pesos, publish online a court-written apology daily for 30 days, take a reeducation course, and be entered in the National Registry of Persons Sanctioned in Political Matters against Women. The Superior Chamber upheld the ruling.

After exhausting his remedies in Mexico, Cortés has taken his case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, where Alliance Defending Freedom filed a petition on his behalf in January 2024.

Although the Commission has not yet decided whether Cortés’ case should be referred back to the courts, his case raises critical legal issues, among them the question of whether sanctions—such as mandatory reeducation training and registry entry—are compatible with the American Convention of Human Rights.

Cortés faces a form of controlled speech that resembles Orwellian Newspeak. In George Orwell’s novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” the Party uses Newspeak to shrink language with the very aim of “narrow[ing] the range of thought.” Orwell understood that the range of what a person can say determines the range of what a person can think.

Those who compel language also know this.

An element of Newspeak is “blackwhite,” which is exemplified by the willingness to say that black is white when the Party demands it, and then to believe it, and eventually to forget ever having believed otherwise.

Modern progressive rhetoric reflects this: “Trans women are women.” “Abortion is healthcare.” The list goes on. Affirming such statements signals ideological allegiance, and hesitating signals dissent.

Blackwhite is perhaps most sinister when citizens are mandated by law to affirm that they believe things in contradiction to observable reality. This is happening now in the U.S., with New York City authorizing civic penalties for “misgendering,” and educators across the country facing legal challenges for refusing to use preferred pronouns.

Defenders of compelled gender-related language usually describe it as a form of courtesy. Using preferred pronouns, we are told, is common decency. However, decency is not enforced through a tribunal; nobody is fined or registered for failing to extend common courtesy.

As Cortés emphasizes, and the means of enforcement suggest, the issue at hand is “pure ideology.”

Compelled speech is arguably a more serious violation than censorship. Whereas censorship silences you, compelled speech conscripts you as an envoy for an ideology that is, in all likelihood, contemptible.

Proverbs 18:21 states that “death and life are in the power of the tongue.” Gender-related compelled speech orders people of faith to bear false witness under threat of penalty.

Perhaps advocates of a language that only survives when backed with state punishment have already conceded something about its merit.

Cortés’ petition is one of the most significant cases pending in the Inter-American system and, if referred to the court, would establish a precedent on compelled speech. Ultimately, the ruling in the case will determine whether the Inter-American human rights system will protect the individual’s right to decline state-mandated affirmations of gender identity.

Despite advances from gender-ideology activists, the fight against compelled speech is far from lost.

Recent elections in several Latin American countries have signaled the beginning of a new political landscape that appears to be more committed to natural human rights and fundamental freedoms.

It is Cortés’ hope, and that of every other free-speech defender, that the decision out of the Inter-American human rights system will reflect this return to foundational values.

More from this network:
Domains for Sale · GOTPeople.org · TheDSAPlatform · The Truth About Socialism

Donate to GOTPeople.org