Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court engaged with a critical issue related to gender and language during its hearings on two high-profile cases: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. These cases involved the constitutional analysis of laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender women and girls from participating in female sports teams.
While the legal community closely followed the arguments regarding equal protection and the implications of Title IX, there was also notable attention on the language used by the justices, particularly concerning pronoun usage for transgender individuals. Historically, the Supreme Court’s approach to pronoun use has varied significantly among justices, with some preferring gender-neutral terms and others using gender-specific language based on the individuals’ self-identification. This trend traces back to earlier cases such as Farmer v. Brennan, the court’s first transgender-related decision in 1994, highlighting the diverse practices regarding gendered language.
The spectrum of pronoun usage continued in 2016’s Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., where the court responded to discrepancies in how amicus briefs addressed Gavin Grimm, a transgender plaintiff. In a more recent landmark decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, the majority opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch used the plaintiff’s preferred pronouns, sparking both commendation and criticism across different sectors.
The issue of pronoun usage by the justices was underscored in last term’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti, where a majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts used gender identity-aligned language for transgender individuals despite the ruling going against their interests. This juxtaposition highlights the complexity of interpreting pronoun usage as a predictor of the case outcomes.
Thus, as seen in the recent arguments of Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the justices’ pronoun choices may not necessarily align with their legal stances, reflecting a more nuanced engagement with language use as both a nod to evolving social norms and, potentially, as a separate consideration from their legal reasoning. As the discourse around gender identity continues to influence legal frameworks, the Supreme Court’s treatment of pronouns remains an intriguing lens through which to explore broader societal and judicial shifts.
For further reading, refer to the original article on SCOTUSblog.