As a student and an aspiring journalist, I have always believed in the importance of free speech. In fact, speaking too much has always been a struggle of mine; all you have to do is ask any of my school teachers. The right to use your voice to express yourself is at the foundation of a healthy democracy, a freedom that I resolutely stand for.

I recently watched a movie called “The King’s Speech” for one of my classes here at Goshen College. Besides teaching me much about public speaking and steps to overcome stuttering, the film left me with a quote. Lionel Logue, the speech therapist in the film, said: “Speech is the ultimate weapon. Speak with purpose and conviction.” I agree. But I also believe that freedom of expression has limits, especially when it crosses the line into harm.

On Jan. 20, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” This order mandates that the federal government recognize only two sexes, male and female, as assigned at birth. It defines “female” as individuals belonging to the sex that can produce “large reproductive cells” and “male” as those belonging to the sex that can produce “small reproductive cells.” 

Using his own voice — his “most powerful weapon” — Trump said, “There are only two genders, male and female, assigned by God at birth. We will not allow this radical left ideology to erase that truth.”​ 

How do we, as a society,  still allow speeches like this to occur? We are still giving space in the U.S. Capitol — the main decision-making forum where legislative discussions and voting are conducted for the nation — for speeches that promote the traditional definition of “gender.” It is already unacceptable if non-influential individuals just randomly express those benighted types of opinions out there, but coming from the president is simply outrageous. 

 “Freedom of expression” cannot be used to justify statements of the kind issued by the president. I am firmly convinced that liberty of expression ends when it threatens another person’s rights, especially when it puts them in a situation of vulnerability. 

You might think that Trump’s speech is protected by the First Amendment. I believe otherwise. Here’s why.  

The Constitution protects free speech, even if it is offensive or hateful, as long as it does not directly threaten serious harm to a specific individual or group. Trump’s speech clearly meets those conditions. Whenever somebody’s own words reinforce dehumanizing stereotypes, “liberty” is no longer the right word to describe it. Personally, I would use “crime” instead.

Other than in the Bill of Rights, freedom of expression is clearly written in the constitution of approximately 165 countries around the world. But it is not absolute. It can’t be. Trump’s speech is just an example of an increasing trend where public figures are using their bully pulpit to spread hateful and dangerous speeches, instead of seriously focusing on their duties.

The American transgender community is already vulnerable enough. ​In 2023, the FBI documented 547 hate crime offenses involving gender identity, 401 of which were specifically directed at transgender people and 146 at gender-nonconforming people. The figures represent a 16% increase from the previous year. ​The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) also documented at least 33 transgender and gender non-conforming individuals killed in the United States between November 2022, and November 2023.

Can you understand the depth of jeopardy in which we are progressively placing other individuals currently? When speeches fuel discrimination, they cease to be simple expressions of belief and become tools of oppression, and it is especially dangerous when speeches target groups that already face violence and systemic inequality. 

I write this with a lump in my throat knowing that Trump will never be charged with a crime or wrongdoing for his words — at least not in the near future. As long as statements like his keep being normalized and not held to account, transgender individuals will remain vulnerable to persecution solely for embracing their true identities. 

I want the opposite. I want to amplify their voices, and work towards a society that actively challenges discrimination.  

What I don’t wish to see happen is the use of the “ultimate weapon” as an instrument of destruction to our democracy that I, again, so much appreciate.