Whether the proscribed use of personal pronouns is, a form of legally compelled speech is a complex question that the courts have not definitively answered. A few factors would need to be considered to make a determination, including the case’s specific circumstances, the nature of the prescription, and the government’s intent.

Some argue that the proscribed use of personal pronouns is a form of compelled speech because it forces people to say something they do not believe. They argue that this violates the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech.

Others argue that the proscribed use of personal pronouns is not a form of compelled speech because it does not force people to say anything. They argue that people are free to use whatever pronouns they want, but they may face consequences if they do not use the pronouns that are preferred by the person they are addressing.

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether the proscribed use of personal pronouns is a form of legally compelled speech. However, the Court has ruled on cases involving other forms of compelled speech. In these cases, the Court has held that the government cannot compel speech unless necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.

Regarding the proscribed use of personal pronouns, the government must show a compelling interest in requiring people to use specific pronouns. The government might argue that it has a compelling interest in protecting the rights of transgender people or in preventing discrimination against transgender people. However, the government must also show that requiring people to use specific pronouns is the least restrictive way to achieve this interest.

Ultimately, whether the proscribed use of personal pronouns is a form of legally compelled speech is complex and must be decided on a case-by-case basis.