State government; prohibiting certain persons from taking certain action. Effective date. Emergency.
SB 1787 would add a new section to Title 74 of the Oklahoma Statutes restricting how state employees, appointees, contractors, and employees of state agencies or political subdivisions may identify themselves in official communications. The bill defines “personal pronouns” broadly to include common gendered pronouns such as he, him, she, her, they, them, as well as non-standard terms used in place of those pronouns. It also defines “preferred pronouns” as the pronouns an individual uses to refer to themself.
Under the bill, covered state personnel would be prohibited from stating their preferred pronouns in official communications, including text messages, emails, letters, and faxes. The bill further provides that certain uses of honorifics such as Mr., Mrs., Ms., or Miss could be treated as a violation if used in a way the bill describes as inconsistent with the person’s sex at birth. A first violation would result in a warning, while a subsequent violation would be grounds for removal of an employee or appointee or termination of a contractor’s agreement.
If enacted, SB 1787 would create a new restriction on official communications by state government personnel and contractors, and it would be codified as Section 85.80 of Title 74. It would affect state employees, appointees, contractors, and personnel of agencies and political subdivisions by limiting pronoun self-identification in government-related communications and establishing disciplinary consequences for violations. The bill also includes an emergency clause and an effective date of July 1, 2026, meaning it is intended to take effect immediately upon passage and approval as well as on the stated date.
No committee transcript or vote record is available in the provided materials, so there is no direct evidence of debate or recorded support/opposition. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be part of a broader policy effort to limit the use of gender identity-related pronoun disclosures in state government communications. The absence of recorded discussion makes the overall sentiment difficult to gauge beyond the bill’s clear regulatory and disciplinary intent.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on employees and contractors stating their preferred pronouns in official communications, which may be viewed by supporters as a government-neutrality or administrative policy measure and by opponents as targeting gender identity expression. Another likely source of dispute is the bill’s treatment of honorifics and its linkage of certain pronoun or title usage to violations, which could raise concerns about enforcement, ambiguity, and discrimination. Because there are no transcripts or votes provided, the specific positions of legislators or stakeholders are not documented in the supplied record.