Tennessee Senate Bill SB1665

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/26
• Engrossed: 3/9/26
• Enrolled: 4/29/26
• Passed: 5/22/26
• Chaptered: 5/27/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8, Chapter 50; Title 49, Chapter 7, Part 24 and Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 51, relative to the use of honorifics.

Summary

SB1665 revises Tennessee’s laws governing how public schools, public higher education institutions, and state employees may use names, pronouns, and honorifics when referring to students, employees, contractors, and other individuals. The bill expands existing statutory language to expressly include “honorifics” alongside names and pronouns, and it repeatedly distinguishes between a person’s preferred pronoun or honorific and the pronoun or honorific that is consistent with that person’s sex. In the education provisions, the bill allows students, teachers, employees, and contractors to use pronouns or honorifics consistent with a person’s sex even if that differs from the person’s preference, and it prohibits school personnel from knowingly addressing an unemancipated minor student by a name other than the legal name, or by a pronoun, title, or honorific inconsistent with the student’s sex, without written parental or guardian consent. It also bars teachers, employees, and contractors from requiring students to use pronouns or honorifics inconsistent with the sex of the staff member or contractor. Similar changes are made for public higher education and for state employment, extending the same rules to faculty, employees, contractors, and persons communicating with them in the scope of state employment or state contracts. The bill’s practical effect is to amend Tennessee Code Annotated in Title 49 and Title 8, updating the state’s education and employment nondiscrimination/communication rules to explicitly regulate honorific usage in addition to names and pronouns. It affects public schools, local education agencies, public colleges and universities, state employees, state contractors, and students, and it creates a clearer statutory basis for using sex-consistent titles and pronouns in official settings. The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is supportive but not unanimous. The bill advanced through the Senate Education Committee and passed floor votes with comfortable majorities, then received concurrence on a House amendment, indicating broad legislative backing. However, the recorded nays at each stage show meaningful opposition, consistent with the bill’s politically sensitive subject matter involving gender identity, parental consent, and compelled speech concerns. The main points of contention are likely the bill’s treatment of preferred pronouns and honorifics versus sex-based pronouns and honorifics, and the requirement that school staff obtain written parental or guardian consent before using a minor student’s preferred pronoun, title, or honorific when it conflicts with the student’s sex. Supporters appear to favor clarity, parental involvement, and sex-based terminology in public institutions, while opponents likely object to restrictions on respecting individuals’ stated preferences and to the bill’s impact on transgender and gender-nonconforming students and employees.

Impact

SB1665 amends Tennessee Code Annotated in Title 49 and Title 8 to add “honorifics” to existing provisions on names and pronouns and to authorize or require sex-consistent pronouns and titles in public schools, higher education, and state employment contexts. It changes the legal standards for how students, teachers, faculty, employees, contractors, and state personnel may refer to one another, and it adds a parental-consent requirement before school staff may use a minor student’s preferred pronoun, title, or honorific when it conflicts with the student’s sex.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have generally favorable legislative momentum, passing committee and floor votes by substantial margins and ultimately receiving concurrence on a House amendment. At the same time, the repeated nays indicate that the measure was not broadly uncontested and drew notable opposition, likely because it addresses gender identity-related terminology in schools and state workplaces.

Contention

The central controversy is whether public institutions should be permitted or required to use pronouns and honorifics that align with a person’s sex rather than the person’s stated preference. Opponents are likely to object to the bill’s restrictions on preferred pronouns/honorifics and the parental-consent requirement for minors, viewing them as harmful to transgender students and staff or as compelled-speech rules. Supporters likely argue that the bill protects parental rights, preserves sex-based language standards, and provides clarity for schools, universities, and state agencies.