Dear Minnesota Legislature

As many Minnesotans may not be aware, the 2025-26 Legislative Session begins in just a few days. Within the 648 chapters and nearly 2,500 pages of Minnesota Statutes lies content by which we are legally required to conduct ourselves. Regardless of awareness, we are held accountable to these laws. My hope for this legislative session is that some of these laws will be repealed, as it often feels like we are being governed into servitude. The taxes I pay certainly do not seem to represent my interests.

In preparing to become a more informed citizen and better understand the legislative process, I reviewed a five-hour session from 2024 in which Representative Finke successfully advocated for a bill permitting the unauthorized transport of children to Minnesota to receive “gender-affirming” care. During this debate, I was shocked by the level of gaslighting and the apparent incompetence of some legislators and speakers. It was evident that several had not read the bill or adequately prepared their remarks. Most strikingly, many speakers and witnesses misused vocabulary, which raises significant concerns in a legislative context. In law, the Supreme Court often relies on the “plain meaning” or commonly understood definitions of words. For example, the Oxford Dictionary defines gender as “the male sex or the female sex.” However, social and cultural influences have attempted to redefine this term to encompass a spectrum of traits, behaviors, and identities. Such linguistic shifts can have dangerous implications for the clarity and intent of laws.

Another troubling example is the misuse of the term “bodily autonomy.” Autonomy means self-governance, but no one in this country—or anywhere else—possesses boundless self-governing rights. For instance, I cannot justify using my arm to harm someone by claiming it’s an expression of my bodily autonomy. This misapplication of language undermines logical debate and sound legislation.

Equally concerning is the labeling of those who oppose allowing children to undergo irreversible surgeries or take cross-sex hormones as hateful, sexist, or offensive. Disagreement does not equate to hate. Protecting children is not an act of bigotry. Being offended is a personal issue, not a societal mandate and certainly not a legislative concern. Adults should engage in thoughtful dialogue rather than resort to accusations of hate or offense. To the legislators of the 2025-26 session: It is time to prioritize accuracy in language, focus on meaningful issues, and serve the people who elected you. You should ask yourself daily, “How is this benefiting the citizens I represent?” If the answer is unclear or negative, then it is your duty to shut it down.

-Ann C. Tepoorten