The Tennessee Legislature is considering HB1666, a bill that would make the use of a teacher’s preferred honorifics optional for students, parents and coworkers. Under the measure, a student could address a teacher with a title tied to the teacher’s sex assigned at birth or a conventional title such as “Miss” or “Mister,” even when that teacher has expressed a different preference. That policy effort builds on a 2026 state law that already shields people who use a teacher’s dead name or the teacher’s assigned sex from discipline.
The proposed restriction has a personal focal point: a special education worker known to students as Teacher B. The educator—identified in reporting as Max Bearden (also reported as Maxwell Jasper Bearden)—says their students call them by the neutral name without difficulty and that the friction comes mainly from adults. Bearden and supporters argue the bill is not abstract: it singles out working classroom staff and amplifies hostility that has included harassment and threats. For many observers, the clash is about respect and the practical needs of vulnerable students rather than abstract semantics.
What HB1666 would change in practice
At its core, HB1666 would prevent school policies or public-employee rules from compelling people to use titles that conflict with what the bill’s sponsors describe as biological reality. House sponsor Rep. Aron Maberry (R) has said the educational system should teach “objective truths,” placing biological sex within that category. The bill’s language would allow someone to use a traditional honorific even if a teacher has requested a different form of address; proponents say neutral labels such as “teacher” or “coach” would still be permitted. Critics counter that the measure institutionalizes disrespect and complicates classroom dynamics for transgender and nonbinary educators.
Classroom consequences and policy mechanics
If enacted, the law would change how administrators handle complaints or disciplinary actions tied to names and titles. Schools that currently adopt inclusive practices could be constrained from enforcing policies that ask students or staff to use a colleague’s chosen pronouns or honorifics. Educators like Bearden report that the real harm comes from adult reactions—parents and coworkers—rather than students, but a statutory shield for optional address could embolden hostility and limit school leaders’ ability to protect staff. The measure would intersect with existing rules created after the 2026 law, creating a patchwork of protections and exemptions.
How this fits into a broader legislative push
HB1666 is one of several bills moving through Nashville critics describe as a coordinated push targeting LGBTQ+ rights. State Sen. Paul Rose and Rep. Gino Bulso are among lawmakers sponsoring related measures. Those filings range from prohibiting certain medical questions to adding legal exemptions and banning public displays or observances. Examples include proposals to bar doctors from asking minors certain gender-related questions without a parent present, a bill to exempt private actors from recognizing marriage equality, and measures to prohibit Pride flags or observances in some public settings. Advocates call the package a multi-pronged effort that reaches into daily life for transgender people.
Parallel measures and other high-profile legislation
Some sponsors associated with these social-policy efforts have also pursued bills beyond school settings. Representative Gino Bulso sponsored a high-profile abortion bill, HB5, which passed the House and seeks civil remedies against out-of-state suppliers who send abortion-inducing medication into Tennessee; supporters say the bill strengthens enforcement of state abortion restrictions. That measure would allow certain relatives to sue, set statutory damages, and make knowingly mailing abortion drugs a Class E felony while exempting carriers and in-state licensed clinicians. The presence of both social-issue and reproductive bills underscores how several legislative tracks are converging in this cycle.
Why advocates call the bill targeted — and what’s at stake
Supporters of trans and LGBTQ+ rights say HB1666 does more than adjust etiquette: it sends a signal about which identities receive institutional respect. Bearden and allies frame the proposal as a targeted policy that makes educators’ everyday work harder and endangers their safety. Those opponents emphasize that the bill distracts from pressing classroom needs, particularly in special education, where continuity and trust matter. Backers defend the measure as protecting students and parents, but many educators argue the law would weaponize address norms and erode professional protections.
Ultimately, the debate around HB1666 is a test of how Tennessee balances competing claims: parents’ preferences and lawmakers’ definitions of “truth” versus the dignity and safety of employees who serve students daily. As the bill advances alongside other contentious proposals, the outcome will have consequences for school policy, workplace protections, and the broader legal landscape confronting LGBTQ+ Tennesseans.