Bathroom access, sports and health care: lawmakers debate slate of transgender bills

Three bills that would curb the rights of transgender people continue to march through the Montana Legislature, despite similar past legislative efforts not standing muster in the courts.

Legislation that would ban trans individuals from certain bathrooms, criminalize people who help minors obtain gender-affirming care and restrict the participation of transgender women in women’s sports took center stage at committee hearings this week.

Multiple opponents reminded lawmakers that the efforts resemble those of previous legislative sessions that have been struck down or held up by the legal system in Montana.

“It’s always about pushing a particular type of person out of spaces,” said SK Rossi, a lobbyist speaking on behalf of the Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, who described the current wave of bills as “rinse and repeat.”

In a tense Friday hearing, members of the House Judiciary Committee heard House Bill 300, sponsored by Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe, R-Billings. This bill would bar people who were assigned male at birth from participating in “an athletic program or activity that is designated for females” in both K-12s schools and higher education institutions.

Seekins-Crowe said her bill is meant to reinforce “Montanans' commitment to equality in education by defining sex discrimination” in schools and seeks to “protect the dignity of individuals but uphold the fundamental principle that every student deserves equal opportunities and resources that will allow them to thrive.”

Opponents, meanwhile, said they did not know of any transgender women or girls playing in Montana women’s sports, but argued that the bill could nevertheless negatively affect transgender people.

“We see how policies that exclude and stigmatize transgender people directly harm their mental and physical well-being,” said Shawn Reagor, a lobbyist with the Bozeman-based sexual health care clinic Bridgercare.

During Montana’s 2021 legislative session, lawmakers passed a similar bill, but it was struck down by the state’s Supreme Court. The justices ruled that it is the Montana University System Board of Regents’ role, not that of the legislative branch, to craft policies related to university athletics.

Galen Hollenbaugh with the Montana University System opposed Seekins-Crowe's bill Friday, saying it would put its teams out of compliance with NCAA rules and open the schools up to fines, the potential loss of home playoff games and “an enormous amount of potential litigation.”

But proponents in the room Friday acknowledged that the political landscape has shifted.

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a federal bill that would amend Title IX to define "sex" as "based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth." And on President Donald Trump’s first day in office, he signed an executive order that reversed Biden-era Title IX protections for transgender students.

“The tide is changing. We can feel it,” said Jeff Laszloffy, executive director of the Montana Family Foundation. “We’re going back to Title IX as it originally was intended. … Policy takes a while in many cases to unfold.”

Gov. Greg Gianforte also touted the president's Title IX rule changes Friday, saying that the Trump administration is "restoring equal opportunity for all Americans, protecting women and girls and their right to safe and separate facilities and activities in their schools.”

Susie Hedalen, the superintendent of public instruction, said HB 300 may provide legal pathways for women and girls to file discrimination complaints.

“If we allow male athletes to compete in women’s categories we risk undoing all the progress we have made and risk discouraging young women from participating in athletics,” said Hedalen, who began her first term at the post earlier this month.

‘Bathroom bill’

Atlas Gilbert had never been to the Montana State Capitol until last week. His first visit did not include tours of the courtly building or a meeting with his local legislators; rather, Gilbert spent much of his time in the women’s bathroom, which he would be required to use should the "bathroom bill" from Seekins-Crowe pass.

House Bill 121 would ban trans individuals from bathrooms that don’t align with their sex assigned at birth. It defines sex as binary based on chromosomal makeup and genitalia.

Along with about a dozen other people, some of whom were trans and assigned female at birth, Gilbert sought to show bathroom users the potential impact of HB 121. He received puzzled looks, under-the-breath mutters and even a report to security, he told the committee.

Walking into the same building where lawmakers have repeatedly passed legislation targeting transgender people was intimidating, Gilbert said. But he hoped to help others realize: “According to this bill, we should be in here and we think you should know.”

HB 121, which would extend the prohibitions to locker rooms and sleeping areas in public buildings, already passed the House against vocal opposition from trans advocates, local governments and domestic violence shelters.

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday was the last opportunity to testify, turning out people for and against the bill.

Sara Beth Nolan, an attorney from the Alliance Defending Freedom, sought to address concerns that the legislation would prove cumbersome or overly punitive. She said compliance details would be left to individual state facilities, but they could create single-use spaces, put locks on multi-use areas or ask people about their biological sex without requiring documentation.

The committee will vote on the bill at some point next week. If it passes, it will advance to the Senate floor.

Medical care for trans youth

Senate Bill 164, which would criminalize providing minors gender-affirming care, advanced from the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

Sponsored by Sen. John Fuller, R-Kalispell, the legislation would make it a crime under Montana’s child endangerment laws to knowingly provide surgical procedures, puberty blockers or hormone therapies to children under age 16 if they are transitioning from their sex assigned at birth. Doing so would be punishable by up to five years in prison, a fine of $10,000, or both.

SB 164 would not restrict mental health care for trans youth, according to Fuller. 

Supporters said minors aren’t equipped to make “life-altering medical decisions with irreversible consequences” so the adults who sign off on those choices must be held accountable. Opponents argued that the treatments are essential for the wellbeing of trans minors. Parents and health care providers also feared the bill would put them at risk of legal attacks.

Gender dysphoria is a diagnosable condition that creates significant distress when a person's sex assigned at birth does not align with their gender identity.

A Reuters analysis found the number of youth diagnoses of gender dysphoria nearly tripled between 2017 and 2021, but only a small portion received medical treatment.

SB 164 moved through the committee with support from all six Republicans and no Democrats. It goes to the Senate floor next.