Iowa lawmakers advance bill that sets legal definitions for 'man’ and ‘woman’

DES MOINES — Transgender and civil rights advocates and their allies packed a committee room and hallway for the second time in as many weeks to voice opposition to legislation they decried as unconstitutional and blatantly discriminatory.

Activists stomped, shouted and chanted profanities and "Trans rights are human rights" outside a committee room Tuesday in vehement opposition to a proposal by Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds that they say would “erase” transgender Iowans from state code.

House Study Bill 649 would define “man” and “woman” in state law and require transgender Iowans to note both their pre- and post-transition genders on their driver’s license. The bill was later amended by the House Education Committee to remove the driver’s license requirement. Changes would still be required to be noted on a birth certificate.

“I can’t see any other purpose than discrimination,” said Rep. Sharon Steckman, D-Mason City, who voted against the bill.

“I am appalled that the governor would put forth such a discriminatory bill targeting 0.29 percent of our Iowa population,” Steckman said. “It is a sad day for Iowa. … We’re going backward.”

The House Education Committee voted Tuesday in a 15-8 party-line vote to advance the bill for debate and a vote by the full House. Democrats opposed the bill.

House Democrats requested a public hearing on the bill to allow Iowans to voice their concerns about it before heading to a vote on the House floor.

House Education Committee Chairman Skyler Wheeler, R-Hull, said House Republicans will work to accommodate the request.

Reynolds, in a statement last week, called the legislation “common sense,” and said it protects women’s spaces and rights. She compared it to a state law passed in 2022 that prohibits transgender girls and women from competing in girls and women’s athletics.

“Women and men are not identical,” Reynolds’ legislative liaison Molly Severn told lawmakers, echoing the governor. “They possess unique biological differences. That’s not controversial; it’s common sense. … It’s unfortunate the defining a woman in code has become necessary to protect spaces for women’s health, safety and privacy that are being threatened, like domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers.”

Steckman questioned whether domestic violence shelters in the state are experiencing problems accommodating cisgender and transgender women.

Opponents note, just as with school bathrooms and locker rooms, many institutions have shown it's possible to provide facilities that accommodate cisgender — people whose gender identity corresponds with their sex at birth — and transgender people. They say the bill’s use of pro-segregation language should raise alarm.

Reynolds’ bill echoes language associated with the 1896 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, which declared segregation on the basis of race to be legal. The governor’s bill says the term “equal” does not mean “same” or “identical” and that “separate accommodations are not inherently unequal,” and mentions prisons, domestic violence shelters, locker rooms, restrooms and rape crisis centers as places where people may need to be separated based on their sex assigned at birth.

“Here we are repeating, not learning from history,” said Connie Ryan, executive director of Interfaith Alliance of Iowa Action Fund. “Separate but equal is never equal.”

  Buy Photo

The bill comes a week after hundreds of transgender Iowans and LGBTQ and civil rights advocates and allies flocked to the Capitol to protest a bill that would have changed the way transgender Iowans are protected under the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

Though that legislative proposal failed to advance, Reynolds introduced the new legislation she said recognizes biological differences between men and women.

Opponents, including the ACLU of Iowa, said the bill would have wide-ranging implications, including requiring changes to the way Iowa collects public health data and offers anti-discrimination protections. Transgender Iowans said the legislation — before it was amended — would require them to “out” themselves anywhere they have to present their ID.

“My community is terrified of the consequences this bill will have for our lives,” Emma Denney, a transgender woman from Iowa City, told lawmakers. “Trans people already face overwhelming employment and housing discrimination in Iowa under existing law, and the governor’s bill will … open ourselves up to more violence anytime we have to show an identification.”

Denney drew comparisons between the bill’s requirement and the pink triangles that were sewn onto the shirts of gay men in concentration camps in Nazi Germany.

“This is untenable, and we in Iowa will not stand for it,” Denney said.

The bill defines a “female” as “a person whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ‘ova,’” and a “male” as “a person whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.”

“The term ‘woman’ or ‘girl’ refers to a female and the term ‘man’ or ‘boy’ refers to a male,” the section continues.

The bill also would prevent transgender Iowans who have had sex reassignment surgery from simply changing their sex on their birth certificate.

HSB 649 would require a person’s sex at birth to be listed along with any sex reassignment for people seeking to change their birth certificate.

Other Republican-led states, including Florida, have enacted similar policies.

LGBTQ and civil rights advocates said the bill is another broad attack on transgender Iowans.

“My transgender friends and family deserve to live in peace. My wife, being forced to have a different kind of identification than me is completely unthinkable,” Clara Reynen, of Iowa City, told lawmakers. “She is a better woman than I will ever be. She is more of a woman than I will ever be. And to think that she should be treated differently than me because she is transgender is unconscionable.”

Additionally, requiring government funded or run domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers to treat transgender women inconsistent with their gender identity would conflict with federal law that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and put federal funds at risk, according to LGBTQ advocacy group One Iowa.

Patty Alexander, a retired teacher from Indianola, spoke in favor of the bill.

“It is unfortunate that we must legislate reality,” Alexander said. “But, this is where we are today. This bill protects the public from irrational and radical behaviors that are harmful to society. It is obvious that biological sex is not a choice and cannot be changed.

“We can change our appearances, but we can’t change our DNA. Please, protect us from the immoral will of others.”

Courtney Collier, quoting Scripture, said “people can choose to live in their delusions and confusions in their own lives at home, but the rest of us should not be forced to join them.”

Daniel Breitbarth, representing Republican Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, said the bill provides important clarification of state law to “protect people’s privacy, health and safety.”

Kent Zimmerman, of Perry, said the bill overlooks the complexities and dynamics of the LGBTQ community, and perpetuates discrimination, intolerance, prejudice and violence.

“It undermines the principles of equality and inclusivity that we should strive to uphold, not erase,” Zimmerman said. “We are better than this. My son deserves better than this, and our children demand better than this.”

Committee advances bill barring discipline of teachers over pronouns

The Education Committee also voted to advance to the full House a bill that would prohibit schools from disciplining any teacher or student who refuses to use a student’s preferred pronouns. The proposal, House File 2139, advanced on a 13-10 party-line vote, with two Republicans joining Democrats in opposition.

The bill prohibits school districts and charter schools from taking disciplinary action against an employee, contractor or student for not using the preferred names or pronouns of another employee, student or contractor if it differs from their legal name or what appears on school records.

Supporters of the legislation say the proposal is needed to protect educators’ and students’ freedom of speech and religion.

Opponents said the legislation gives a green light for bullying.

Democrats pointed out that last year statehouse Republicans passed legislation that requires parents to notify educators about their approval of their child using a different name or pronoun, and are now proposing legislation that would allow teachers to ignore that.

Comments: (319) 398-8499; tom.barton@thegazette.com