After more than an hour of testimony from opposing sides, a bill was passed by a Senate public health committee late Monday. This bill aims to establish a strict and narrow definition of “sex” in state law, excluding any legal recognition for intersex, nonbinary, and transgender individuals in various references.
The hearing for Senate Bill 458, originally slated for mid-afternoon, did not begin until roughly 6 p.m., after lawmakers worked through a stack of bills under pressure to meet the Friday transmittal deadline. Despite the delay, the hearing received testimony from nearly 50 people and showcased another instance this session in which bills negatively impacting LGBTQ people brought out many more opponents than proponents, with six people speaking in favor of the bill and more than 40 testifying against.
Lawmakers on the Republican-majority committee voted to pass the bill with minimal amendments just after 9 p.m. All six Republicans voted in favor and all three Democrats voted against. A substitute motion to table the bill made by Sen. Jen Gross, D-Billings, was rejected without discussion by the committee chair, Sen. Tom McGillvray, R-Billings.
SB 458, sponsored by Sen. Carl Glimm, R-Kila, would define sex as “the organization of the body and gametes for reproduction in human beings and other organisms,” specifying that humans have “exactly two sexes, male and female, with two corresponding gametes. The sexes are determined by the biological indication of male or female, including sex chromosomes, gonads, and nonambiguous internal and external genitalia present at birth, without regard to an individual’s psychological, chosen, or subjective experience of gender.”
The bill further clarifies that a “female” is an individual who, during “typical growth and development,” generates a “comparatively large, relatively stationary reproductive cell, commonly known as an egg.” On the other hand, it defines a “male” as a person who, during “normal growth and development,” produces smaller, mobile reproductive cells referred to as sperm.
According to SB 458’s drafting file, Jeff Laszloffy, president of the conservative religious group the Montana Family Foundation, came up with the idea for the bill and made revisions to it.
During the Senate Public Health, Welfare and Safety Committee meeting on Monday night, Glimm expressed that the bill aims to differentiate between sex and gender. He emphasized that sex is “immutable” while gender is a societal construct.
Lawmaker Glimm addressed fellow lawmakers, stating that during this session, various bills have been presented concerning the alleged presence of multiple genders, gender fluidity, gender expression, and transgenderism. However, it is crucial to note that the current bill under discussion does not pertain to those matters. Glimm emphasized that biological sex remains unchangeable and immutable.
During the Monday hearing, there was strong disagreement from transgender, intersex, nonbinary, and two spirit individuals in Montana, as well as their allies, regarding the interpretation presented in the bill. They argued that it establishes an inaccurate and oversimplified understanding of sex, disregarding the existence of intersex individuals and rejecting any connection between gender and sex. Such a definition fails to acknowledge the impact it has on transgender and nonbinary identities, including how these individuals are legally identified on important documents such as drivers licenses, birth certificates, and death certificates.
“It targets us from cradle to grave,” said Rep. Zooey Zephyr, D-Missoula, one of the Legislature’s first openly transgender members. “This runs counter to the truth of mine, which is I live my life as a woman. I live it when I go to bars, when I call on the phone and when I am in this body … and this bill runs counter to that. It is rash, it is ill thought out, it is untimely and it is not right for Montana.”
Supporters of the bill emphasized their intention to eliminate both legal and societal acceptance of transgender individuals participating in sports, attending schools, and occupying public spaces. They advocated for a stringent interpretation of sex based solely on reproductive factors.
Jay Richards, a representative of the national Heritage Foundation, stated that there are several important factors to consider in this debate. These include maintaining fair athletic competition based on sex, ensuring women’s freedom to access private spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms, prioritizing the safety of women in prisons and domestic abuse shelters, and safeguarding against the influence of gender ideology in public school instruction and programming. Richards emphasized the need for Montana to ground its legal definition of sex in biological facts in order to protect these essential values.
Opponents offered a more intricate portrayal of sex, one that acknowledged the diverse developmental experiences of intersex individuals. Dr. Lauren Wilson, the president of the state branch of the American Academy of Pediatrics and a practicing doctor in Missoula, shared her encounters of attending deliveries where determining a baby’s sex solely based on external features was not possible. She also highlighted that numerous individuals undergo changes in their sexual development as time progresses.
Wilson stated that there are individuals whose reproductive and endocrine systems do not conform to the expected production of a specific gamete. These state definitions fail to acknowledge intersex individuals, leaving a significant portion of the population unclassifiable. Consequently, the legal status of these individuals becomes uncertain.
According to Anna Louise Peterson, a licensed clinical professional counselor in Montana, SB 458 seems to have the intention of depriving transgender individuals of their right to live openly and authentically. Numerous opponents of the bill have expressed concerns that it would distort their legal identities, compel them to bear inconsistent documents, and pose risks to their physical well-being by requiring them to present identification that does not match their outward appearance.
“Count on this: It is futile. We shall persist, unyielding. Our presence as your neighbors shall endure. Side by side, we shall navigate this world, undeterred,” declared Peterson. “SB 458 cannot obliterate us; however, it shall expose us to countless perils that those who do not identify as transgender could never fathom.”
McGillvray scheduled the SB 458 hearing as the last item on the agenda for Monday afternoon and evening, allotting one hour for it. Due to the committee’s lengthy schedule and late hours, McGillvray frequently urged opponents to expedite their testimony and avoid duplicating previous statements. Online supporters of the bill were requested to provide their name and position without further elaboration.
Many opponents found the late schedule and condensed time frame to be frustrating, further exacerbating what they already criticized as an unnecessary and discriminatory bill.
Ray Gordon, a trans nonbinary resident of Missoula, expressed their disappointment at having to be present at the moment and described SB 458 as another example of anti-LGBTQ policies throughout history. They expressed frustration at having to discuss the issue again on a Monday, after waiting for four hours. Ray, who is 22 years old, stated that the bill is causing direct harm to trans and nonbinary, two-spirit, and intersex individuals, contrary to what Senator Glimm is claiming. They further emphasized that the bill lacks a foundation and is illogical.
The bill is still pending for debate and an initial vote on the Senate floor.
