SIXTY-FIRST DAY — SATURDAY, MAY 10, 2025

HB 229, A bill to be entitled An Act relating to general definitions for and collection of governmental information regarding biological sex.

REPRESENTATIVE TROXCLAIR: This is the women's bill of rights. It is a simple yet critical piece of legislation that defines once and for all what a woman is. It affirms a basic and essential truth. The word "woman" must have a clear, consistent, and biological definition in Texas law.

For generations, our laws have recognized that women are distinct from men. This distinction is not just scientific. It is legal, practical, and critical to protecting the rights, safety, and opportunities of women and girls across the state. We are a state that believes in truth, and we are a state that honors the hard-won achievements of women. The women that fought for the right to vote, to compete in sports, and to be safe in public spaces—to be treated equally under the law. If we can no longer define what a woman is, we cannot defend what women have won. We cannot protect what we cannot define. Without a clear definition, these protections are vulnerable. If anyone can claim the legal status of women based solely on identity, then the very concept of sex-based rights collapses. Girls lose fair competition, women lose safe spaces, and the legal legacy of women's rights begins to unravel.

Colleagues, each one of us carefully drafts and passes laws every day in this building. Regardless of the area of policy, the words we use are defined in our bills and in our statute. Why is that? It is because the words matter, and having a common understanding of what those words mean matters. The words "man," "woman," "boy," and "girl" are used hundreds, if not thousands, of times in our existing laws. Yet until now, we have lacked a definition. Frankly, we have not needed one until now. The differences between a man and a woman were common, clear, and universally understood. But when these terms are used in state law, they are often clearly designed to protect the safety and equality of women. We have statutes relating to juvenile courts that talk about how young girls who have been abused should be escorted by female officers for their protection and safety. We have laws on our books that say female inmates who are subjected to invasive searches—those searches should be conducted by female correctional officers. The last example—equal work for equal pay—are existing laws stating that a woman who performs a public service for this state is entitled to be paid the same compensation for her service as to a man. But due to shifting political interpretations, these protections are at risk, and these definitions are now needed in order to preserve the safety, dignity, and equal opportunity of women and girls. We follow the lead of 13 other states in doing so.

Let me be clear: This does not change our existing laws; it simply clarifies them. To stand for this bill is to stand for the safety of the women in a shelter, the fairness of our girls on the field, and, ultimately, the recognition that they matter. Texas values women. Texas values girls. Their safety matters, their privacy matters, and their equality matters. This bill reinforces our existing legal foundations that were designed specifically to protect them. Join me in supporting this bill to show that Texas still knows what a woman is, and we are willing to stand up to protect her.

REPRESENTATIVE J. GONZÁLEZ: Ms. Troxclair, I am looking at the definitions in your bill—how it defines "males" and "females"—and it says in here that a woman is someone who can get pregnant, someone who can breastfeed. So my question for you is: Does that mean a woman who cannot have children—because there are plenty—that they are not a woman?

TROXCLAIR: Thank you for the question and for the clarification. The definition relates to what our biological systems are designed and organized to produce at birth—not whether or not. They are not dependent on following through on a reproductive capacity. But at birth, each of our bodies is designed in a way that is developed to produce ova or to fertilize the ova. This is true across the animal kingdom—across all animals. They are either male or female, and their internal organs are organized in a specific way at birth.

J. GONZÁLEZ: So your definition—they are based on whether you can reproduce or not. I mean, not everyone wants to reproduce, and some people should not, actually. If your body does not necessarily develop to the point where you can reproduce, I do not see how the language in your bill addresses that.

TROXCLAIR: There is nothing in the bill that talks about whether a man or a woman can reproduce. It talks about whether or not their internal organs are organized in a way to do so. That is the very foundation—they are the very definition of male and female.

J. GONZÁLEZ: What about folks who are born and their organs are different? Not everybody is born fully developed with those organs that you speak of. They cannot reproduce. I do not think this is inclusive of those folks.

TROXCLAIR: Are you speaking to intersex individuals?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes, those could be included as well. I am just saying that speaks to my point I made earlier. What about somebody who cannot have children because either their reproductive system or organs did not develop in the same way?

TROXCLAIR: Again, the definition has nothing to do with whether or not they can or cannot reproduce. It is the way our organs are organized internally at birth.

J. GONZÁLEZ: Have Texas agencies asked for the legislature to define biological sex, which is what you are trying to do here?

TROXCLAIR: This is not a request from agencies, but it has become clear.

J. GONZÁLEZ: I asked, have any? Have any asked the legislature to do that?

TROXCLAIR: Not to my knowledge.

J. GONZÁLEZ: Have any counties or municipalities? I am just trying to figure out the purpose of why you are trying to erase certain trans individuals—adults alive. What your bill is doing—you are essentially putting folks in a situation where you are trying to erase them from existence. They are not going anywhere no matter how hard you try to erase them. I am just trying to find out the purpose of what your bill is trying to do. I am wondering if you got asked by an agency or if you got asked by a county or municipality to file this bill and try to do this—is my question.

TROXCLAIR: You are right; we have concerns that women are being erased, that girls are being erased. If we have a word that we cannot define—when I ask, "What is a woman?" and we cannot clearly define what a woman is, that leads to an erosion of our rights that are foundationally created to protect women and girls. In recent years—in recent decades, maybe, I would say—we have seen that while we did not need a definition before, we now have some activist judges and some political pressure. And little by little, the hard-fought and hard-won rights of our women and girls are being chipped away at. So this bill came out of a consistent and legitimate concern for women and girls across Texas, who want their rights protected, who want their rights restored, who want the ability to have a fair playing field in sports, and who want the ability—

J. GONZÁLEZ: We already passed the sports bill; let's stay on the subject here. We already passed that piece of legislation. I do not think there is a concern there. That does not go to the intent of your bill, which is what I am trying to find out. What is the fear that people have with trans individuals, and why are you trying to erase them?

TROXCLAIR: It is women that are being erased.

J. GONZÁLEZ: How are women being erased? Please, explain that.

TROXCLAIR: When women are forced to share private spaces with men, when they are forced to undress in front of them, when men are undressing in front of our young girls, when women are subjected to invasive searches that should be done by other women, but that protection is not guaranteed. We have protections in women's and girls' sports to only play against women and girls who biologically align—we lack a definition. I think it is important to understand that this bill does not direct specific action. All it does is provide a definitional framework for our existing bills. Whether it is criminal justice or whether it is education—regardless of what the policy is, you do a search for "women" listed in our state statutes, and it is listed thousands of times. I know, just as well as you do, every bill we file here—if it is undefined in statute, that is the first thing we hear back from our legal advisors. Right?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Give me some examples in Texas for why there is a need for us to have to define this biological sex that you speak of.

TROXCLAIR: As I have already said, I think there is concern that without a definition, those protections are being slowly but continually eroded. We are not looking to overstep anybody else. All we want is to reinforce and underline protections that we have already fought for, make sure they are not going to be taken away over time, make sure that our private spaces are protected, and the rights of our women and girls are protected in Texas.

J. GONZÁLEZ: You refer to different other reasons—private spaces or what have you—and oftentimes you mention politics. That is the real reason you are doing this. You did mention the political landscape—however you mentioned it—and I just do not understand why you are playing with their lives due to politics. In reality, you are just discriminating against these people. People are going to exist, and they are going to look a certain way whether you like it or not. So look, when you talk about private spaces—in your definition, did you even consult with a medical association on your definition? How did you come up with this definition right here?

TROXCLAIR: These definitions are biologically sound.

J. GONZÁLEZ: Did you consult with any medical or scientific association to come up with these definitions? That is what I am asking you.

TROXCLAIR: These definitions are universally accepted by the medical community.

J. GONZÁLEZ: Universally by whom? Can you point to where you specifically came up with this definition?

TROXCLAIR: Yes, sure. I think if you ask anybody, probably on this floor, if they can tell the difference between a man and a woman based on their organs—but if you would like to know more information, in all sexually reproducing species, sex is defined by the type of gamete an organism is structured to produce. Female bodies are organized to produce large gametes, and males are organized to produce small gametes.

J. GONZÁLEZ: What if they do not produce those things?

TROXCLAIR: If you let me finish, I would love to answer your question. This distinction, as I mentioned earlier, has held true across all of the species and applies even in cases where individuals are sterile or intersex. What matters is the underlying reproductive organization. Yes, we gave very careful thought because the whole premise of this bill is that words matter and the definition of words matter. So yes, we gave very careful thought to correctly identify the differences in sex while making sure that those definitions hold across all of the areas of our state's statute where they are used and relevant.

J. GONZÁLEZ: It comes down to just your reproductive organs? That is how you are defining—how do you personally define it outside of this, without looking at this? What, personally, is it to be a woman?

TROXCLAIR: I just want to be clear—it is not me defining it.

J. GONZÁLEZ: I'm asking you, personally, what your definition is. How do you define it?

TROXCLAIR: I would refer you to the bill, where we do define it. Legal and medical systems rely on functional criteria. Reproductive anatomy, even if underdeveloped or nonfunctional, is used to determine sex because it reflects—if you don't mind, I understand. I am happy to answer your questions, but if you don't mind just letting me answer them once you ask them, I would be really grateful.

J. GONZÁLEZ: I am going to scratch that. Let me ask you this question instead: How do you define the difference between "sex" and "gender," for example?

TROXCLAIR: I would refer you to the bill.

J. GONZÁLEZ: I am asking you that question.

TROXCLAIR: I am happy to read the bill if you would like. A "female" and "woman" mean "an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova." A "male" and "man" is "an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female."

J. GONZÁLEZ: So why, in addition to the definitions of "sex," "male," and "female," do you define "boy," "girl," "man," "woman," "father," and "mother"? What is the purpose of that section of your bill?

TROXCLAIR: Because those terms are also sex-based terms that are used hundreds of times throughout our statute and also lack definitions. It felt like it was appropriate to ensure that our girls' and our boys' existing rights are appropriately protected as well.

J. GONZÁLEZ: So, what is the governmental purpose in requiring every person to be classified as male and female? What if you want to be classified as other? Why is that an issue to you, and why do you even care?

TROXCLAIR: When you file a bill, you define the words that are used in that bill, right?

J. GONZÁLEZ: What is the governmental purpose of this? That is what I am asking you.

TROXCLAIR: Because we now—for thousands of years, right—we have had a common, shared understanding of what a woman is, what it means to be a woman, and the difference between a man and a woman. Recently, that common understanding is being eroded. This is a way to reinstate the existing rights of women. When you look at our statute and you see something that says "women deserve equal pay to men," well, if we cannot define what a "woman" is, then what does that mean anymore? When you look at our statute, it talks about vital statistics, it talks about domestic violence and violence against women—we no longer have a definition of what a "woman" is. How can we accurately report to the public whether or not violence against women is increasing? This just reinstates common sense and honesty in our existing state statute and makes sure we have information and the public has information that accurately reflects what is going on in our state.

J. GONZÁLEZ: How are women being eroded? I do not understand. When you say "eroded," I think they are—I don't know—they are dying or something. How are women being eroded? You keep saying that, and I do not understand that.

TROXCLAIR: Whether or not we are, I can read to you the thousands of places in code where we use these words. And again, if you do not know what a word means, then it lacks—then there is no way to enforce it. As we have seen, we have had increasing conversations about whether a girl should play against biological girls in sports, whether private spaces—

J. GONZÁLEZ: We are not talking about sports, though. You said earlier, "Let's stay on the bill," so let's stay on the bill. Nor are we talking about bathrooms, so let's stick to the bill. How does your bill acknowledge the fact that intersex people exist? Because they do.

TROXCLAIR: Absolutely, so either—I will say I have worked with Representative Mary González on an amendment that will specifically lay out the protection of intersex individuals. The existing protections of intersex individuals under this bill—under state and federal law, they are already entitled to protection, but they are not a third sex. Ensuring that amendment is adopted, which clearly states that intersex individuals are still male or female and that they are deserving of protections under existing state and federal law—I feel that is already specifically implied in this bill, but I am happy to accept an amendment from our colleague to clarify that.

J. GONZÁLEZ: So you are going to accept her amendment; is that my understanding?

TROXCLAIR: Yes, ma'am, I am.

J. GONZÁLEZ: Okay, but you are still saying that even then an intersex person would have to define themselves as either a man or a woman. According to your definition, their organs have to be able to—I have not seen that amendment specifically, but my understanding is that you are saying an intersex person would have to define themselves as male or female. Correct? Is that what you are saying, yes or no?

TROXCLAIR: They do. Intersex individuals walking around in the world—they are still male or female. When they exist in the world, they still have "male" or "female" on their birth certificates and on their drivers' licenses. Functionally, intersex individuals are male or female, even when secondary traits appear mixed or ambiguous. The underlying organization of their organs aligns primarily with one of the two sexes.

J. GONZÁLEZ: I understand that. I am very familiar that intersex people exist and the issues that they run into. Oftentimes, these folks who are born intersex—sometimes they have both organs, whether it is physically or internally or a combination thereof. I am not going to give you the details. Sex assigned at birth is chosen by their parents at that point. What if later on in life that child does not identify with that chosen sex that their parent chose? How do you even choose that? I am just trying to—we cannot forget that a certain population exists and cannot necessarily force them to choose one or the other. What if they do not know which one they identify with later, which would bring in gender? I know it is not referenced in your bill, but it very much is relevant—100 percent, because those are two things that are tied and are two things that folks in this chamber always like to debate and use for their political campaigns. Like you said, it's the reason that you filed this bill. So for those folks that do not necessarily identify with one or the other because they have both, are they going to have an option? Or are they going to have to make a decision?

TROXCLAIR: This does not change anything about our existing laws. Yes, there is still a sex-based identifier chosen at birth. There is still a sex-based identifier chosen for their driver's license. This is only a definition of the words that already exist in our statute. I understand.

J. GONZÁLEZ: If they have both, they cannot choose one or the other. Maybe they identify—those are other things that people feel. How you feel—it is oftentimes things that make you feel more like a woman; it is not just based on your reproductive organs. People associate people having a certain haircut with being masculine. I remember when I was younger, I used to beat boys at running. One of our colleagues is an Olympic track star, and she is a hell of a lot faster than folks in this chamber. So we cannot use those characteristics as something that defines what you have here as biological sex. It is not that black and white.

TROXCLAIR: There is nowhere in the bill or in our state statute that mandates haircuts or talks about how people feel. People can still feel any way they want to feel, can get any haircut they would like to, and be any speed of runner that they are in high school.

J. GONZÁLEZ: Your bill does state that on average males are faster, stronger, and what have you. I am going to yield my questions.

REPRESENTATIVE V. JONES: Before I start with questions, I want to start this and say how much I have respect for you, Representative Troxclair, and all of the women that are up there. If I do not get to say it before we leave, happy Mother's Day to you all.

When we talk about this bill—I definitely want to focus on the bill, respectfully. Since I have been a member of this body, every time I have heard the term "what is a woman," it was usually behind or in front of a comment that was specifically related to attacks on transgender and nonbinary people. So I want to ask this question: Why, in the first part of your bill, is there so much definition around—as Chairwoman González talked about—being stronger and being faster? When I talk about stronger—this lady right here is much stronger than me. I just want to understand the need for that language versus staying very clear to the definitions that you are proposing—and that you gave quite well—relating to what is a woman and that definition.

TROXCLAIR: Thank you, Representative Jones. You know that the respect is mutual and the admiration is mutual to my former deskmate. And thank you for wishing us a happy Mother's Day.

I gave some thought to that as well. Why do we need the legislative findings, right? Could we just file the bill with simply the definitions? Ultimately, as I looked to the 13 other states that have adopted this bill and as I considered what the reasons were for adopting this bill, I ultimately felt like it was important to include findings about why biological differences matter. To me, this is a preamble of exactly why we do need this bill, why we do need to recognize that there are immutable differences between males and females, and why that has led to such a long and hard fight for equality. Now that we have gotten to the place that we have gotten to, the women behind me want to ensure that we maintain and support them. So this preamble is simply to lay out the reasoning and the underlying findings that make the rest of this bill needed.

V. JONES: Absolutely, thank you very much for that answer. Is there a particular reason that the definition in the Oxford Dictionary was not sufficient? What was the need to be able—to put extra language that is reflected in your bill to define what a woman—and womanhood—is?

TROXCLAIR: This was the most scientifically and biologically accurate definition across the board in all circumstances, and it was, therefore, the most applicable for us to use in our state statute that addresses very diverse areas of law.

V. JONES: Thank you, I appreciate that. If you could maybe give us some—I probably missed it; I know it was discussed in the last set of questions—of the sources that you used to be able to come to an understanding of the language that you used?

TROXCLAIR: Yes, sure. We did talk about how this is kind of the universally accepted definition of biological sex—medically, legally, and historically. No matter what mammal you are talking about, they are ultimately defined by the organization of their internal reproductive organs at birth.

V. JONES: Okay, so moving to the second page of your bill, is there a reason the language—particularly on lines 5 and 6 in the context of biological sex, "equal does not mean the same or identical"—could you explain a little about the necessity of that language in your legislation?

TROXCLAIR: Sure. I think that it talks in that next line right there—"there are legitimate reasons to distinguish between the sexes with respect to athletics, prisons and other correctional facilities, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, locker rooms, restrooms, and other areas where biology, safety, or privacy are implicated."

V. JONES: Okay, and last—I know there are several questions, and I want to give my colleagues the opportunity to talk with you about this bill. Was there a specific reason that the language regarding mothers and fathers was used as definitions in your legislation?

TROXCLAIR: Because there were so many references to mothers and fathers throughout existing state statute, it felt important to define those terms as well. This is, again, the most simple and universally accurate way to define those terms.

V. JONES: Thank you so much; I really appreciate you answering my questions.

REPRESENTATIVE VIRDELL: All right, I am going to just keep it normal. Nothing out of the ordinary for me. You are talking about general definitions and universally accepted definitions, so I went through and looked a few of these up. It says here from the Oxford Dictionary that a female is pretty much exactly what you put in there. I would like to note these are general definitions, right? And that's where this category has gone in. What is the reason we have to put this in for? Why now are we having to do this, when we haven't had to in past times?

[Amendment No. 1 by J. González was laid before the house.]

J. GONZÁLEZ: This amendment would strike the enacting clause of HB 229, which is a harmful and unnecessary bill. There is no reason for our state government to dictate how people express their gender or sex. This bill is specifically inaccurate because it ignores the biological reality that intersex people exist.

This bill tries to require the government to only recognize two biological sexes, but the American Medical Association and every other major medical and scientific organization recognize that approximately one in 50 live births present with variations in their chromosomes, gonadal structure, hormone levels, internal sex organs, and/or external genitalia that differ from the expected ideas of male and female as defined by the author of this bill. We shouldn't erase intersex people by trying to define in our laws only two biological sexes. We also shouldn't erase and discriminate against our transgender and nonbinary constituents, because they do exist in your districts, whether you want to admit it or not. Doctors and psychologists agree that gender identity is real, and many people have a deeply held sense of self that differs from their sex assigned at birth. Again, by trying to erase transgender individuals in this bill—they're not going to go anywhere, whether you like it or not. They've been around for centuries. This bill tries to diminish people and categorize them based solely on their reproductive organs, but the scientific reality is complex.

People should not be pigeonholed by the government solely based on their ability to produce ova or sperm. By defining a woman as someone whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova, this bill makes it to where a woman is nothing more than a person who can just reproduce. Anyone who does not produce ova, including postmenopausal women, is excluded from this bill's definition of a woman. That makes no sense, and it's absurd to base a governmental definition of sex solely on someone's ability to reproduce. This is also discriminatory and likely unconstitutional, since both the U.S. and Texas Constitutions require that any government imposing sex classification must meet a heightened scrutiny. The author of this bill couldn't give me that governmental interest. HB 229 falls short of this exacting standard and would harm and discriminate against transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people while also harming all people in our state by trying to wrongfully define sex as based only on someone's ability to reproduce.

Mr. Speaker, before I finish my last paragraph—everybody here was so eager to get to this bill, yet you're not paying attention. So if you don't want to listen, you can just step outside, because I'm having a hard time even listening to myself. That's very disrespectful. As a body, we can and we should do better for our constituents. We should not be boiling down human existence into one's ability to reproduce, because this is harmful. It is dangerous, and it is really freaking insulting. Please vote to pass this amendment to ensure that people in our state know that we see them, know that they exist, and just do more for them.

REPRESENTATIVE BUCY: Before we talk about the substance—or lack thereof—in this bill, can we talk about what your amendment does? And specifically, if I'm correct, your amendment strikes the enacting clause. Is that correct?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes, sir.

BUCY: So what does that mean with how it interplays with the bill?

J. GONZÁLEZ: It basically makes the bill unenforceable.

BUCY: So if we pass your amendment, the bill can still be voted on. People would get their campaign statement, but we would be able to put this amendment on and make sure that this bill that creates hate would not take effect. Is that correct?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Absolutely, absolutely.

BUCY: Sounds like it could be a win-win to pass this amendment. People still get their primary campaign fodder.

J. GONZÁLEZ: Absolutely, which is the reason why this bill was filed.

BUCY: I can't find another one based on the layout. Representative, by bringing this amendment—and I'm glad you did because I have concerns about how we're trying to define sex and how it would be enforced. This bill says that being a man requires a reproductive system that is developed to fertilize the ova of a female. That's found in the language of this bill. Have you ever been able to tell if someone could fertilize an ova from the way that they look? Now, I will say before you answer, I understand maybe if you walk over to the senate. But other than that, have you ever been able to tell just by looking at someone whether they're able to fertilize an ova?

J. GONZÁLEZ: No, no, thankfully. For this body, I cannot tell whether someone is capable of fertilizing an ova based on the way they look, dress, or talk.

BUCY: Me neither. This bill states that being a woman requires having a reproductive system that is developed to produce ova. Are you able to tell if someone's uterus or other organs have developed in such a way that they are able to produce ova?

J. GONZÁLEZ: No, I cannot. I don't think anybody anywhere can, unless they have some kind of X-ray eyes. This is private information that nobody could ever discern just from somebody's appearance.

BUCY: So let me ask you: If we don't have superhuman powers, where does this leave us? Does this mean enforcing this new definition of sex—which relies on reproductive ability—would mean asking Texans pretty uncomfortable, private questions? Would it require us to intrude on each and every Texan to know if they would meet the standard of this definition?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes, absolutely. This sort of medical information should always be private, just like any other medical information. There is no need for the government to ever know if someone is born atypical, if they have atypical chromosomes, or what genitalia someone has in their pants. I don't understand the obsession with that, Mr. Bucy. This bill would require governmental entities to classify people based on their ability to reproduce, which really opens the door to invasive and harmful governmental policing of sex, gender, and gender expression.

BUCY: So if this legislation ends up in law and not in the trash bin, Texans could be asked by a governmental body to provide sensitive information to confirm their reproductive ability. Is that how you read it?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Absolutely.

BUCY: Has the bill author, in the layout, given you any indication that she would take an amendment to fix that—to make sure that we don't have the gender police going out to confirm with people across the State of Texas?

J. GONZÁLEZ: I'm not aware of that, but I think we have an amendment that would offer that. I definitely hope that the author is willing to accept it.

BUCY: Well, I think if we want to protect women and men from that kind of intrusion—I hope that the bill author is listening right now. It doesn't appear that she is, but I hope she is and that she would take that amendment. I'm not sure about how other folks in this room feel, and I also believe that very few are listening. I appreciate the few that are. If we're going to subject Texans to such an extreme level of government oversight, I want to make sure this is a scientifically sound way to determine sex. Is this definition scientifically accurate—that we find in this bill?

J. GONZÁLEZ: No, the definitions in this bill make no sense. According to the language in this bill, women who have gone through menopause can no longer produce ova, right? You would think that since they were so eager to bring this bill, they would actually pay attention, but clearly that's not the case.

BUCY: A few of them I see listening. I appreciate them. I wish the rest would, because we're about to take a vote that's going to have ripple effects across all Texans and the communities of this state. It shouldn't be taken lightly, and those of you who are listening who are going to vote for this—I appreciate that. Too many of our colleagues are not.

J. GONZÁLEZ: As I was saying, women who have gone through menopause, who can no longer produce ova, for example—this bill would define them as no longer being a woman. Any man who has had a vasectomy would no longer be a man, because he can't fertilize an egg. To me that's just ridiculous, and the purported definitions of sex in this bill are very poorly defined and scientifically unsound. When I asked the author of this bill if she consulted with any scientific or medical expert, I don't believe that she said that she did. These were just things she looked up on the Internet, it sounds like.

BUCY: It looks like these are the findings of us—the "experts" of these definitions. So to confirm: These definitions are inaccurate, and they are also leaving out a group of Texans. Wouldn't that be correct?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes, yes. I mean, with the suggested language we would overlook the existence of intersex people, as I mentioned. As I was saying in my questions to the author of this bill, this bill completely overlooks intersex individuals, who have an atypical reproductive system that may not have developed to produce or fertilize ova. So this bill completely ignores the existence of these folks and erases them from being legally included in Texas laws. It makes them have to choose between one of the two when maybe they don't know yet. Because when you have both, how are you supposed to be forced to choose between one or the other?

BUCY: How does this bill erase transgender and nonbinary Texans?

J. GONZÁLEZ: This bill defines sex that's based only on people's ability to reproduce, which denies the fact that sex and gender are often based on many things—including someone's gender identity, a deeply held sense of self. This bill makes no allowance for transgender or nonbinary Texans, seeks to discriminate against them, and virtually erases them out of existence.

BUCY: It seems that this bill lacks foundation in a science, direction, and is filled with hate.

J. GONZÁLEZ: Absolutely.

BUCY: What it does do is—the legislature finds that on page 1, Subsection 1, Section 3—this is the legislature, again. This isn't any scientific statement. This is the bill author and those who vote for it. You will find the "biological differences between the sexes mean that males are, on average, bigger, stronger, and faster than females." Whether that's true or not, maybe the members of this body are going to change that average.

TROXCLAIR: This amendment basically negates the entire bill, so I am in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE WU: Earlier, when you laid out your bill, you said that you are trying to get a "fair definition." What does that mean?

TROXCLAIR: I'm sorry; I didn't quite hear. A fair definition?

WU: Yes, those were your own words—that the objective of this bill is to have a fair definition.

TROXCLAIR: This is an accurate definition.

WU: I'm sorry; I'm taking notes as you talk. Accurate?

TROXCLAIR: Accurate, truthful, fair.

WU: Truthful. Okay, what else? Clear?

TROXCLAIR: Yes, sure.

WU: Complete?

TROXCLAIR: Yes.

WU: Anything else? What about scientifically accurate?

TROXCLAIR: Yes.

WU: When you say "fair," should that be a definition that people have a consensus on and agree to?

TROXCLAIR: Well, it's just truth. It's biological truth, so I don't know. You might have a different interpretation of what "fair" means, but the goal of this bill is to just lay out the biological truth for anybody who is confused.

WU: So to be fair—to use your own words—if your definition is not truthful, if your definition is not complete, and if your definition is not scientifically accurate, then it would not be a "fair definition," correct?

TROXCLAIR: I don't know the context of exactly where you're taking this quote.

WU: There's no context. I'm just asking you.

TROXCLAIR: This bill defines what a woman is in an accurate way.

WU: For the purposes of, let's say, a court reviewing what we're doing here—you say your objective in this bill is to create a "fair definition," correct?

TROXCLAIR: My objective in this bill is to protect our existing protections for men, women, girls, and boys—to ensure that they're not eroded by activists.

WU: I'm sorry. Earlier you said that your objective in this bill—in this legislation—is to create a "fair definition." Are you saying that is not your actual objective?

TROXCLAIR: You're saying that I said that. I said a lot of things in my opening. The purpose of this bill is a scientifically accurate definition of what a woman is.

WU: Okay. I want to be clear. Your intent and purpose here is to be scientifically accurate, correct?

TROXCLAIR: My intent is to protect women and girls. You're asking the same question 17 times, and you're clearly looking for a different answer than the ones I'm giving you.

WU: No, I'm asking you for a finite number of answers, because every time I ask you, you're giving me another answer and keep piling onto it. What I'm trying to figure out—give me the list of what you mean when you say, "My intent is to create a fair definition," not what your overall objectives are. If your overall goal is to have an end result, that's fine. If you intend your legislation to create a fair definition, that's a different thing.

TROXCLAIR: The bill defines what a woman is so that we have a definition for all of the many times that the word "woman" or "female" is used in existing state statute.

WU: Okay. "Define what a woman is." Okay. Should that definition be a fair definition?

TROXCLAIR: The definition should be scientifically accurate.

WU: Got it. This is not a trick question. Should the definition of a woman be a scientifically accurate definition?

TROXCLAIR: It is a scientifically accurate definition.

WU: Not is it? Should it be?

TROXCLAIR: It is.

WU: I think I'm maybe not saying the words right. When you talk about the definition of a woman being a "fair definition," do you mean it has to be a scientifically accurate definition? Meaning the definition of what a "fair definition" is—I'm sorry to use definition so much. The definition of what a "fair definition" is, to you, is that it is scientifically accurate. Is that a fair statement?

TROXCLAIR: I truly don't know what you're getting at. I've answered that question about seven times now.

WU: Actually you haven't, because you've danced around the answer so much. What I would like—

TROXCLAIR: What answer are you looking for?

WU: Do you, Representative Troxclair, as the author of this bill, do you believe that a "fair definition" is one that is scientifically accurate?

TROXCLAIR: I'm happy to walk you through the definition in the bill.

WU: I'm not asking for your definition in the bill. I'm asking for your intent. Meaning that, when you say you want a "fair definition"—and you have said multiple times now that you think it should be scientifically accurate. I just want to confirm that you are intending for a "fair definition"—when you say that—to mean scientifically accurate.

TROXCLAIR: We can talk about your interpretation of the word "fair."

WU: No, no. I'm asking for your interpretation.

TROXCLAIR: What I want is for the rights of women and girls in Texas to be protected, and that's exactly what this bill does. And it has a basic definition that is scientifically accurate.

WU: And again, that's all I'm looking for. It is true that you believe that a fair definition is one that is scientifically accurate. Is that a fair statement?

TROXCLAIR: I think you are trying to put a lot of the same words in my mouth, and I'm telling you what I believe and what it says on the paper. I welcome you to read the bill with me.

WU: Earlier, when you were talking about the definition of a woman inside your bill—I'm not talking about what you feel or think, but what is actually in the bill itself.

TROXCLAIR: So we're not talking about what anybody feels or thinks now? We're talking about the bill, great.

WU: What is in the bill itself, the black letter?

TROXCLAIR: Okay. Yes.

WU: When you talked earlier about what a "female" or what a "woman" is, you talked about the way that the organs are supposed to be developed. Could you explain that a little bit?

TROXCLAIR: What is your specific question? You want me to repeat what I said earlier?

WU: Could you explain it? Could you elaborate on what you mean by "it is what your body was planned to be"? Did you say something like that?

TROXCLAIR: No. The definition of a "woman"—female and woman—means an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova, which is a universally accepted definition of the biological sex of a woman.

WU: What does "is developed" mean?

TROXCLAIR: The way that your internal organs are organized at birth serves a specific purpose. Either you are developed to produce ova, or you are developed to fertilize ova. And again, that's not just true of humans. That's true of all mammals across the spectrum. It's very clear. This just makes sure that definition applies to those terms that are used in our statute.

WU: Very well. I assume that you understand that biological organisms that reproduce are not born with their reproductive organs fully developed?

TROXCLAIR: They are organized in a way to develop on one of two paths. Whether or not they are fully developed, whether or not they are capable of functioning, they are organized on a path to develop in a certain way.

WU: Could you find me, in your three-page bill, where it says what you just said?

TROXCLAIR: The bill provides a definition for what a woman is.

WU: Yes.

TROXCLAIR: There are a lot of things that we could talk about that aren't specifically addressed in the bill, but you're asking many questions about the intent, the surroundings, and a lot of other things. I'm doing my best to respond to very confusing questions.

J. GONZÁLEZ: I just ask that people be respectful of this debate. I'll say it again. They were so eager, and they're keeping us here this weekend for this bill specifically. So if you don't want to hear it, then go outside or go to the members' lounge, please.

WU: Now, before I was cut off from asking these questions, I was going to ask Representative Troxclair where exactly in her bill is it defined? The definition that she gave where it says that this is the developmental plan for your body, that this is the way your body is supposed to be organized, the way it was designed to be organized—do you see that anywhere in this bill?

J. GONZÁLEZ: I do not.

WU: In the bill itself, it actually says, "'Female' and 'woman' mean an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova." Does it not?

J. GONZÁLEZ: It does.

WU: There's no other definition, is there?

J. GONZÁLEZ: There is not.

WU: That is the complete definition that is provided in this bill.

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes.

WU: It doesn't use the terms "designed" or "organized." Does it?

J. GONZÁLEZ: It does not.

WU: In fact, the term that is used is "is developed." Correct?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Exactly.

WU: When you read the definition "is developed," would you imagine that it is a child that is undeveloped, or would you imagine that it is a developed adult? When you read the words "is developed."

J. GONZÁLEZ: An adult. Yes.

WU: Someone whose organs have fully developed. Correct?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Exactly.

WU: Okay, and you, of all people, are aware that there are many genetic diseases and issues that cause biological organs, including reproductive organs, to not develop at all, not fully develop, or even develop both sexes?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Exactly right.

WU: And for a person who has both sets of reproductive organs or at least remnants of them?

J. GONZÁLEZ: It does not address intersex folks or folks with atypical—yes, exactly.

WU: Beyond intersex people, there is another disease called AIS. Are you familiar with it?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Can you explain?

WU: Sure. AIS is androgen insensitivity syndrome, meaning that a person is genetically an XY chromosome—genetically male—but because there's an error in their chromosomes—in their DNA—their body is unable to sense androgen, the molecule that then produces testosterone, or is not able to detect testosterone. Meaning that even though this person is XY, the body goes into the default plan, which is female. Right?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes. So this does not address any of that.

WU: In fact, AIS individuals are born looking female but have testes inside their bodies.

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes, I am familiar with that.

WU: This is actually a fairly well-known condition, because one of every 20,000 births includes people with AIS. But because they functionally look normal on the outside, no one can tell. So if a person is born with testes inside their body but functionally appears female, how would they be defined in this bill?

J. GONZÁLEZ: I don't think there's an option for them. They would have to choose one or the other.

WU: Even though they look female and have developed as female, genetically—and by the definition of this bill—they would be male, correct?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Correct.

WU: They have—instead of a reproductive system to develop and produce ova, they have a reproductive system that is designed to fertilize the ova of a female, because they produce gametes and sperm.

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes.

WU: Does that seem like a scientifically accurate or fair definition?

J. GONZÁLEZ: It does not, and as you mentioned, it was somebody who has the appearance of a female, so that would then raise another issue that continually comes up in this chamber.

WU: Representative Troxclair said something that was kind of interesting to me. She said that this is the definition, and this is the way people believed for thousands of years. Do you remember hearing that?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes, I recall.

WU: Are you aware that much of our scientific advancement has changed, not just in the last few thousand years, but in the last 30 years? Twenty years? The last 10 years?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes, and it continues to change almost every day.

WU: Our understanding of medical conditions, of genetics, of human development has changed dramatically in the last 30 years?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Absolutely, and some of these findings are medically based by professionals. It doesn't appear that these definitions were, but they didn't take into consideration anything scientific or medical in developing these definitions.

WU: Let me ask you exactly that point: If somebody says, "I'm going to make a definition for the law." This is a definition that would affect a lot of people, and the definition deals with human biology. Should that legislator go and ask and get research and advice from people in the profession—people who work in medicine, people who work in science, people who work in biology, people who work in all these different fields—to discuss whether this definition is accurate or fair?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Well, you would think so, since our job is to create legislation that is going to affect every single Texan in the state. You would think that someone would do their due diligence and would understand the effect or the harm that their legislation would cause other people and not it just be based on gaining political points for a mail piece.

WU: If someone just said, "Well, I think this is the way everyone thinks, so we'll go with that." That seems a little arbitrary, doesn't it?

J. GONZÁLEZ: It certainly isn't how I think, or a lot of other folks.

WU: If you just make a definition without referencing medical science and everything else, it seems a little capricious.

J. GONZÁLEZ: It seems to be something that happens a lot in this chamber—or in the Texas Legislature.

[Amendment No. 1 failed of adoption by Record No. 2123.]

[Amendment No. 2 by V. Jones was laid before the house.]

V. JONES: Members, this is a simple amendment. This amendment simply takes out the findings section at the beginning of the bill. It does not change what the bill does; it just removes some of the contentious language, as discussed on the back microphone between me and the bill's author. Plenty of women are stronger and faster than men, sometimes not to our own admission. I am sure some of the men in the room would not be eager to find out just how true that is. Plenty of men, tragically, are also victims of sexual violence. Trans people of all genders also face horrific rates of sexual violence. This is also a huge reason the Prison Rape Elimination Act was created, because we need to think more critically about how we protect people of all genders and sexes against violence. To say biological differences between sexes are enduring is simply not true. Women may grow facial hair as they age or lose the ability to bear children, as many differences can be changed with medical treatments like hormones.

The phrase "separate is not inherently unequal" is used in this section. If this is not a red flag for a bill causing inequality, I do not know what is. Our state and nation have already come to a legal understanding that the idea of separate but equal is not based on reality and should not be used to justify anything.

VIRDELL: While we are calling balls and strikes here—and this is referencing striking out an entire page of this—can you tell me how this benefits the bill?

V. JONES: Well, I think it benefits the bill by making it a little bit more clear with its intent. As we had a conversation on the back microphone, I talked a little bit about some of the language, particularly—let's start on page 1, Section 1, at the "findings" section. We talked about males and females possessing unique differences that manifest prior to birth and increase as the individuals age and experience puberty. "Biological differences between the sexes mean that only females are able to get pregnant, give birth, and breastfeed children; biological differences between the sexes mean that males are, on average, bigger, stronger, and faster." And females—"differences between the sexes leave females more physically vulnerable than males to specific forms of violence, including sexual violence; females have historically suffered discrimination in education, athletics, and employment; biological differences"—I think there are a lot of things being said, and I think that those facts by themselves are critically important information. However, I think that when we are looking at the author's intent, it was really to give a clear definition as to what a woman is. I think this language is distracting from that and actually starts to pick up, according to some of the language that we've talked about—actually on page 2, line 23—believe that. So I think in order to be clearer, we need to put that a little bit closer and remove some of the additional language that distracts from the author's intent. That is exactly why I put this amendment forward.

VIRDELL: I appreciate that. If you do not mind answering this question, on page 1, line 12, it says, "biological differences between the sexes mean that males are, on average, bigger, stronger, and faster than females." Do you disagree with that statement?

V. JONES: I do disagree with that statement. I think that when you look at "on average"—on average to what? What is your litmus test for deciding that? Is that an average of the people in this room? An average of the people in the Capitol? An average of the people in Austin or an average of the 31 million people in the State of Texas? I think that is a little ambiguous and cannot be defined well.

VIRDELL: All right, so let's just go to page 1, line 17, then. It says, "Females have historically suffered discrimination in education, athletics, and employment." Do you disagree with that?

V. JONES: Absolutely, I agree with that. I agree with that, and, as I said, the facts that we said by themselves are very true and are very, very relevant. We have to acknowledge the historic discrimination that has been experienced. But I think that, as it relates to the intent of this bill, it is distracting from the definitions that are being provided as to what is a woman. What is a man? What is a father? What is a mother? Those are definitions that the bill analysis really talks about, which are regarding the intent—not necessarily some of the information that is found on page 1.

VIRDELL: Yes, sir, and I appreciate that. I am not trying to get a "gotcha" moment or an Instagram feed or whatever, but I do have to ask this, since this is a very common question. Can you explain to me what a woman is then?

V. JONES: I received that question, and I think that you have to talk to some of the women and the author of this bill. I think that she has a definition that she is giving you. I think that my purpose here is to really talk about the intent of the bill and how it is not only distracting but also causes some misinformation for key populations. I will leave it to the individuals who want to provide that definition to give us all the definitions they want. And actually, if you really want to know what a woman is, talk to women. I am a man.

VIRDELL: I know. I am just asking for your definition. Can you tell me what your definition is, not someone else's?

V. JONES: Not a problem. No, I think that is not relevant to this amendment, so I would like to stay focused on this amendment if we could, please.

VIRDELL: Well, I do think it is relevant. I am just asking you. I mean, this is not a complicated question, so I am just asking if you will explain to us what you believe a female is.

V. JONES: I'm actually not prepared to answer that question. I think you should talk to the women—talk to women.

VIRDELL: You are not going to make me say it, are you?

V. JONES: Hey, if you want to talk about balls, go ahead.

VIRDELL: So you are acknowledging that males have balls and females do not?

V. JONES: I am acknowledging what you said in committee—if you wanted to talk about what you said.

VIRDELL: Yes, sir, I did say that. I am just asking you—can you explain what a female is? Not what other people's opinion is—

V. JONES: I cannot. But what I can explain to you is about this wonderful amendment that is going to strike page 1 and some of the distracting language from this bill so that we can get to the author's true intent and go home.

VIRDELL: What was the intent? It feels like the intent of your amendment is not to make the bill better but to kill time. Would that be correct?

V. JONES: No, it is not. This is work that I do not play with. I am here on Mother's Day, when I have my 86-year-old grandmother at home right now. I would rather be with my grandmother right now.

VIRDELL: And what makes that person a mother, if you do not mind me asking?

V. JONES: She is my grandmother.

VIRDELL: Okay, and grandmothers—what makes them mothers and grandmothers?

V. JONES: She is my grandmother. I grew up with—

VIRDELL: Let's leave that out. No problem there. You know, I just wanted to ask simple questions. I wish—and I have respect for you—I just wanted to get a simple answer on that. Do you say it was a mistake in your amendment, then, to take out where it says "females have historically suffered discrimination"?

V. JONES: I think that the fact is very true, and I do not want to take away from the fact and the struggles that women have faced in this state and in this country. However—

VIRDELL: Is it safe to say you wish you had not struck that part out in the amendment?

V. JONES: However—I was just getting to that part. However, regarding the intent of this legislation, I think the intent—particularly as we look at the bill analysis—I think intent has to really line up, or some things start to happen, and that really goes on the definitions. What I want to bring to your attention is that those definitions really do not start until the middle of page 2, so I thought this would be a great amendment to really get rid of some of the extra language that could be distracting from the author's intent of this legislation.

VIRDELL: That is fair. It just seems like the intent is different to get rid of it. Now, I did look the definitions up since we are talking about the definitions here. And the definitions here—remember this is a general definition description in the code. Anyway, these match the general descriptions that I can find looking through the Oxford Dictionary and Webster's and stuff like that. So you do not have a problem with those definitions—is what we are saying—and where those are added to the bill?

V. JONES: Well, if I was talking about the whole entire bill, I would love to go into that. However, I am on this amendment, and this amendment focuses on page 1—the information that is in here that is a little bit clunky—before we are even able to get to page 2 and answer your questions.

VIRDELL: Roger that. I just want to say that you did bring up the definitions in this that were in here, so I felt that we were discussing that. Is that correct?

V. JONES: Well, I think that when you look at the debate that has happened between the author and even Representative González, there has been a focus on biological—I mean, there are a lot of conversations that are going on about it, but we really did not focus on the points of one, two, three, four, and some of those other items. I think that we really have to make sure that we are sticking to a definition that works. A lot of this language is really not a definition. Actually, if you look at line 5—

VIRDELL: This is general.

V. JONES: One second, please. If you look at line 5, on page 1, Section 1, there are findings, not necessarily definitions, so I really want to make sure we focus on the definitions and the author's intent of the bill. That is exactly what this amendment does.

VIRDELL: Yes, copy that. So you are saying that you are okay with the definitions that you did not strike out in this amendment; would that be correct?

V. JONES: This—I actually have several amendments, and I am going to be happy to talk about those throughout the evening, but for now, we are focusing on this amendment and removing this. I hope that this is a start to a very important conversation so that we can make sure we are going to be able to get some language that is going to be useful, you know, regarding this legislation.

VIRDELL: I do understand that. What I am asking you is: Since you are only striking out that portion, does that mean you are okay with the definitions that are added into this bill?

V. JONES: You know, I am going to be honest with you, and I think that I am going to say that there are some issues with the definitions. As I stated to you before, a lot of these conversations have really arisen—come up over different conversations. But I am going to go back to the bill—specifically the amendment that I am on—and make sure we are talking about page 1 and some of the language that we are seeing around—some extra language that is being used.

TROXCLAIR: Members, these findings are important to the bill, and I move to table.

[Representative Troxclair moved to table Amendment No. 2.]

[Amendment No. 2 was tabled by Record No. 2124.]

[Representative Wu raised a point of order against further consideration of HB 229 under Rule 4, Section 32(c)(1), of the House Rules on the grounds that the background and purpose statement in the bill analysis is substantially or materially misleading. The point of order was withdrawn.]

[Amendment No. 3 by M. González was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE M. GONZÁLEZ: As we heard in the layout, this protects intersex people by receiving accommodations with state and federal law. It's acceptable to the author.

[Amendment No. 3 was adopted.]

REPRESENTATIVE ROSENTHAL: It's been a long and difficult day, and I would appreciate just a couple minutes of your attention if you don't mind. I have risen to speak against HB 229. Members, the messaging that we all see regarding trans communities—attacking them in ways that are derogatory—is wholly inaccurate. We've been inundated with hyperbolic and alarming messaging, really using the most egregious and ugly language and imaging. These damaging narratives would have us believe the very worst of each other. Can I please have your attention? I'm concerned about these narratives that would have us believe the worst of each other. These things are repeated over and over and over again—in social media circles, they're shared by e-mail and text messages, and even in testimony that we see here in the Capitol. I have seen truly horrendous narratives repeated by elected officials.

Y'all, these people are just humans trying to live their lives and pursue their own personal happiness. That's why I say that trans and intersex rights are human rights. These folks literally just want the same freedoms that you and I enjoy. Members, not only is much of the messaging that we're inundated with just plain false and misleading, I honestly believe it's being driven intentionally to marginalize and scapegoat a small and misunderstood community for political gain. I have to tell y'all, when one group is marginalized at the expense of another—when they are scapegoated and attacked over and over again to stoke fear and hate, which can lead to physical harm of these people, all for political and personal gain—that truly disturbs me. Any of you who were ever bullied in life, I would hope that would bother you too.

Now, please, don't get me wrong. I know that folks earnestly hold their beliefs, and I do feel that members in this chamber are truly trying to do good for their communities. The motivation for many is positive. I think sometimes well-intentioned efforts can lead to dangerous consequences. I do believe that most here who align with the bill author truly believe in their hearts that they're trying to help women. But I want to invite you all to consider a slightly different perspective. What if this bill actually ends up being harmful to some people? Is it okay to hurt some people to "save" other people? The rhetoric that we see around this––I don't mean specifically in the bill, but what fosters because of it––really foments discrimination, and it risks violent interactions against trans and intersex people. Honestly, if y'all are trying to protect women, what about the women who present sort of manly? Y'all heard about the lady who was accosted in a Target bathroom because somebody thought that she did not seem female enough or feminine enough to be using a woman's restroom. It turns out it was just a lady.

According to the FBI's 2023 hate crime data, more than 500 incidents were driven by gender identity bias—in 2023, which was the last full year we have records for. It's a new record high. So I ask you, don't all people deserve to live in peace and feel safe in their communities? Trans and intersex communities are a very small percentage of our population. These are just humans trying to live their lives. They only want to be free to pursue their own happiness, just like anyone else. And that's why I will say, right now, over and over again, that trans and intersex rights are human rights. They just want the same rights as the rest of us.

HB 229 defines sex and gender in binary terms, requiring governmental entities to classify individuals as either male or female for vital statistics. The scientific community sees the issue in much more complex and nuanced ways. So I do believe the fundamental premise of the bill is deeply flawed. Any biologist knows there are variations in sex chromosomes, hormone levels, and other traits that can lead to intersex conditions or what they call "differences in sex development." DSD is where an individual's biological characteristics don't align with typical male or female categorization––and just for intersex and DSD alone, there's a whole spectrum of possibility. So if you're trying to define this in binary terms—and just one little slice has a whole spectrum of possibility—that doesn't align with the definitions in this bill.

Colleagues, the bill risks the erasure of these folks––the transgender and the intersex people and anyone who's nonbinary, really. It increases the potential for discrimination in public spaces. The fear and hate that's directed at these folks threatens their livelihoods; their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So I'm just going to ask you, in your hearts––I know you have to take the vote you have to take. I get it. But ask yourself this question in your heart: Do you believe that all people—all humans—have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of their personal happiness? Those are basic human rights. And that's why I say trans and intersex rights are human rights.

Efforts like this bill rely on unsubstantiated claims portraying transgender individuals as dangerous threats in public spaces, but the actual data and statistics are really way different. The truth is if you want to protect women in––I'm not going to go there. No reliable data supports the arguments that transgender people commit violent crimes at a higher rate than cisgender men or women. In fact, transgender people are more than four times as likely to be the victims of violent crime as cisgender people––those are people that are born with the same gender identity that matches the parts.

This bill reinforces an outdated understanding of sex and gender. It erases the identity of intersex and transgender people. It perpetuates harmful stereotypes and justifies discrimination under the guise of safety. It's framed as a measure to protect women, but I assert that, in reality, it will reinforce harmful and outdated stereotypes that exclude and endanger transgender and intersex and nonbinary individuals. This bill fails to address real issues of discrimination and violence while deepening inequalities for our communities. The real question is: Do you believe that all people have the basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of their own personal happiness? Do you? That's why I'll be voting no against this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: On nights like this when we're looking at this type of legislation, I like to review my demographics from the American Community Survey to remember why we're here—why I'm here. I think about the almost 6,000 veterans in my community. I think about the married couples—both working—15 percent of my district. I think about the families—about 70 percent of my district—families with children in school. I think about the 20 percent of the families in my community who are living on Social Security income.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues—while we're spending precious legislative time debating culture war issues, Texas families are facing real crises that demand our immediate attention. When 83 percent of Texas children under age six in low-income, working families live in childcare deserts, why aren't we prioritizing legislation to expand affordable childcare access? Our 2025 analysis shows high-quality childcare remains scarce across our state. Yet, while we're debating issues like that, families are spending around $11,000 annually or more—more than in-state college tuition. Meanwhile, the Texas economy loses $11.4 billion annually due to childcare challenges, and we're here debating HB 229. What does this bill do to address those crises? The data shows that 51 percent of Texas renters—a record 2.1 million households—are now cost-burdened, spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. In our major metropolitan areas, extremely low-income Texans face a severe shortage—only 25 affordable rental homes available for every 100 families who need them. I ask you: What does HB 229 do to address this crisis—housing affordability?

Our state minimum remains at $7.25 an hour, leaving a full-time worker with a family of three below the federal poverty line. No one can live on $7.25 an hour. But what does HB 229 do to address living wages for struggling working families? Texas remains the only state without any mandatory paid sick leave requirements, forcing parents to choose between caring for a sick child and losing a day's wages. What does HB 229 do to help working families secure affordable and safe childcare? Texas continues to have the worst uninsured rate in the entire nation—21.7 percent of Texas adults and 11.9 percent of our children lack health insurance. We're one of just 10 states still refusing to expand Medicaid, leaving 1.2 million Texans in the coverage gap. How many more Texas families need to face medical bankruptcy before we prioritize their health care over ideological talking points? What does HB 229 do to help these families?

Texas now leads the nation in hunger, with a food insecurity rate of 16.4 percent, affecting nearly five million Texans. Our state ranks 46 in SNAP participation, with only 75 percent of eligible individuals enrolled and receiving benefits. But rather than addressing these fundamental issues—the needs of Texas families—we're debating divisive bills that do nothing—nothing—to put food on the table. What does HB 229 do to stop Texas children from going hungry? Nothing. My colleagues, these are real crises affecting working families every day. In fact, today—right now—these working families are having discussions. We have less than six months every two years, in a state with more than 30 million people, to help working families who are facing real crises in their families. They don't have time for partisan games or manufactured controversies. We are committing malpractice—a total dereliction of duty—when we're focusing on conspiracy theories and words in a definition instead of helping working families. I ask you: What does HB 229 do to help Texas families with affordable childcare, housing security, living wages, health care access, and food security? What does it do? It does absolutely nothing. Texas families deserve better. Take a stand for working families, and vote no against this needless legislation. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE ZWIENER: I don't understand everything about this world. I don't understand everything about everyone of you—what makes you tick, why certain things are important to you, or why you make the choices you do. But as somebody who shares a space with you, I have an obligation to try to understand, try to give you respect, and try to give you space to be the human being you are. I bring that up because I think the biggest thing that's going on right here, right now, is that most of us don't understand why people are trans. Most of us don't understand why some people do not feel like their body aligns with their gender identity and take actions with how they live in the world to try and correct that for themselves.

Members, what I'm here to tell you is that you don't need to understand everything about that. What you need to know is there are people in this world who are hurting because of the legislation we are passing on this floor. What you need to understand is that people are feeling forced out of the State of Texas by the choices that we make on this house floor. I got a message from a constituent. This message was from 2023, shortly after our legislative session: "Good morning, Erin. Would it be possible to speak with you about where you think the state is heading with anti-LGBT legislation, especially transphobic legislation aimed at adults—bathroom bills, limitations on adult gender-confirming care, et cetera? We are trying to make some decisions about whether or not we can remain in Texas and at what point we should get serious about looking at leaving the state for my safety. Thanks." Members, this is a trans man. Again, a constituent of mine who used to work for the State of Texas, who helped make our universities run and be successful. A productive member of the community, who has a beautiful family. He just put his house on the market for sale, and he's moving out of state. I wish this was the only example of that I knew, but it's a story those of us who were active in the LGBTQ community have heard again and again and again. Families trying to decide when it's bad enough that they have to leave their home and the place that they love; families deciding that it's okay to leave their grandparents behind in a different state and live 1,000 miles away because safety is more important; families deciding that if they're going to be able to keep having a job, they might have to go somewhere else; families deciding to leave the place they grew up because of the laws we pass in this chamber.

Members, the trans community has not done a thing to hurt a single person in this room. They haven't done a thing to hurt us, but this chamber—this Capitol—keeps hurting them and keeps telling them they are not wanted. Shame on us. Shame on us. For those of you watching who are trans or questioning, know that you are loved, know that you matter, and know that there are people in this building who will keep fighting for you and that we believe you belong in Texas. We will keep fighting for you to be here in Texas. We will keep fighting bills that say you're not enough, because you are. You are enough. You are loved. You are beautiful. You belong.

Members, this bill isn't even policy. This bill is here to send a message to trans people in Texas that you don't like them and you don't think they're worthy of being in Texas. And if that's not what you're meaning to say, you should not vote yes, because that is absolutely how this will be heard. Don't keep forcing people out of our state. Keep Texas this beautiful, diverse space where maybe we don't all understand each other, but where we all can respect each other. Vote no.

TROXCLAIR: Thank you, members, for your patience and your passion. It's an honor to serve with each of you. I want to take a moment to respond to a few of the concerns and read into the record some information that's important for our colleagues—and important for women—to clearly understand.

The way that these terms are defined in our code speaks to the ability of the internal organs to develop in a way that serves a purpose. Our biological systems—whether respiratory, cardiovascular, or reproductive—are developed in a specific way. The cardiovascular system is developed to transport blood through the body, regardless of whether a person has a congenital heart defect. A respiratory system is developed to provide oxygen to the body, regardless of whether a person's lungs are underdeveloped. A reproductive system is developed to produce offspring, regardless of whether or not a person is able to do so. So to all of my friends and my colleagues who have been unable to have children themselves and have struggled with fertility issues, I want you to know that we have checked and double-checked that this legislation respects you as a woman—and was crafted carefully to ensure that we are speaking specifically to the creation of your body prior to birth.

In closing, members, this bill—this landmark bill, the women's bill of rights—will give women the clear and consistent protections that they deserve and that they fought for so long to earn. For every woman that has fought for their basic right to safety, to privacy, and to opportunity, this bill is for you. For my daughters, Margaret and Juliette, this bill is for you. I love you so much. And in celebration of each of our mothers, this bill is for you.

[HB 229, as amended, was passed to engrossment by Record No. 2125.]