SIXTY-SECOND DAY — MONDAY, MAY 12, 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 that defines what a woman is. I want to thank Representative Swanson for all of her help on this issue.

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

REPRESENTATIVE ZWIENER: What my amendment does is very straightforward. It strikes the legislative findings of this bill and replaces them with legislative findings that actually serve to increase the rights of women in Texas. This bill has been messaged about being for women. Well, here is language that is actually for us. This amendment says that in the eyes of the law, men and women are equals and are afforded the same levels of nondiscrimination and equality protections. This amendment says that women have the right to vote. Full stop, regardless of a change in name. Remember that, even now, women have not been able to vote for more of our country's history than they have now been able to—for the last 105 years. My amendments say that women have the right to full financial freedom, such as the freedom to have one's own bank account and access to credit without reliance on a spouse or a parent.

Members, some of those financial freedoms have been clarified in the times in which people in this chamber have been here. This happened within our lifetimes. This amendment says that women have the freedom to access high-quality education at all levels, from pre-K through postgraduate school, without discrimination or harassment. Members, this amendment says women have the right to protections from sexual assault, sex trafficking, and modern-day slavery. Members, this amendment says that women have an inherent right to control their bodies, including their medical care. This amendment says that women have an inherent right to be safe from physical attack, including sexual assault. This amendment says that discrimination on the basis of sex is odious and should never be engaged in by the state. This amendment also acknowledges the truth. There is a long-standing history of discrimination against women on the basis of sex in this state, in this country, and in the world. This history, this amendment says, includes women being prohibited from voting; prohibited from owning property; prohibited from acquiring credit; prohibited from attending certain educational institutions; and the history of being discriminated against in the workplace, including the lack of equal pay; and that this history includes, often commonly, sex-based violence.

This amendment also says there is no valid, biological basis for discrimination against women on the basis of sex. In this amendment, the state acknowledges that we have a responsibility to minimize sex discrimination against women in private industry and society. If we want to protect women, this is what we should do. This amendment also says we should only distinguish—we, this chamber; we, the government—should only distinguish between the sexes when there is an important governmental objective that can only be achieved by that distinction. Members, the times when that is needed are few and far between if our goal is to protect women and girls. If our goal is to protect my six-year-old daughter and Representative Diego Bernal's daughter and, yes, even Representative Troxclair's daughters, this amendment takes us much further toward that goal, acknowledging that we, as a legislature, believe sex discrimination is wrong and that we have tools to stop it.

Members, I want to encourage you to support this amendment so that we can actually achieve the objectives the author of the bill has laid out for us. This is what women are asking for. We are not asking to attack the trans community. We are asking for equal pay. We are asking to end workplace discrimination. We are asking to end discrimination in education. We are asking to end sexual assault and sex trafficking. We are asking to protect our right to vote, protect our rights to access health care, and protect our financial freedom. Members, I urge you to vote yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LITTLE: I wanted to allow you to finish your layout. Can't you and I agree that you have the right to vote and financial freedom without putting on this very not-germane amendment to this very simple bill?

ZWIENER: First of all, Representative Little, I am happy to dispute with you the germaneness of the amendment at the dais if you would like. But this amendment is about making sure we, as a legislature, are fully acknowledging the importance of these rights. And quite frankly, we do see attacks on these things to this day. As we see freedom scaled back, us putting these as legislative findings is important now. Right now, there are questions about whether new voting laws might impede the rights of women who have married and changed their names to vote. That is a concern right now.

LITTLE: Thank you, Representative Zwiener.

[Representative Vasut raised a point of order against further consideration of Amendment No. 1 under Rule 11, Section 2, of the House Rules on the grounds that the amendment is not germane. The point of order was withdrawn.]

[Amendment No. 1 was withdrawn.]

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

ZWIENER: This is a little bit of a tailored version of my last amendment—again, to make sure that if we are talking about how to protect women and girls, we do it in the ways women and girls actually need. My amendment makes legislative findings acknowledging the long-standing history of discrimination against women on the basis of sex. Members, that discrimination includes women having a history of not being able to vote; being prohibited from owning property; being prohibited from acquiring credit; prohibited from attending educational institutions; being discriminated against in the workplace—equal pay issues continue to this day; and women being subjected to sex-based violence.

REPRESENTATIVE M. GONZÁLEZ: Thank you, Representative Zwiener, for a very important amendment that nobody should be against, because we're really just talking about—if we're going to have a conversation about the "women's bill of rights," then let's honor what a bill of rights would actually do. You didn't hear this, but at the back mic earlier, there were some of our colleagues saying, "Women have the right to vote right now; why are we even bringing up this conversation?" But isn't it true that there are federal threats to women having equal access to voting right now in our federal government?

ZWIENER: That is correct. As you well know, women are much more likely to change their name throughout their lives when they get married or get divorced. And what that means is that some of these incredibly stringent documentation laws might threaten women who have changed their name and haven't had time to update all that documentation yet. That means that they might not be able to vote, and that would be a horrendous outcome and a giant step backward for women in Texas.

M. GONZÁLEZ: Additionally, your amendment is making sure that women are not discriminated against in the workplace or are subjected to sex-based violence—that's like human trafficking and other violent crimes. Is that accurate?

ZWIENER: My amendment is definitely engaging with the fact that that type of discrimination and harassment is odious, and we, as a state, should help push back against that. That is how we protect women. It's not to go look for imaginary villains; it's to deal with these real problems that are in front of us every single day.

M. GONZÁLEZ: Representative Zwiener, I appreciate your amendment. I appreciate the conversation of how we truly can all come together to protect women.

ZWIENER: Members, please adopt this amendment so that we give women the protections they actually need. Make sure that we codify that the legislature believes that men and women are equals who are afforded the same nondiscrimination and equality protections. Make sure we put into the code that we, the legislature, believe that there is no valid, biological basis for discrimination against women on the basis of sex. Make sure that we put into statute that we, the legislature, believe that policies and laws should only distinguish between the sexes when there is an important governmental objective that can only be achieved by the distinction. Members, every single woman on this floor has experienced sexism at some time in their lives. We have made a lot of progress, but we are not done, and it is important that we don't go backward. Vote yes on this amendment for women's full equality.

TROXCLAIR: The purpose of this bill is to reinforce women's hard-fought rights. This amendment dilutes our immutable differences, and I move to table.

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

ZWIENER: I want to ask you to oppose this motion to table because if we are talking about how to support women, it is about breaking down barriers, not building up new ones. My amendment corrects that deficiency in HB 229 and makes sure that we can all vote on a bill that is actually good for the women and girls of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE BUCY: Thank you, Representative, for yielding. Unfortunately, the bill author did not, and I wanted to know why she would be opposed to putting in a statute that men and women are equal and are afforded the same nondiscrimination and equality protections. I don't know if you and she were able to have a conversation. Mr. Speaker, can we get some order? We've got a representative just yelling over the mic over here. Were you all able to have a conversation up there about why she's opposing your amendment?

ZWIENER: Representative Troxclair and I were able to visit about a few things, but unfortunately we weren't able to visit about the content of this amendment. I don't want to put language into anybody's mouth, but for me, the concern it raises is that the purpose of this bill isn't really to help women and girls. It's to try and attack the transgender community and make them feel unwelcome in the State of Texas. So if that's not our goal, my amendment fixes that and makes this actually a bill for women and girls. Folks should vote no on the motion to table.

BUCY: So if someone votes on the motion to table—if they vote to table your amendment—they are saying that in the eyes of the law, they do not agree that men and women are equal and are afforded the same nondiscrimination and equality protections. Would that be correct?

ZWIENER: They are voting against that language, yes.

BUCY: So they are saying they do not agree with codifying that—stating that men and women are equal and should be afforded the same nondiscrimination and equality protections?

ZWIENER: That is the vote they would be taking.

BUCY: And you are trying to say that men and women, under the law, should be equal?

ZWIENER: Yes, absolutely. There's some really worrying language in these findings that literally says, "When it comes to sex, separate is not always unequal." And if we are even approaching language like that, members, we should be concerned. "Separate but equal" is one of the darkest phrases to come out of our Supreme Court, and the fact that we're mimicking similar language and saying separate isn't always unequal—that should worry us. So my amendment strikes that language and replaces it with positive language about women's equality.

BUCY: Absolutely. I appreciate your amendment. I think we should codify and be clear about, members, what we're about to vote on. Representative Zwiener's amendment wants to codify that, in the eyes of the law, men and women are equals and afforded the same nondiscrimination and equality protections. If you vote to table, you are voting to not agree with that statement.

REPRESENTATIVE CANALES: I'm listening to what you're saying. I also listened to the arguments that were made that women can already vote, so we don't need to codify that. Were you in the chamber when we voted to, once again, codify that American citizens could vote?

ZWIENER: I was in the chamber when we took that vote.

CANALES: That was not even necessary to codify, but this chamber did it because we said it was imperative that we codify something that important.

ZWIENER: That's correct. We codify things, again, that we believe are important all the time.

CANALES: And that's what you're doing here?

ZWIENER: It is, and, in fact, I think there is much more likelihood of women being discriminated against because of our propensity to change our names than there is of somebody who is not a citizen being able to vote in Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE CAIN: Representative, I'm reading the very top of this amendment. It says, "Strike everything below the enacting clause and replace with the following." So you're striking everything, including Section 2 of the bill; that's correct?

ZWIENER: That is correct.

CAIN: Okay, so what you leave in place—you also strike provisions in the "Findings" section. You strike things that say, "women have the right to vote, regardless of a change in their name." You're striking that; is that correct?

ZWIENER: No, Representative Cain. I think you're reading my mocked-up version of the first amendment, on which a point of order was called. I had to quickly refile by striking out previous language in my amendment in order to clean up. The language about women having a right to vote regardless of a change in their name was part of the last amendment that a point of order was called on by Representative Vasut.

CAIN: You're still striking the rest of this bill—is that correct—in your amendment?

ZWIENER: I am striking the rest of the bill.

CAIN: So you're trying to tell people that if we vote against your amendment, that somehow we're against women, but you're literally striking the rest of it that we want to support; is that correct?

ZWIENER: I am striking the rest of the bill because if we want to support women, this is how you do it—not the language in the bill that says that women can be separate but still equal somehow.

REPRESENTATIVE MANUEL: I was wondering if you know—and I know you probably do—did we ever codify the ERA?

ZWIENER: Unfortunately not. Texas voted to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, but unfortunately—I believe nationally—we were one state short. So us putting these protections into Texas statute again and us refining our commitment, I think, is important.

MANUEL: Thank you so much for reminding us that we've done this, and we should be doing this again.

ZWIENER: Members, please vote no on the motion to table. Vote for what women actually need, not to attack a minority community in the name of women.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 2171.]

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

REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS: Members, this amendment strikes the phrase "separate is not inherently unequal" while retaining the language that says, "equal does not mean same or identical." The phrase "separate is not inherently unequal" mirrors the logic of Plessy v. Ferguson, a case that upheld racial segregation 50 years ago. That phrase was used to justify separate schools, water fountains, transportation, and oppression. That phrase's inclusion here, even in a different context, is reckless and unnecessary. Our laws should move us forward, not echo a time when state power was used to divide and exclude.

This amendment ensures we do not repeat history by embracing segregation-era logic in Texas code. The bill already asserts that "equal does not mean same or identical." That phrase preserves the bill's intent to recognize differences. This amendment keeps that intact while removing language that invites dangerous interpretations. Codifying "separate is not inherently unequal" could be used by bad actors or hostile courts to justify broad exclusions of people from public life, especially transgender, intersex, and nonbinary Texans. It sets a tone and a legal foothold in systemic separation. Legislators do not write in a vacuum. Courts, agencies, and future lawmakers will look to this language when deciding how to treat people. This amendment helps assure that Texas is not a testing ground for discriminatory precedent, even if supporters claim that the phrase is harmless—which I do believe that's the bill author's intent. The history is clear. It was used to maintain inferior systems for Black and colored Americans for decades. There is no neutral or benign way to recycle that language.

Let's be honest about what this signals. Including that phrase doesn't just clarify policy; it sends a message that government-sanctioned separation is acceptable. That's a message we must reject. This amendment removes that threat. It tightens the bill, avoids unnecessary legal baggage, and it ensures the law doesn't become a back door to state-sponsored exclusion. We asked ourselves, "What's the goal?" If the aim is to clarify biological differences, then we don't want to have this phrase. If it's something else, then that's a whole other conversation. I urge you to support this amendment to preserve the integrity of our statutes and shield Texans from harmful legal interpretations down the line.

TROXCLAIR: Members, this amendment strikes intentional language about the discrimination that women have historically suffered, and for that reason, I move to table.

[Representative Troxclair moved to table Amendment No. 3.]

REYNOLDS: Members, I don't argue that that's the author's intent, but this language certainly is a slippery slope with dangerous legal precedent from a dark time in our nation's history. We have overcome this language with Brown v. Board of Education, and I ask you to follow me and reject the motion to table. Vote no.

MANUEL: You're basically talking about "separate but equal."

REYNOLDS: Absolutely.

MANUEL: Can you give some examples about how bad it has been to have "separate but equal" in this country?

REYNOLDS: Well, Representative Manuel, I will submit to you that there were times when there was "separate but equal." It was lawful for us to have separate facilities where you have "coloreds-only" water fountains—colored-only. People had to go to separate portions of a movie theater. There were times when people had to go to the back of the bus. There were times when people had "separate but equal" schools, where the colored people had to go to one school. In fact, here in Austin, The University of Texas at Austin was that school where Heman Sweatt was denied entrance into The University of Texas. They had to create a separate school, which was called Texas State University for Negroes. That is now known as Texas Southern University. This "separate but equal" has a long history in racial segregation. I am so proud that because of our ancestors who made good struggle and good trouble and the people of good conscience of all races—not just African Americans, but people of good conscience—that said that is not the America that we hold where all people are created equal. We had a Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall, who argued the Brown v. Board of Education case, which ended "separate but equal" in this country. We don't need to regurgitate this Jim Crow-relic language of our past.

MANUEL: One last question. Going off, again, "separate but equal"—what happened during the Civil Rights Movement? Was the Civil Rights Movement about separating only certain people, or was it about bringing everyone together so there wasn't any kind of separation of who we are as human beings?

REYNOLDS: Actually, the Civil Rights Movement was about removing separate barriers. It was about inclusion. It was about making sure that children were not separated on the basis of race, religion, or national origin—that "all" means everyone. Everyone could matriculate in the same spaces, not based on a separation based on gender or race. That's what the Civil Rights Movement was about. It was about inclusion for everyone. In fact, when you hear about Dr. King's dream, it was that all of his children will be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. So yes, the point of it was to have a level playing field so there is no separate. Separate is not equal.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: I just saw your amendment, and you're removing from the bill the language that––I forget exactly how it's phrased in the bill, but "separate is not inherently unequal" or something like that?

REYNOLDS: That's correct. "Separate is not inherently unequal."

TURNER: Right. And that phrase originated, did it not, from the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson in the late 1800s? Is that right?

REYNOLDS: That is correct.

TURNER: That's widely regarded as one of the absolutely worst decisions the U.S. Supreme Court has ever made in American history.

REYNOLDS: I would argue that it was, and the only interpretation that could argue something differently—I would question that they're racist.

TURNER: Your amendment, it seems to me, seeks to preserve somewhat of the author's intent. It says that you can be different, or not be the same, but that doesn't make you unequal. Is that your goal with this amendment?

REYNOLDS: That is correct. This amendment simply removes the phrase "separate is not inherently unequal" from the bill. It keeps the rest of the language the same—'equal' does not mean 'same' or 'identical'"—which still affirms biological distinctions without invoking legally and historically harmful language.

TURNER: I thank you for bringing this amendment, because I think it's a much, much better way to express what I think is the intent of the bill author but doing it in a way that does not speak to that terribly divisive era from our nation's past. So thank you for bringing it, Representative Reynolds.

REYNOLDS: Members, it is important to remove this phrase because "separate is not inherently unequal" was the foundation of Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld racial segregation. That logic was discredited in Brown v. Board of Education. Including it in statute—even in a different context—sends a harmful message and invites legal confusion. I urge you to vote no.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 2172.]

[Amendment No. 4 by J. González was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE J. GONZÁLEZ: All this amendment would do is just strike the clause that "'mother' means a parent of the female sex." This clause limits who qualifies as a mother, especially in conjunction with the rest of the definitions provided in the bill. A person who cares for a child and has had a hysterectomy or has had PCOS or any number of situations has just as much of a right to be considered a mother as a person who is able to give birth to a child. There are many different ways to have a family, and there are all sorts of ways to be a mother. You can adopt kids. You can be a foster mom. Families have all sorts of configurations, and we should not be attempting to limit them. We simply have no business telling families who gets to be called a mother or who gets to be called a father.

REPRESENTATIVE ROSENTHAL: Can you help clarify the purpose of your amendment? What does it really mean?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes. The purpose is to avoid codifying a rigid binary definition of "mother" that may not reflect the diversity of family structures and parental identities in Texas. By removing this definition, it allows for a more inclusive and adaptable legal framework. For example, let's say a trans adult had a kid, physically, and they identify as male. We have no business telling a family who can be called father or who can be called mother.

ROSENTHAL: Thank you. Would this change create any confusion for agencies or courts when defining a "mother" for legal or administrative purposes?

J. GONZÁLEZ: No, because Texas law already provides that guidance on parentage and the role of the mother—including adoptive mothers and legal mothers. Agencies can continue to use those established definitions in relevant contexts.

ROSENTHAL: That's good. Would the removal of this part of the definition impact the bill's requirements for governmental data collection on biological sex?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Absolutely not. That does not change this bill at all. The core provision of this bill—it does not affect it at all, regarding data collection. It just removes the unnecessary and potentially exclusionary language in the bill. It does not have anything to do with protecting safety or privacy, which I believe the author of the bill mentioned was the intent behind the bill. It does not affect that at all, either.

ROSENTHAL: Could you speak to the concern that the amendment might have unintended consequences for policies or programs specifically designed for mothers, such as maternal health initiatives?

J. GONZÁLEZ: It does not affect those programs because those programs typically rely on context-specific definitions and eligibility criteria, not a single statutory definition. The amendment preserves flexibility with those programs as well.

TROXCLAIR: The purpose of this bill is to define "men," "women," "boy," "girl," "mother," and "father." This amendment undermines the clarity that this seeks to provide and threatens women's and mothers' biological rights. Thank you, and for that reason, I move to table the amendment.

[Representative Troxclair moved to table Amendment No. 4.]

J. GONZÁLEZ: Again, removing this definition in the bill does not affect the core provisions of this bill. It does not affect protecting our privacy situations—which the author mentioned was the intention—so I urge you to vote in favor of this amendment. Vote against tabling it.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 2173.]

[Amendment No. 5 by V. Jones was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE V. JONES: This amendment simply states that a government entity that collects vital statistics or statistical information may not disclose or release that information to any person. Members, this data includes sensitive personal information related to an individual's sex, as determined by government standards. While the underlying bill mandates collection, this amendment ensures that information cannot be accessed and weaponized against any individuals. We have heard concerns that HB 229 could lead to new data to target or out individuals—particularly transgender Texans—even in ways not originally intended by this bill. This amendment addresses those concerns by placing a strict nondisclosure rule on the information collected. It is a guardrail that adds clarity and reassurance that personal identification will not be made public or shared with outside parties.

MANUEL: Mr. Jones, as two men in this building who come from a long history of being discriminated against—not just because of our race, but as two gay men—can you explain to the body what kind of discrimination we have had to deal with based on vital statistics that are being used against us in this country?

V. JONES: Absolutely. I think it is important to realize that the very data that is supposed to support and provide the numbers necessary to protect Texas, sometimes are used for the exact opposite: to target Texans to make sure that services are not available for certain groups of Texans. Answering and finishing up your question—just making sure that this data is not used to discriminate against Texans.

What I did find out is—actually, the amendment that I had was actually incorrect, so I just want to make sure that we update this language to say that my amendment that I just proposed acts to change the law made in this Act to add language that says, "The changes in law made by this Act may not be construed to permit discrimination on the basis of an individual's gender identity, including an individual's identity as an individual who is transgender, nonbinary, or intersex." And really, part of the confusion is attached to some of the same things. I'm just making sure that we put the guardrails necessary to prevent this bill from being used as a tool of discrimination. We see that those things can happen. We have seen the comments and conversations that have happened online and know, sometimes, the origins of these conversations and how they are specifically used to attack those from the transgender community, those who are nonbinary, and intersex. So I'm just making sure that we are putting the proper protections in place while also honoring the original intent—the original author's intent of this bill.

MANUEL: I also want to ask: Are we seeing the exact same types of violence and horrible rhetoric against the transgender community that we were seeing toward people like you and me not even 30 years ago?

V. JONES: Absolutely. Part of the reason I came to this body during the COVID-19 pandemic—I witnessed, not a mile away from my house, the horrific murders of about nine transgender women. The language used by lawmakers and the language used by community leaders to disenfranchise, marginalize, and make this community invisible continues to echo to this very day. So I think it is very necessary to make sure we put protections in place to protect this vulnerable community right now.

MANUEL: Are transgender women being assaulted just because they say "no" in this world?

V. JONES: For any reason—not only assaulted, but are not protected by the laws that are supposed to be put in place to protect us. That is why this amendment is important, and I hope that the members vote to support this amendment in the bill.

MANUEL: If I am hearing this correctly, what you are saying is that, yes, we can protect men, women, and children, but we should also be able to protect transgender people at the same time without repeating the mistakes of the past that have caused people to be murdered, harassed, assaulted, and discriminated against from the history of this country?

V. JONES: Absolutely, and I think that in addition to making sure we talk about transgender individuals, we have to make sure we protect everyone. That includes transgender and nonbinary individuals. So it is not necessarily a pointing out; it is just making sure that when we talk about equality and justice for all communities, that all communities are actually a part of that very important conversation.

TROXCLAIR: Just a reminder that this bill does not change existing law and reiterates protections against discrimination. I also did not accept an amendment on Saturday to reiterate this, so for that reason, I move to table.

[Representative Troxclair moved to table Amendment No. 5.]

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 2174.]

[Amendment No. 6 by Wu was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE WU: This legislation, at the very end of it, calls for state agencies that collect public data to force all the data that they collect into the neat little columns that this bill calls for. However, as noted in the fiscal note itself—I'm just going to read it to you: "According to the Department of Public Safety, the Crime Records Division collects male, female, and unknown data for criminal justice systems, records, and state repositories. To comply with the provisions of this bill, each CRD data repository would require additional programming updates to prohibit the use of an unknown identifier." So for all the crimes that get reported in, they will be forced to put into the data section whether an assailant or a victim was male or female, when often they just don't know. And they're going to have to figure out how to do that because everything that they need to do has to fall neatly within what's here. There's a reason why they did not do this in this descriptive legislation.

And secondly, "According to the Department of State Health Services, all births, deaths, and fetal deaths are electronically reported through the Texas Electronic Vital Events Registrar, the TxEVER system. DSHS currently lists the biological sex on the birth, death, and fetal certificates. However, TxEVER provides options for male, female, and unknown or not yet determined." This legislation would force them—for fetuses that died during birth that they are not clear on whether the baby was a boy or a girl or whatever, they might put "unknown" or "uncertain." They could no longer do this. And as you have heard—again, repeatedly—there are times when there are babies born with both sets of genitalia, babies born with no sets of genitalia, babies born with any combination of the such. Now the doctors and hospitals will be forced to force this into this little column and to spend more time and more money doing this. It's unnecessary. What this legislation would say is instead of a "shall," it just says they "may" update it if they can. Forcing this to be updated simply makes no sense and takes away the leeway that the agencies have always used to deal with problematic or difficult situations. This is a commonsense, simple amendment that does not gut the bill but makes life easier for agencies that have to record—the state agencies—instead of trying to forcibly figure out what is what on everything.

TROXCLAIR: Once again, the purpose of this bill is to reinstate and reinforce women's rights. A part of that is the ability to collect accurate data for reporting, so for that reason, I move to table this amendment.

[Representative Troxclair moved to table Amendment No. 6.]

WU: Collecting accurate data is the whole point of this amendment. The law that she is trying to pass says that you have to force everything into these little pockets. The problem with this—again, especially on birth certificates—many times doctors leave those alone. They leave it as an unknown or leave it as unidentified because they are not sure, and they don't want to cause a problem for these families. For them—for these families—they want these families to be able to update the certificate later on, after they've done genetic testing, after they've done other assessments by other doctors. In addition, for people who have already died—including death certificates—why? What does it matter? Why would you force this into death certificates? If they want to claim "unknown," if they want to claim they have whatever their status is, what is the harm? Why is there a problem? This is a simple amendment that just allows our agencies to have a little more leeway with what is very difficult data to process in the first place.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 2175.]

[Amendment No. 7 by Gervin-Hawkins was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE GERVIN-HAWKINS: As y'all know, I'm trying to learn, right? So let's learn about what this bill really does. My amendment is quite simple. All it is is giving it a sunset period so we can look at and see the possibility of what happens if we want to remain transparent by reviewing this and its impact. I think it's so important, because what I've heard from my colleagues is there could be some real damage done. I don't think any of us want that. This is just a transparency amendment that really allows us to come back in 2030 and look at the impact.

TROXCLAIR: With all due respect to my colleague, she is asking this body to sunset protections on women and girls. For that reason, I am opposed to this amendment and move to table.

[Representative Troxclair moved to table Amendment No. 7.]

GERVIN-HAWKINS: My learning colleagues, we have a responsibility to truly assess those things that we are doing that could potentially hurt others. Asking for us to look at this in 2030, in terms of repercussions, is only prudent. It makes common sense, and it's what we need to do as leaders.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 2176.]

REPRESENTATIVE J. JONES: I rise in strong opposition to HB 229 because this bill doesn't just rewrite definitions; it rewrites people. It tells doctors that they have to ignore the person who is in front of them. It tells hospitals to look at anatomy instead of the total human. It tells a trans child they don't exist and tells their pediatrician to act like they don't either. In the real world, health care is not black and white. It's not binary. Reducing people to male or female without recognizing lived identity or medical reality will cause harm—real and irreversible. Doctors don't treat definitions; they treat people. When someone walks into an ER or a clinic, their care should be based on their whole medical history—their current hormone levels, their gender identity, and their lived experience—not a box on a form forced by law. This bill will confuse care, not clarify it. It will increase misdiagnoses, it will discourage patients from seeking help, and it will leave good doctors trapped between medical ethics and legal mandates. Mental health professionals will be told by the state to deny a person's reality. That's not healing; it's gaslighting. It increases anxiety, it increases depression, and it increases suicide risk—especially among LGBTQ+ youth, who already face crisis-level mental health outcomes. HB 229 isn't just a policy bill; it's a prescription for pain, for erasure, and for suffering. Let me be clear: No law should tell a doctor to ignore their patient. No law should tell a child they don't belong, and no law should force us to pretend the rich, diverse spectrum of human identity doesn't exist. We should be advancing care, not weaponizing identity.

And let's be honest; we know what inspired this bill. It's not about data, it's not about science, and it sure isn't about saving lives. It's politics diagnosed as policy. It's erasure masked as order. It's cruelty camouflaged as clarity. This isn't about a health crisis; it creates one. This isn't about medical truth; it muzzles it. This isn't about protecting women; it's about policing identity. And let me tell you about something we've known forever: Not every girl fits someone else's idea of what a girl is. That's not new. That's why the word "tomboy" exists. It's not new; it's been around. A tomboy is a little girl who climbs trees, who doesn't want to wear dresses, who doesn't play with dolls, and we let her be. We didn't pass laws to force her into a skirt. Some people think women shouldn't wear pants. Some women don't want to wear dresses. And guess what? We've accepted that. We've lived with that. So why now—why suddenly—do we want to legislate identity? Why do we want to punish people for being who they've always been? Members, we have to accept people for who they are. That's not weakness; that's wisdom. That's compassion. That's freedom.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHÍA: I rise today to oppose HB 229, because what may appear to some as a simple, definitional bill is, in fact, a statutory erasure of my fellow Texans. Texas is home to 1.4 million LGBTQ adults, nearly 30,000 of which are transgender youth, according to the UCLA's Williams Institute. Members, these are not hypothetical people that we are permitted to discuss in the abstract. They're my friends, they're my constituents, they're my neighbors, and most importantly, they're our fellow Texans. Because HB 229 erases transgender Texans from legal recognition, it tells them they do not exist in the eyes of the state. But transgender Texans will continue to exist. I know they exist because I see them, I hug them, I enjoy fellowship with them, and I worship with them. So as a lawyer, I must oppose this bill because of this statutory erasure.

Members, I'm also compelled by my faith to rise against this bill. My faith teaches that we are all—and I mean all—created in God's image. And it says that all individuals—regardless of their gender, their gender identity, or who they love—have inherent worth and dignity in this world. They are worthy of love, they are worthy of acceptance, and they are worthy of recognition. And yes, of course, I acknowledge that the Bible uses masculine language and imagery when referring to God, but it does not explicitly state that God has a gender—not in any human sense, at least. The Bible emphasizes instead, representatives, God's transcendence. That means that God cannot be limited by human concepts like gender. My faith teaches, in fact, that God is many things all wrapped up in one, including a Holy Spirit.

My faith also emphasizes Jesus' radical inclusivity, where all are welcome at God's table. Radical inclusivity, members, teaches that we are all one in Jesus Christ, and if we affirm our equality in the family of God—regardless of social status, education, race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, all of it—that is the teaching of Jesus: his radical inclusivity at God's table. See, Jesus asked us to do two things. The first one was to love God, and the second one was to love one another. "A new command I give you: Love one another." Jesus' commandment is so simple, but it is radical: Love one another, and this includes, ladies and gentlemen, trans Texans. We are to love them fully and without condition. The New Testament, and even classical Greeks, referred to this love as agape. That's understood as a selfless, sacrificial, and unconditional love. In Christianity, it's often associated with the highest form of love. It's a kind of love that requires us to be intentional. Intentional, members, in our desiring the well-being of another, even when it's hard, even when it's unpopular, and even when the people whom we are commanded to love are outcasts. This is a love of choice, expressed with our actions, including voting on this house floor.

So because I'm commanded by my faith, I rise to reflect Jesus' love. Because people created in God's love are not static definitions to be contained in the law. They are living, and they are breathing reflections of God's love, God's image, and most importantly, God's mystery.

REPRESENTATIVE C. MORALES: I hope that you'll listen to me while I start out with something personal. Last session, I missed a day—maybe two—on this house floor. A day that mattered here. But I wasn't here because my grandson was undergoing heart surgery. And in that moment, there was no question that I had to be with my grandson. He was six years old at the time. He's now eight years old, and he'll be having his first communion this weekend. But that's what we do. That's what we do as parents, as grandparents—we show up. We protect our kids from pain, from fear, from anything that threatens them, because that's our job.

What makes this bill so heartbreaking is that yesterday, on Mother's Day, I heard from a mom—one of my constituents, a former member of this body. She had just celebrated her youngest daughter's college graduation. Imagine the joy of that moment: her child—a kind, brilliant, talented young woman—surrounded by friends and mentors, ready to take on the world. Then imagine the panic when she sees this bill and realizes her home state is preparing to erase her daughter. This young woman isn't a threat. She plays in a band, tutors Greek, scoops ice cream, throws a lasso, and debates philosophy better than most of us. She's not hurting anyone, but this bill sends a clear message that she doesn't belong here and that the identity she's lived with—legally recognized—is up for debate. And that's terrifying, not to just her, but for every parent who wants their child to feel safe, to be seen, and to be free.

The bill author says that this bill is to protect women, and I want to say clearly: We all want to protect women. As a mother, a grandmother, and a legislator, I have spent my entire career standing up for women—for our rights, our safety, and our dignity. But let's not confuse protection with exclusion. Let's not confuse anyone's safety with the erasure of trans women. Protecting women means fighting for fair wages, reproductive freedom, access to health care, freedom from violence, and equal opportunity. It doesn't mean writing people out of existence because their biology doesn't fit neatly into a checkbox. This bill does nothing to address the real threats facing women today. It doesn't stop abuse, it doesn't improve health care, and it doesn't keep women safer. What it does is scapegoat people—especially transgender women, who are simply trying to live their lives in peace—and that doesn't make any of us safer.

So I stand here today as a legislator—but first as a grandmother and as a mother. I stand for every parent who just wants their kid to be safe. If we truly want to protect women, let us focus on the issues that matter. This bill distracts us from that work.

WU: This always reminds me of something that was taught to me when I was studying. And that is: just because you don't understand something does not make it witchcraft. This is kind of where we are. We are taking an action that will seek to harm a group of people in our state that numbers in the hundreds of thousands. Even outside of that group—outside of the trans community—there are others who are nonbinary, who maybe don't fit neatly into the little pockets that we like to create, who will be harmed by this. I think there are enough people here who say, "We don't really care. It's fine. Who cares if they're harmed?" I understand that. The reason we're doing it, I think, is worse.

Here, we're saying that we're going to do this because it is something that has always been tradition. It is the way we understood it for thousands of years. We've understood other things for thousands of years. For a long time, we thought the earth was flat. For an even longer time, we thought that the entire universe circled our planet. We didn't understand what causes the tides. Over time, through research and understanding, we learn. We grow, we develop, we evolve, and we get better and better—we have a better and better understanding. Things that once were scary to us, we have a better understanding of them. This law is being pushed because of anecdotes and because of driven fear against a small minority community. I think the people are saying, "Well, there's a sudden influx of trans people. Everything is trans." Only in their minds does that happen, because the reality is trans people have always existed, whether you know it or not. Whether you understand what trans people go through or not, they have always existed. They existed decades ago. They existed last year. They exist today. We've had these same laws on the books for decades and decades and decades, and trans people use them, at least as small comforts—a small saving grace where their life can be a little bit less brutal, a little bit less miserable. Maybe they can find just a small ounce of happiness in a state that promises that we can do what we want to do and live the way we want to live.

We are choosing to cause real harm to real people with no real benefit. This is a statement bill for those of you who are voting for it, but for those people that it affects, this is their life. Maybe this is their death. The problem is we look at things like the way this bill is drafted, and we say in the law we're trying to pass—it says your gender will be determined by the way your organs—the way you are developed. There's a reason why we don't use that definition. Because it doesn't make any sense. As we have asked the bill author again and again, what does "is developed" mean? Are you talking about what is supposed to be in the body or what is actually in the body? For those of you that don't understand, biology is complicated. Biology does not operate in black or white. Biology does not operate on "on" or "off." Biology is a bell curve. What you perceive as simple things—when you actually study it, when you actually go to school, when you actually do the research, when you actually read books—are much more complicated. There are many things that do not fall into this neat little pocket. We try to ask: A phenotypical expression—why is it what the body is supposed to produce? Why not the genotype? Why not the genetics? Why not look at this as XY chromosomes? Why not? It seems kind of arbitrary that we would pick this and not the other. Why not both? You want to know, really, why we don't do genotype either? Because that's a mess, too. You can be born XY, XX, XXY, XYY, XXYY, and all the other variations of it, but people don't want to talk about this because it's complicated. It makes the gray zone too big. They want to put everything into neat little pockets that they feel they can understand.

Just as a very short list—we talked about AIS, a disease and a malfunction in genetic code that causes people to be insensitive to chemicals and molecules such as testosterone. It's called androgen insensitivity syndrome, meaning that while the infant's body is producing testosterone from developing testes, the body itself cannot detect it. And if it cannot detect it, the body treats it as if it is female. Genetics says it will start developing the body as a female, but this will be a child born with testes where ovaries should be. How does that fit into this bill? They are functionally—and by outward appearances—female, but their body plan, by the definition of this law, says male. They don't care. Because who cares if you hurt these people? It's only one out of 20,000. We have talked about all the different other types of diseases that can cause malformation, non-formation, double formation of all sorts of different sex characteristics. I'm not going to read through this, but any court that is looking through this bill should be looking at all the different diseases that would cause someone to not fit into the pattern of this bill—to fall outside the scope.

As the bill author said, her goal was for accuracy. Her goal was for truthfulness. Her goal was to make it clear and make it complete. Here we have shown you that this bill is not accurate, because it leaves many things out. It is not truthful, because it does not say, actually, what everyone is based on those things. That definition provides no clarity. It is not clear. Here we say, once again, when we operate from our gut feelings, when we operate from tradition, that is arbitrary and capricious. I'll say one more thing. All this points to saying this: Why are we doing this? Why do this? Why do this to hurt people when it serves no real benefit? Because isn't it our right as Texans—isn't it our right as Americans—to be able to live free and to be who we are? Trans people have lived their lives in this state under the existing laws for decades and decades with no problems. People say it's causing all these problems. Show me the problems. Show me the articles. Tell me the arrest records. Show me the lawsuits. They don't exist, because the problem only exists in people's minds. This sounds good until you start thinking about it. I hope that one day we can operate this body in a way that doesn't find people to hurt in order to help other people get more power. Vote no.

REPRESENTATIVE HICKLAND: Because scripture has been offered from the front, I'd like to offer one as well. Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." This bill affirms that truth of a loving God, our creator. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE GÁMEZ: Ladies and gentlemen, I rise today in opposition to this bill, as a devout Christian in remembrance and honor of my late grandmother, Patricia Titus, and on behalf of millions of women who will be affected by this legislation, which I hope in my heart has good intentions.

I would like to begin by saying, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." This bill does not do that. This bill is not supported by any scientific data or background, by a single medical expert or agency, and I would posit to you that this bill regresses generations upon generations of progress that our grandmothers and our mothers have made as strong women. It hinges simply on your ability to reproduce, and I am opposed to this because it includes and codifies language in black and white—in Texas law—that states that women are weaker and lesser than men. I know in my heart that when you tuck your daughters in at night, that's not what you tell them. I know that my grandfather told me, "Mijita, don't ever stop trying. Don't ever stop fighting because you think a man is stronger or smarter or faster than you." That is what we are writing into law, and I know that is not what you tell your daughters when you look at them.

Please remember where we came from. Ask your mothers and your grandmothers, because they were alive when they were not allowed to take out a credit card or a bank statement in their own name. Imagine not being able to take out a credit card or a bank statement in your own name because, on average, "women are incapable of handling this stress." Your grandmothers were alive in a time when women were not allowed to inherit estates because they "were not capable of handling the financial stress of inheritance." It was law that men inherited first. Your grandmothers were alive when they were not allowed to take out a mortgage on their own home because "women should be protected from the stress of financial insecurity." I propose to you that this narrative of protecting women is about control, because we've been there. We've heard that language. In the words of a woman far greater than I, Justice Ginsburg, I posit to you that the pedestal upon which you are placing women here today is, in fact, a cage. In ruling over 300 cases of sex-based discrimination, she said, "I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks." This bill puts the boot back on.

REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD: I just wanted to personalize this for a minute, because I do not know how many of you in here have lived experiences that brought you around people who have transitioned, and the fact is that I grew up with a family member. We played together growing up, and he went to the army. He was in the army, and then in 1974, I got a letter from my family member saying, "Dear Donna, I have gone to San Francisco to become a woman." This was 1974, and my family member transitioned and has lived these past 50 years very happily and successfully as a woman. This is my family member—this is somebody that I know and love. This is not somebody that I am looking at out there or something that I have read about or heard about, but I do not have any lived experience with—this is my family. This person now has to look at this law. "'Female' and 'woman' mean an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova"? That is not the case for my family member. She has been a woman for 50 of her 70-odd years that she has been here and, as I said, lived happily and successfully as a woman. This is just horrific to me on a very personal level. It is very sad to me that this is happening to her—that she has to somehow feel different than, apart from. She never put any of this out in people's faces. She was not an activist. She just lived her life and continues to do so happily. So I just wanted to bring a personal note to this to let you all know that these affect real people. These affect real people, and in this case, it is affecting my family. I cannot support a bill like this.

J. GONZÁLEZ: Clearly I am fully in opposition of HB 229. This bill is rooted in ignorance and is trying to erase trans people. Saturday was a dark day in our chamber's history and will be remembered by future generations of Texans long after we are gone. I hope that when Texans hear about HB 229 ,they will read the debate that went back and forth and will understand the political context behind this legislative tragedy. They will see that this bill—they will see it for what it is: an attack on human dignity, an attack on human rights, and an attack on transgender Texans. It has been made very clear this session that transphobia is the new dominant ideology of the legislature, with this bill being one of hundreds—hundreds—of anti-LGBTQ bills filed this session alone, many of them targeting trans Texans specifically. Not to mention the massive amounts of money spent on anti-trans campaign advertisements throughout the last campaign cycle. In a state of over 30 million residents, we have been burning hours of legislative time, tax dollars in front of a witch hunt on transgender Texans. Eradicating trans people from data using bygone definitions of gender to police the private lives—the private lives—of Texans. Trans people exist. Period. It is abhorrent to abuse the power of this legislature to target Texans who dare to defy your counterfeit standards of gender.

To my republican colleagues, including the bill author: Why are you so concerned and obsessed with scrutinizing and investigating the bodies of Texas citizens? Amongst the legislature, it is clear there is no way this body is qualified to define gender into state law. By prohibiting state agencies from collecting data that accurately affects people's lives and lived experiences, HB 229 destroys any mechanism used to understand our state's vulnerable transgender population and how to best meet the needs of all Texans. Texas has led the nation in the number of transgender murders for almost a decade, yet we choose the distraction of eradication rather than protection of our fellow Texans, who are human, just like you and me. This bill cuts off real issues Texans are facing. Wasting precious legislative power that could be used to pass tangible and effective change instead of stripping the state of important information used to address disparities in health care, economics, housing, education, and targeted violence—all things that disproportionately affect the transgender community.

Trans, nonbinary, gender expansive, and intersex people will not cease to exist because of a Texas law. These are our neighbors, our friends, our coworkers. All they want is the same things as everyone else—opportunities to work hard and earn a living without the fear of being themselves because of who they love. They want to raise their families and fully participate in our communities without the fear of being isolated or targeted. For those who claim to want small government, do you not see the irony in policing the private lives of citizens—the lives of your constituents? Do you not see the irony in having the state government dictate gender? You will never legislate Texas to fit inside the small box of your perceived standards of conformity.

I will leave you with this: We are powerful because we have survived. And I will say, you know, it broke my heart on Saturday night when I walked back to my office to see so many of my friends and chosen family in tears because of this bill. Because these are adults who contribute to our communities, who have jobs—they have lives; they have families. You are affecting their everyday life to open bank accounts, to buy a house, to rent a home, and you do not understand the impact this has on adults who are not doing anything to hurt anybody but living their lives. And to my trans Texans: Remember that even during these times of turmoil and hostility, nobody in this body—and now law—will ever have the power to invalidate your existence. There are people fighting for you—fighting for your right not only to survive but to thrive in our state. So please, never lose hope. Because this is your home, too, and we will always keep fighting, because trans Texans will not be erased. Not on my watch.

REPRESENTATIVE TALARICO: Thank you for your powerful words. Is it correct that we had a colleague of ours on that front microphone using this book to justify this bill?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes, sir.

TALARICO: I believe our colleague quoted Genesis 1:27 about God creating human beings—male and female—is that correct?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes.

TALARICO: And that scripture has been used to justify bills like this and other pieces of legislation that discriminate against trans people. Is that correct?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Exactly, yes.

TALARICO: Representative González, Genesis is one of my favorite books in the Bible. It is beautifully written, and it describes how we are all made in the image of God and describes the beautiful creation all around us. Are you aware that after this verse, it also describes how God created other opposites—not just male and female but also day and night, land and sea, flying birds and swimming fish? Are you aware of that?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes, it is actually one of my favorites as well.

TALARICO: But in between day and night, we have dusk and dawn; is that correct?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes, that is correct.

TALARICO: Things that defy those two polar opposites. Between land and sea, we have coral reefs, estuaries, beaches, things that blur the lines between land and sea. Is that correct?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes, that is correct.

TALARICO: Between flying birds and swimming fish, we have penguins, dolphins, and even the platypus. Those things defy the boundaries between swimming fish and flying birds, correct?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Correct.

TALARICO: So I think it should be acknowledged that the poetry in Genesis should never be used to bully, discriminate, or pick on people who have less power—whether it is in this state, in this country, or anywhere around the world. Would you say that is a fair statement?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes.

TALARICO: And would you also say that this book has been used to hurt others at plenty of points throughout our history?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes, and I find that disgusting.

TALARICO: I don't know if you agree with me, Representative González, but using this book and using these scriptures that call us to love one another, to care for the oppressed, and to watch out for the least of these—using these scriptures to hurt others is doing great violence.

J. GONZÁLEZ: Correct.

TALARICO: Would you agree that if we are truly trying to use the teaching in this book, that we should be loving our neighbors—especially our neighbors who are different from us or who have less power than we do?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes.

TROXCLAIR: Thank you to all the women who have come before me—come before us—who have fought for women's rights—to the women who fought for the right to vote and fought for Title IX, to the women who have fought to be free from violence, and to the women who have had no choice but to stand up and fight for their rights to compete on a level playing field in sports. To the men who have stood beside us every step of the way—my husband, my father, my brother, and the colleagues in this chamber who have stood up for women and opposed the encroachment of other men on women's spaces and rights, we appreciate you.

Today, we are going to pass the "Women's Bill of Rights"—a bill we should not have to pass in 2025. The biological differences between men and women have been universally understood since the beginning of time, and with this bill, Texas law will now fully reflect that reality. By defining what a woman is today, we are protecting their basic rights to privacy, safety, and fairness. We are reinforcing the existing legal framework designed specifically to protect women and girls. This bill is for the women in the locker room, the women playing on the playing field, the women in a women's shelter, and the women in prison. With the passage of this bill today, we are sending a very clear message: Do not mess with Texas women.

[HB 229 was passed by Record No. 2177.]