Committee advances "Riley Gaines Act" limiting participation of males in female sports amid heated public testimony

Senate Bill 1, sponsored by Senator Greg Dolezal and amended with House language, was given a do-pass recommendation after lengthy committee debate and a large public comment period that split witnesses for and against the measure.

The sponsor told the committee the substitute — which the sponsor identified as the "Riley Gaines Act of 2025" — aims to ‘‘create a boundary around female sport to prevent the inclusion of male advantage in female sport,’’ and said the measure draws from House language to define eligibility and adjudication procedures. The bill uses a definition of sex tied to observation or clinical verification at birth in its current substitute, establishes an in-school complaint and appeal process for K–12 enforcement, and provides a private right of action with a two-year statute of limitations for aggrieved parties. The bill treats institutions of higher education differently because those institutions lack an equivalent in-school complaint mechanism.

Supporters at the podium, including Matt Sharp of Alliance Defending Freedom, framed the bill as necessary to preserve fair competition and privacy in female athletics. Sharp told the committee: "This bill simply ... protect[s] privacy as well, especially on overnight school trips involved with athletics." He and other proponents cited court precedent and scientific studies that they said show physiological performance differences that justify separate female categories.

Opponents, including student athletes and a range of advocacy and legal speakers, called the measure overbroad, harmful to transgender and intersex students, and legally fraught. Emory student-athlete Soju Hokkari, who identified themself as a transgender athlete and researcher, told the committee the substitute’s medical and historical references were incorrect and warned the proposed medical tests and definitions are outdated; Hokkari said, "the bar body test has not been used in decades," and argued the bill’s definition of sex is ill-suited to current science and practice. Other speakers said the bill could subject prepubescent students and intersex children to invasive procedures and create trauma for students who do not conform to stereotypical appearances.

Committee members asked sponsors detailed questions about how the substitute defines sex, what records or medical procedures schools could rely on, the role of the Professional Standards Commission in adjudication, and whether private schools that accept state funds would be covered. The sponsor said the substitute removed a birth-certificate-only test and instead allows schools to rely on standard medical records and procedures used for athletic clearance.

After roughly two hours of public testimony and questions from members, a committee member moved that Senate Bill 1 (LC 492383S) be given a do-pass recommendation; the motion was seconded and the committee carried the bill on a voice vote. The transcript records the committee voice vote but does not include a roll-call tally.

The committee advanced the substitute; supporters hailed the vote as protecting female athletes' opportunities, while opponents warned of legal challenges and harms to transgender and intersex students.