Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Rights Gender Definitions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee adopts substitute defining male/female terms; large public hearing draws strong testimony
Summary
Senate Bill 79, which the sponsor described as a 'What is a Woman? Act' that would codify definitions for terms such as 'male' and 'female,' had a long public hearing with supporters and opponents and the committee adopted a narrowed substitute limited to definitions before advancing the measure.
Senate Bill 79, presented by Senator April Weaver as a statutory codification of sex-based definitions, was narrowed by substitute and adopted by the committee after a lengthy public hearing featuring dozens of speakers on both sides.
Weaver described the substitute as a narrow measure that “only has definitions” for terms including man, woman, male, female, boy, girl, mother and father. She characterized the bill as providing “very definite guidance to the state agencies and other entities.”
The committee heard broad public testimony. Proponents said the substitute merely clarifies statutory language and aids record-keeping and public-health statistics. Stephanie Smith of the Alabama Policy Institute told the committee the bill “simply codifies definitions” and “does not in any way try to deny anyone’s experience.” Becky Garretson of Eagle Forum said consistent definitions aid vital statistics such as cancer rates.
Opponents, including transgender residents and civil-rights and faith leaders, urged the committee to reject the measure or substantially narrow it. Trans speaker Catherine (Cassie) Bartle described threats and harassment she said she has faced when attempting to use men’s facilities during transition and said the bill would harm people like her. Mika Saunders and Jace Fitzwater, both identifying as transgender men, said the definitions would force some transgender men into women’s spaces and increase risk of harassment or violence. Reverend Julie Conradi and others argued the measure would be unwelcoming and asked lawmakers to treat immigrants and strangers with compassion.
Senator Hatcher voiced concerns about marginalizing already-marginalized people and urged careful consideration, noting faith-based objections and historical context. After debate, the committee voted (substitute motion by Senator Karnley, second by Senator Hovey) to adopt the substitute and then advanced the bill.
The committee record shows the substitute was adopted and the bill received a favorable report to move forward; the sponsor and opponents noted the bill’s scope was reduced but disagreement remained about its social consequences.
