Assembly committee defeats AB 844, which would have tied school sports and facility access to biological sex

SACRAMENTO — The Assembly Arts, Entertainment, Sports and Tourism Committee voted on April 1, 2025, to defeat Assembly Bill 844, a measure presented as a way to require participation in sex‑segregated school programs and use of facilities be based on pupils’ biological sex. The motion failed on a recorded vote at the committee’s hearing.

Assemblymember Rosselli, who introduced AB 844, told the committee the bill was intended to “protect student privacy and safety, restore competitive integrity in school athletics, and realign California with the overwhelming national consensus that biological males do not belong in girls and women's sports.” Rosselli and other proponents cited Education Code section 221.5 (as amended in 2013) and federal Title IX as central legal touchpoints in the debate.

Several witnesses testified in support. Political commentator Matt Walsh argued from a philosophical standpoint that “men are not women,” and urged lawmakers to protect girls’ spaces. Student athlete Taylor Starling, who identified herself as a varsity captain displaced from a cross‑country varsity spot after a male transfer student became eligible, told the committee she “worked every day during summer with my team” and said taking her varsity spot was unfair.

Opposition witnesses included Dr. Emily Mitchell, who said she chairs the California Community College LGBTQ+ Advisory Committee and urged members to vote no, arguing there is “no credible evidence to suggest that trans students are a threat to their classmates or their teammates” and warning the bill would increase harassment and discrimination. Katie Johnson of Rainbow Families Action said access to facilities aligned with a student’s gender helps that student’s physical and mental well‑being.

Legal and technical questions were discussed on the dais. A witness for the bill testified the Department of Education had opened an investigation into CIF practices and that federal funding (cited in testimony as roughly $8,000,000,000 flowing to K–12 in California) could be at risk if state policy conflicted with Title IX. Equality California’s attorney Alice Kessler told the committee courts have held Title IX protections can extend to transgender students and that California policy has provided protections for more than a decade.

After deliberation and questions from committee members, the committee recorded a roll call. The motion (moved by the vice chair and seconded by Assemblymember Gonzales) resulted in two ayes and six noes with one recorded abstention; the chairwoman announced the roll showed the motion was positioned to fail. The committee held the roll open for absent members but the bill did not advance out of committee that day.

Members’ remarks reflected the polarized nature of the hearing: supporters of the bill framed the measure as a defense of fairness and female athletes’ opportunities; opponents described the bill as discriminatory and harmful to transgender youth and urged alternative approaches, including improved funding for girls’ programs and stronger anti‑harassment enforcement. No amendments were adopted at the hearing.