Committee approves bill restricting participation of males in female sports, creating private-right pathway and complaint process

The Education Committee voted to pass Senate Bill 1 (LC492383S), identified in the substitute as the Riley Gaines Act of 2025, which would limit participation in female-designated athletic competitions to persons the bill defines as female based on observation or clinical verification at birth. The bill passed the committee after sponsor remarks, floor debate and an extended public-comment period featuring both pro- and anti-positions.

Senator Greg Dolezal, the bill sponsor, said the measure "creates a boundary around female sport to prevent the inclusion of male advantage in female sport," and described the bill as focused on athletic competition while noting it adopts house language on certain caveats for trainers, coaches and facilities. The substitute includes a complaint process that uses existing school procedures for K–12 complaints, an appeal process with deadlines for school-level adjudication, and a private right of action with a two-year statute of limitations for aggrieved parties. The bill treats institutions of higher education separately for complaint procedures.

Public testimony included in-person advocates and opponents. Matt Sharp of Alliance Defending Freedom testified in support, arguing the bill protects equal opportunities for women and citing physiological performance differences. Sharp said the bill "sets an eligibility rule that males are not eligible to compete in women's sports in line with other eligibility rules that we have in sports."

Testimony in opposition described harms to transgender, intersex and cisgender female athletes. Evalina (Evelina) Pierce, an athlete who said she has played with transgender teammates, told the committee that she had played "with or against trans women and had no idea that they were trans until much later," and warned the bill would stigmatize and exclude a small number of students. Soju Hokkari, a trans athlete and student at Emory University, questioned the bill's biometric definitions and warned the committee the medical and scientific bases cited by sponsors are outdated.

Other speakers raised legal and operational concerns: Carrie Scott, an attorney, said the bill's language is overly broad in places (for example restrooms and locker-room rules) and noted the bill permits males to practice with female teams in some circumstances, which she said undermines safety claims. Brooke Mills and other advocates highlighted intersex populations and case-law considerations and urged against definitions tied strictly to observable markers at birth.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about private schools, the use of medical records in lieu of birth certificates, exceptions when a corresponding girls' team does not exist, and locker-room access for coaches and trainers. The sponsor said the K–12 hook for private institutions is tied to participation in state-sanctioned athletic competition or receipt of state funds and that the bill's school complaint process is intentionally aligned with existing administrative procedures.

A motion to give the bill a "do pass" recommendation was made, seconded and approved by voice vote. The sponsor and Representative Josh Bonner (who spoke in committee as the House author) were identified as the legislative leads; Representative Bonner was named as the House "wingman" who will carry the measure.