Committee advances bill to protect female-only sports by carving out MHRA exemption for athletics

The House Judiciary and Civil Law Committee voted 7-6 on March 6 to recommend passage of House File 12-33 (HF 12-33), sending the bill to the general register after adopting an A1 amendment earlier in the hearing.

HF 12-33 would carve out an exemption for women’s athletics from the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), explicitly allowing athletic organizations to set female-only teams based on biological sex, supporters said. Backers told the committee the change is meant to align state practice with Title IX and to preserve opportunities and safety for female athletes.

The bill’s supporters said Minnesota faces conflicting interpretations of state and federal law and that the committee should provide a statutory “safe harbor” enabling schools and private sports organizations to adopt women’s categories without risking enforcement actions under the MHRA. “At a bare minimum, this committee should ensure that no female athletic team or league will be subjected to unjustly lawsuits, penalties, investigations, or fines under Minnesota law simply for protecting women and girls athletic opportunities consistent with federal law,” said Renee Carlson, general counsel for True North Legal and the Minnesota Family Council.

Several educators and coaches who testified for the bill described firsthand concerns about competitive fairness and safety. Amanda Sharpin, a high school dean of students and longtime coach, said she has seen female students lose confidence and stop playing after competing against biological males and described safety and privacy worries in locker rooms. “I’ve seen my young women get severely injured because of that sheer strength and athletic ability of a biological male on the other side,” Sharpin said.

Physician testimony also supported the bill’s premise. Dr. Jill Simons, a board-certified pediatrician representing the American College of Pediatricians, told the committee that, in her view, biological sex produces durable physical differences that matter for athletic competition and safety.

Opponents said the bill would undermine Minnesota’s civil-rights protections and harm transgender, nonbinary and intersex students. Emma Watts, executive director of the Council on LGBTQIA2S+ Minnesotans, said the scientific literature does not support the claim of universal competitive advantage and that exclusionary policies can harm all girls. “Policy should be driven by facts, not fear. And the fact is, inclusion has never been the real threat to women’s sports,” Watts said.

Iman Hassan, advocacy director at Gender Justice, argued HF 12-33 “creates a dangerous and illegal carve out, undermines the intent of the act, and creates costly legal liabilities due to future litigation.” Commissioner Lucero of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights told the committee the department opposes creating statutory exemptions that permit discrimination and warned that any implementation regime would raise difficult questions and likely affect all girls, not only transgender students.

Committee members debated several legal and practical questions, including how organizations would verify biological sex, how intersex and nonbinary people would be treated, and whether a carve-out would chill participation by girls subject to scrutiny. Representative Sam Curran said the bill “explicitly carves out a group of people from public life,” and asked how nonbinary and intersex athletes would be assigned to teams; representatives supporting the bill said team placement would follow biological sex.

During closing remarks, Representative Niska argued HF 12-33 is needed to preserve girls’ and women’s sports if courts or agency opinions make biological categories legally vulnerable. “If there are going to be legal women’s and girls sports in Minnesota, House File 12-33 is the way to do it,” Niska said.

On the procedural action, the committee adopted the A1 amendment by voice vote earlier in the hearing and then approved a motion to recommend passage and place HF 12-33 on the general register on a roll call, 7 ayes to 6 nays. The committee did not record a named mover for the final recommendation in the transcript.

The bill now moves to the general register; no floor action date was set in the committee record.