Minn. House Education Committee Hears Hours of Testimony on House File 12; Members Question Privacy, Enforcement

ST. PAUL, Minn. — The Minnesota House Education Policy Committee spent much of its Feb. 19, 2025 meeting taking public and expert testimony on House File 12, a bill offered by Representative Scott that would define female-only school athletic teams by biological sex and add procedures for resolving disputes about a student’s sex.

The proposal, presented by Representative Scott and placed on the general register after a procedural vote adopting a DE10 amendment, drew back-to-back hours of testimony from medical experts, coaches, parents, students and civil-rights advocates. Supporters told the committee the measure is needed to protect female athletic opportunities and safety; opponents said it would single out transgender students, risk unnecessary medical examinations and invite harassment.

House File 12 would amend the state’s Chapter 121A on athletic programs and discrimination to prioritize teams restricted to “females” as biologically defined. Representative Scott framed the bill as restoring the chapter’s purpose to ensure “equal opportunity for members of each sex,” arguing that separate girls’ teams are necessary because “males have the physical advantage over girls” and that girls deserve protected spaces in athletics.

Proponents included Renee Carlson, general counsel for True North Legal, who told the committee, “House file 12 is a necessary step forward in reaffirming and strengthening the protections female athletes should enjoy under state and federal law.” Several physicians testifying in favor — including Dr. John Odom and Dr. Jill Simons — said biological differences leave girls at a competitive and safety disadvantage when competing against males. Dr. Quentin Vanmeter, a pediatric endocrinologist testifying remotely, said in part, “A male can’t become a female under any circumstances ever,” and warned the committee that permitting males to compete on female teams would create safety risks.

Opponents included transgender athletes, civil-rights lawyers, educators and the Minnesota Department of Education. Erin Meltzer, who identified as a trans athlete, said, “Trans girls deserve to compete where they feel comfortable.” Jess Braverman, legal director of Gender Justice, said enforcement of the bill would “invite unwanted and unnecessary medical testing” and argued the measure would not expand girls’ participation in sports. Ado Shuni, Director of Government Relations for the Minnesota Department of Education, told the committee the department supports “safe and supportive learning environments” for all students and said, “This proposal does not do that.”

Several testifiers and committee members raised practical and legal questions about how the bill would be implemented. Representative Hill asked, “How can you ensure that this data won’t lead to harm of a student athlete?” and pressed for specifics about who would collect and store medical or genetic information. Representative Green and others asked how the measure would apply to elementary-level programs or sports not governed by the Minnesota State High School League (MSHSL), noting the bill’s language refers to elementary and secondary schools yet also references the MSHSL.

Medical witnesses offered differing technical details in testimony. Dr. Vanmeter and other physicians cited rare intersex conditions and debated prevalence figures presented at the hearing (one speaker cited an incidence of about 1 in 24,500 for a specific condition; another reference to “2 in 10,000” also appeared in testimony; one member mentioned a Harvard report placing certain intersex variations at 1–2 percent). Proponents emphasized statutory distinctions and a recent federal court decision (Tennessee v. Cardona) cited by speakers, while opponents warned the bill could trigger federal civil-rights challenges and cited Title IX and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

The committee conducted two formal, non-substantive actions at the start of the meeting: approval of the Feb. 18, 2025 minutes on a voice vote (moved by Vice Chair Mueller) and adoption of the DE10 amendment to House File 12 (a courtesy vote; motion made by the chair). No final committee vote on House File 12 was taken during the session; the committee recessed to caucus and planned to resume member discussion.

Members on both sides of the debate said they want to protect students but differed sharply on the best approach. Supporters framed the bill as preserving girls’ competitive opportunities and safety; opponents described the measure as legally vulnerable, likely to prompt invasive examinations or genetic testing in contested cases, and as a policy that would authorize third parties to challenge students’ eligibility. Several testifiers and legislators urged the committee to consider the bill’s privacy protections, the burden on families and schools, and the potential for harassment if disputes over a student’s sex were publicly aired.

The committee did not set a final hearing or vote date during the session. Representative Jordan’s DE6 amendment was noted but not moved at this meeting. Committee members said they expected to reconvene after caucus for further member discussion.