Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sex Definitions Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves bill that defines male/female in state law; sparks divided public comment
Summary
House Bill 32, which would codify definitions of male and female across state statutes, passed the committee after extensive public comment both for and against the measure. Supporters said definitions protect privacy and separate sex‑based spaces; opponents raised constitutional and inclusionary concerns, and cited intersex and two‑spirit people.
CHEYENNE — House Bill 32, a bill that would codify legal definitions of male and female and overlay those definitions where the terms appear in state statute, cleared the Agriculture, State & Public Lands & Water Resources Committee after lengthy public comment that split sharply.
Representative Jamie Lean, sponsor, opened the bill and said it “codifies into law what is a man and what is a woman.” Lean told the committee the measure would define terms such as “male,” “female,” “woman,” “girl,” “man,” “boy,” “mother” and “father” to provide a consistent statutory baseline and to assist courts interpreting existing law. "The most important meat of this bill is on page 2 lines, 13 and 19, where it defines male and female," Lean said.
Supporters who testified said the change would protect privacy in restrooms, locker rooms, dormitories and other single‑sex spaces and preserve opportunities and safety for women and girls. Chelsea Collier said she had direct experience that shaped her view: “I really felt that this was a threat to my privacy to have a biological male changing in the women's restroom.” Several speakers representing the Wyoming Republican Party, Wyoming Wool Growers, and Wyoming Farm Bureau voiced support or urged approval.
Opponents argued the bill is overly broad and risks legal and constitutional problems. Sarah Burlingame of Wyoming Equality said the Montana court recently struck down a similar law and warned HB 32 would harm intersex people and others: “By declaring as a matter of law that human beings can only be exactly 1 of 2 sexes, this bill explicitly excludes people like Atwood and Aloyah from the definition of human beings, causing immediate harm traceable to this bill,” she said. Other witnesses — including a representative of the American Atheists and transgender residents who testified — called the bill government overreach and urged more careful legal analysis before changing statutory language that appears across hundreds of statutes.
Committee members heard multiple lived‑experience testimonies on both sides. Rep. Laurie Bratton, a biologist and legislator, said lawmakers need statutory definitions because terms such as man, woman, male and female appear hundreds of times in state law. Supporters said the bill is limited to definitions and linked HB 32 to a separate implementation bill (HB 72) for details.
Committee action: Following public comment, the committee moved and seconded the bill and voted to advance HB 32. Roll call in committee recorded affirmative votes by Senator Ide, Senator McEwen, Senator Pearson and Chairman French; Senator Crago was excused. The committee’s tally recorded four ayes for committee passage.
Ending: With committee approval, HB 32 proceeds to the next stage. The record reflects both strong support from some citizens and organizations who say clear statutory definitions protect women’s privacy and safety, and opposition from civil‑rights and LGBTQ+ advocates who argue the measure would create legal and constitutional risks, particularly for intersex and transgender people.
