Committee backs SB 268 on 'biological sex' classifications after heated debate over definitions and safety
November 13, 2025 | Judiciary, House of Representatives, Committees , Legislative, New Hampshire
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Representative Perez framed the bill as protecting women and children, referencing sporting-policy shifts and a recent local injury: "Are we going to wait until we have a biological female killed on the volleyball court?" he asked, urging passage for safety. Representative Turf and others countered that the bill contains no definition of "biological sex," leaving institutions and individuals to make ad-hoc determinations that could invade privacy and create inconsistent rulings.
Representative Orkin and others noted the scientific and social complexity behind chromosome-based definitions and urged letting sporting bodies and organizations set competition rules rather than passing a broad statutory exception. Multiple public commenters were referenced by members as expressing strong concerns about the bill's effect on transgender residents' safety and well-being.
The committee completed roll-call voting; the transcript reports a final result in the hearing recorded as "10 yays, 7 nays." Representative Perez was asked to write the majority report; Representative Turf agreed to prepare the minority report.
What happens next: SB 268 will be reported to the House calendar with the committee's recommendation; committee debate highlighted likely litigation risks and the need for precise statutory definitions if the measure advances.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meetingSponsors
Proudly supported by sponsors who keep New Hampshire articles free in 2025
