House committee advances bill to define 'man' and 'woman' across state code after contested testimony
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
House Bill 11‑84, with amendment 11‑84A, was recommended for a due‑pass after proponents argued the definitions provide legal clarity and opponents warned of sweeping impacts on statutes, agency operations and potential federal conflicts.
The House State Affairs Committee voted to recommend House Bill 11‑84A — a bill that seeks to define terms such as "man," "woman," "male," and "female" throughout state law — be given a due‑pass recommendation to the House floor.
Representative John Hansen, the bill's prime sponsor and Speaker of the House, said the definitions are "grounded in biological reality" and are intended to provide clarity for courts, agencies and citizens. "This legislation simply establishes clear, consistent definitions for terms like man, woman, male, female, definitions grounded in biological reality," Hansen said.
Matt Sharp, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, testified the bill reflects what his organization contends is a legal and scientific consensus and argued that consistent statutory definitions protect fairness and safety.
Opponents including Melissa McCauley (South Dakota for Equity), Ellie Bailey (South Dakota Advocacy Network for Women) and Samantha Chapman (ACLU of South Dakota) told the committee the bill is sweeping in scope. They warned the changes could trigger litigation, create administrative burdens across state agencies and municipalities, and may conflict with federal civil‑rights interpretations that include gender identity.
"When the state codifies narrow definitions into statute...it creates downstream complications in policy implementation, administrative rules, and compliance standards," McCauley said.
After rebuttal from Rep. Hansen, committee members debated constitutional and implementation questions. The committee recorded a roll‑call and approved the bill with a recorded tally (committee announced: 10 ayes, 2 noes, 1 excused). The bill now proceeds to the House floor for further debate.
Committee members asked staff and the sponsor for clarity on specific sections that were amended out and on how the definitions would interact with existing statutes. The transcript shows extended questioning and testimony on the bill's breadth and potential legal consequences.