On January 10th, 2025, the House Judiciary of Montana discussed House Bill 121, a bill sponsored by Representative Kerri Seekins-Crowe, R-Billings. After listening to three hours worth of testimony, the House did not come to a vote.
The Legislation decided to postpone the vote until a second reading was made the next week, as to consider all testimony given during the trial. A wide variety testimonies were given from both supporters and opposers of the bill.
The bill’s goal, as described by sponsor and Representative Kerri Seekins-Crowe, is not to target transgender individuals, but instead protect women in restrooms and dormitories in areas where violence committed against women is common.
In the bill’s text, it identifies two separate goals. The first is to reaffirm the definitions of “male” and “female” within accordance to the law, and the other is to preserve women-only faculty areas, including dressing rooms, public restrooms, and dormitories. It aims to protect these women in areas where violence has traditionally happened.
This bill limits the use of restrooms and other areas strictly to that of the biological sex, and defines the differences between women and men’s restrooms. The use of public facilities, like a bathroom, will be limited to presenting male or female genetics and physical characteristics.
The biological sex “female” is defined in this bill as a member of the human species, who under normal development, has XX chromosomes and produces egg gametes. For the biological sex “male”, it is a member of the human species that, under normal development, has XY chromosomes and produces sperm gametes.
Although brief mentions of genetic and physical differences in biological sexes have been made, the bill states that even in these cases, the person in question must still be identified as either biologically male or female. This is still the case even if their chromosomes or physical sex characteristics are considered androgynous.
The term “androgynous” is used to describe someone who has characteristics that could be considered both male and female. This could be either in appearance through clothing, or physically. An androgynous person could also be a person who identifies as intersexual, who has physical traits that could be considered both “male” and “female”.
While exceptions are listed in the bill for doctors and janitorial staff, as well as emergencies, the bill does not clearly state how they plan to stop people of the opposite sex from entering the “wrong” restroom.
It also states that if someone within a restroom or public facility feels as though this bill has been violated, they can seek action against the company or owner of the facility. This is because all responsibility of enforcing this bill falls onto the companies that provide these areas.
This also begs the question of how someone can prove that they deserve injunctive relief (such as money) for an encounter with the opposite sex. The bill states that the facility must be the one taking the reasonable steps to prohibit members of the opposite sex from entering the other restroom.
Shawn Reagor, a transgender man representing the Montana Gender Alliance, is curious as to how the state plans to enforce this bill without invading the privacy and comfort of individuals.
He asked the legislation, “How is the state expected to know that I should be using the women’s bathroom and require me to do so?”, questioning the legislature on why they would make a fully transitioned adult go to a bathroom where they are uncomfortable, and could make other people uncomfortable as well.
Other than the problem of enforcing the bill, questions have also arisen on whether or not this bill is discriminating against transgender people. The Friendship Center in Helena receives federal funding with the requirement that the funding goes towards anti-discriminatory programs and services.
Kim Patterson said that “All of this funding prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity”. She is worried that adhering to this bill will further cut their funding and would limit the amount of help they can offer the community because they are already under-resourced.
Gov. Kristen Juras testified her support for this bill, again reiterating the stance that it is meant to help women, and is anti-discriminatory. She tied this bill to earlier bills from 2023, like Senate Bill 99, which prohibited transgender youth from receiving gender affirming health care.
Juras also stated that “Acknowledging biological realities should not be complicated or controversial, and neither should this bill,” in response to those saying it was discriminatory. She also said that “Working with the Legislature, the governor’s office has been proud of our shared record of defending Montanans from the far left’s ideological crusade that has swept the nation”.
Through her statement, Juras has implied both that gender identity should have no effect on biological “realities” and that both sexual orientation and gender identity are only a part of the far-left’s “ideological crusade”, which she believes is sweeping our country. She has decidedly ignored the long history of queer identity in her belief that biological “realities” are limited only to defining sex characteristics.
On January 13th, the house again came together to vote on passing the bill. 58 legislators in the Republican majority chamber passed the bill. The bill now requires one more vote to proceed to the senate.
It then proceeded to go to a third reading the next day, on January 14th, which brought the same results. After this third reading, the representatives and sponsors of the bill, as well as the opposers, are now preparing to head to Montana’s Senate.
Many people both online and in person have openly discouraged the enactment of this bill. The only transgender legislative member, Zooey Zephyr, expressed her opinion as both a house representative and transgender person.
She explained to her fellow House members that this law does not help cis-gender women, but rather harms trans people. “To me, trans people walk through the state of Montana afraid enough already. And we want to be able to live our lives in peace,” she said to the committee.
The bill now faces the Senate’s vote. Many are hopeful for a different outcome, but it is still up in the air at the moment on what will happen. Many believe that because of the Republican majority in our houses, it is unlikely that the vote will change. Whether or not the bill will be enacted, is now in the hands of Montana’s Senate.
