Idaho Legislature moves forward with banning transgender females from sports in public schools

Following hours of testimony and debate, one controversial transgender-related bill passed the House — despite an analysis finding it likely to be unconstitutional — while another met an early defeat Wednesday in Idaho’s Republican-dominated Legislature.

The House overwhelmingly passed a bill banning transgender females from competing in girls and women’s sports, while a bill banning gender assignment medical treatment was held by a committee chairman, effectively killing it.

Transgender women in sports

Despite a report from the Idaho Attorney General’s Office finding the legislation “constitutionally problematic,” the House voted 52-17 to pass a bill banning transgender women from participating in sports that align with their gender identity.

The legislation would apply to all sports teams sponsored by public schools, colleges and universities. A girls or women’s team would not be open to students who were born as male, even if they identify as female. The bill does not apply to transgender students wanting to participate in men’s sports.

Dubbed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, House Bill 500 is sponsored by Rep. Barbara Ehardt, R-Idaho Falls, and Sen. Mary Souza, R-Coeur d’Alene.

“This is about preserving opportunities for girls and women,” an impassioned Ehardt claimed during the House’s hourlong debate on the bill.

“Letting boys and men compete against girls and women” would give them an unfair advantage, take away opportunities and “shatters our dreams,” Ehardt said.

During her equally impassioned 10-minute argument against the bill, Rep. Muffy Davis, D-Ketchum, a seven-time Paralympian in two sports who serves on numerous national and international sports boards and foundations, said, “I can guarantee you there is no one here in this room who is more passionate about and committed to protecting women’s sports than I am.”

Davis said the bill will not protect women’s sports. “In fact, it could potentially harm many female athletes who might be forced to prove they are in fact biologically female, not to mention the offenses and restrictions it places on female trans athletes,” she said.

Davis continued, “With all the challenges that trans athletes and trans people and trans students face — increased bullying, depression, increased number of suicide attempts — this restrictive bill is not the answer to protecting women’s sports.”

In support of the bill, Nampa GOP Rep. Brent Crane said, “Is it fair that a biological male should be allowed to compete against a biological female for a place on the team or a spot on the podium, and I don’t believe it is.”

In addition to all 14 House Democrats, three House Republicans voted against the bill: Reps. Greg Chaney, Caldwell; Caroline Nilsson Troy, Genesee; and Bill Goesling, Moscow.

The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.

An AG office analysis of HB 500 released on Feb. 25 found that among the bill’s flaws are possible violations of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, privacy violations in determining how a student’s sex would be established, and commerce clause violations because it could conflict with NCAA and other national sports organization rules.

“Courts have found that governmental actions distinguishing between transgender and nontransgender individuals is a type of sex-based discrimination,” wrote Brian Kane, assistant chief deputy attorney.

Gender identity treatment bill killed by chairman

Following several hours of emotional testimony by medical professionals, transgender people and parents of transgender children on Tuesday evening, Chaney — the House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee chairman — announced Wednesday morning that he would hold in committee a bill banning therapy and medical treatment for transgender children.

Chaney said in the release that Tuesday’s testimony “showed the very real struggle faced by those with gender dysphoria, their families and their providers. While I strongly disagree with their conclusions and course of conduct, the parents and providers of those with gender dysphoria are very intently attempting to do what is best as they see it.”

Chaney included in his media announcement a five-page letter that he sent to the House Bill 465’s sponsor, Rep. Christy Zito, R-Hammett, explaining his decision.

“Many fear that denying access to these procedures will increase the risk of suicide among those suffering from gender dysphoria. However, there is credible evidence that sex change operations increase the likelihood of suicide,” Chaney wrote to Zito.

After citing some studies about suicide rates among transgender people, Chaney closed the letter by saying, “It is with the sincerest empathy for those with gender dysphoria that I oppose the practice of administering sex-change treatment to minors. I agree with you on the need to eschew the practice in Idaho.”

Chaney then listed the reasons he will hold the bill in committee, rather than moving it forward.

“Despite my strong opposition to permitting sex change treatment for children I nevertheless feel that H465 should not advance this year,” Chaney wrote to Zito. “My discomfort with the bill arises from three areas: 1) the severity of the potential sentences, 2) its potential to interfere with the enforcement of the relatively new law on female genital mutilation, and 3) the unsettled state of the law around state action on issues relating to gender dysphoria.”

A third transgender-related bill, HB 509, which would make it illegal to change gender identity on a birth certificate, is slated to be heard by the House later Wednesday or on Thursday. This bill has been brought despite the fact that a federal judge ruled in 2018 that an Idaho Department of Health and Welfare policy against changing a person’s gender marker on their birth certificate was unconstitutional.

This story was originally published February 26, 2020 at 1:53 PM.