H.B. 183 Sex Designation Amendments: transcript

Second substitute is the one I'll be speaking to. Alright, Excellent. If everyone wants to take a look at that, you'll see that there's, um, a lot of changes. And so, um, Utah House Bill 180 3 Sub two brings needed clarity and consistency to Utah law by replacing references to gender with sex and Alliance statutory definitions with biological sex. Currently, Utah Code does not contain a single universally applicable, applicable definition of gender, which can create ambiguity. And, um, we've, we've even had the Supreme Court say that we have no definition of gender. And so, by focusing on sex and standardizing the terminology throughout the state law and administrative rules, it promotes uniform interpretation and administrative efficiency. We have made a few, um, moves over the last couple of years in, in certain areas of code to make sure that we are talking about sex and, and biological sex. And this would just make sure that we are being consistent across all of our statute and administrative rules so that there is, um, no misunderstanding and, uh, would also reduce confusion for agencies, courts. And, um, importantly, I also want to make sure that I, I make it clear that this legislation does not, um, alter the Utah com compact, which remains a separate guiding framework. And, um, I have with me a guest today, and I'll let him introduce himself and, and help present.

Thank you Madam Chairwoman and, uh, community members. My name is David Becker. Um, I'm a board certified pediatrician. I trained at Primary Children's, uh, a while ago. I became compelled to read about and research the, uh, medicalization agenda theory after a mother came to me with her daughter, who was sad and confused, thinking that she was a boy. That story had a happy ending. But after that experience, I could never look away. Uh, I'll get right to my point. And I have a very short presentation. This bill is necessary and appropriate legislation for two reasons. First, at the various times that the legislature put the word gender into the code, every legislator understood that gender was being used as a synonym for biological sex and nothing more. Number two, the this bill will eliminate any further argument or confusion. That use of the word gender might also mean gender identity. It does not. The idea of a gender identity distinct from biological sex is not a discovery of science, but a theoretical conjecture of gender theory, which escaped the faculty lounges of academia and went into all of culture and only given legitimacy through years of sustained political activism. So what happened? So in the mid 1960s, gender theory, which had existed in Europe in embryonic form, was brought to the forefront by John D. Money, a psychologist at Johns Hopkins. He went on TV talk shows to explain his belief that a person has a mental idea. He called it a gender that is not always consistent or concordant with his biological sex. A Canadian couple, the rums were watching tv, TV one day. They were parents of eight month old identical twins. One, uh, boys, which, uh, one of whom was named David. And who lost his penis in a tragic circumcision accident, thinking that perhaps lacking the penis, he could be raised as a girl. Uh, as Dr. Money was suggesting, they contacted him and he brought them to his Baltimore office and embarked on an experiment of raising David as a female. Surgeons there, created a pseudo vagina, which needed frequent dilatation. Money, would always examine the boys with the parents out of the room. David, unlike his twin brother, was already becoming very despondent and introverted by age five point of order, starting at age six, money four six of,

Excuse me, sir. Point of order.

I'm, I'm concerned that, that this is not germane to the, the bill, and I'm just asking if we could maybe keep it germane.

Okay. I think I'm gonna get there.

Well, the two boys were the, uh, first victims of gender ideology. Um, so a gender apart from biological sex is an unproven metaphysical supposition. No supporting evidence has emerged, and no geneticist, reputable neuroscientist or neuroradiologist supports the existence of a transgender brain, and hence, an inc incongruent mental identity. Because of this, it is not rational or acceptable to include the word gender in the Utah Code, except wherein the legislature intends it only to mean biological sex. And any use of the word gender, other than as a synonym for biological sex isn't affront to biological reality, a rejection of science itself, and an unsound public policy. So this bill would, uh, is the opportunity to bring back rational, timeless language when describing a person's sex and sexual identity. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Yeah. Um, I think with, um, especially with legal terms, we need to make sure that we are, um, precise in our speech. And I think that this just clarifies and ensures the consistency across all state statutes and definitions. So with that, I'll open myself to questions. Okay.

Thank you. I have a couple of questions, if that's all right. Mr. Vice chair for certain, does this bill, um, in any way, shape or form change anything related to housing for transgender individuals?

No, it doesn't. Thank you.

And are there any changes to anything medical related to transgender individuals?

No. This just clarifies with, um, changing sex and, and gender, which are, um, shown in different places in our code already.

Thank you. So just, just to be very, very clear, the only changes this bill that the sub that you're speaking to makes is changing the word gender to the word sex across the statute.

That's right. Except for in the discrimination portions.

That's right. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, is this the second substitute that's been adopted?

It's not been adopted yet, but I'm speaking to the second substitute.

And that's what you intend to run today? Yes. Um, and, and to clarify, this second substitute is different than how this bill was presented last night. When I was looking at this bill last night, there was a provision that said that in child custody matters, a judge had to, uh, uh, give certain preference if a parent refused to recognize gender identity, all that stuff that is now removed with the, with the substitute that you are running.

That's correct. Okay. That's not in this bill. That's Correct. Okay. Just wanted to clarify. I think we, we visited that last year and already voted on how we want that to be addressed. And yes, this is just changing across our statute, gender and sex. That's all that is in the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was concerned about that and I appreciate that. Thank you.

Good afternoon chairperson and members of the board. My name is David Torrey. My pronouns are they, them and theirs. I'm a Salt Lake City resident, and I speak in opposition of this bill. I'm a non-binary transgender person who has lived in Utah for over a decade. I work here, I volunteer here. I serve in my community. This is my home. I'm currently under medical supervision for gender affirming care. I'm on prescribed hormone therapy. I've undergone and have additional therapy scheduled this year. As part of that care, I have followed every requirement placed in front of me. I'm also in the process of correcting the sex destination of my birth certificate so that it reflects who I am. House Bill 180 3 is a discriminatory. Is discriminatory because it targets people like me and suggests that no matter what medical care we receive, no matter what steps we take, our lives can still be dis disregarded by the state. It signals out transgender people and places, barriers in us that no one else faces. I'm not asking for special treatment. I'm asking for the City of Utah to acknowledge my life, my healthcare, and my identity, just like everyone else's. Please vote no on HB 180 3. Policies like this do not make Utah safer or stronger. They make people like me more vulnerable. I'm standing here in good faith doing everything responsible, simply trying to live. Honestly, I can't ask that. You see, I ask that you see me as a constituent, as a neighbor, and as a human being. Thank you for your time.

I'm still Delaine England. Um, Utah Code should be clear and it should reflect truth, not emotions or feelings or belief systems. The bill restores our Utah code language in clear and articulate language, and I think it's a great bill and I support it. Thank you very much.

I'll make sure I sign it. All good. Awesome. Howdy, y'all. My name is Zeke Kack. Um, Representative Mauga, you are my representative. Thank you for being here today. I represent myself and I'm the trans community as a trans member and a constituent. I have a few specific critiques on this bill. I do understand that substitution, uh, removed a lot of the broad sweeping changes that removed a lot of our gender identity rights. However, on line 362, it keeps an instance of changing gender to sex, as we discussed in, uh, the changes relating to discrimination. This removes our gender identity as part of those cases. I am a gender non-conforming person that works in blue collar. I'm already in a situation daily where I'm at great risk, and I really need these protections in order for me to have a safer future. I also wanna speak online, 2,325, which switches gender transition to attempted sex change. Um, in regards to section five eight dash six seven dash 1 0 2. This is an, an unnecessarily inaccurate way to describe the trans experience. A large portion of our community doesn't attempt a sex change, but does transition another other ways surgically. And it feels strange to consider somebody's change of their genitals to determine if legislation applies to them. Um, in general, this feels like scattershot. It affects many portions of bills that aren't being critic critically considered, including forensics housing, um, DNA analysis, civil service amendments. So, um, I'm concerned that it opens up to legislation and lawsuit against it, and any lawsuits we would have to pay as tax payers. Anyway, I urge Juab vote. No, thank you for listening to me.

Maryanne Christensen, executive Director of Utah Legislative Watch. I'm here to speak in favor of the legislation. Years ago I took, I, I took several law classes, but one of them just starting in business law. I learned about how to do an affidavit statement of fact. And, um, how to be very careful that everything in that statement of fact was actual fact. When I got up to the hill and I started volunteering my time to work with legislation, I was pretty dismayed by a particular bill that was trying to allow us to change our birth certificates with any kind of information that we wanted to put on it. And my reaction to the sponsor was, but you don't understand a birth certificate is a statement of fact. And he said, you don't understand, Maryanne, we've been doing this for years already. We're just putting it into code now. So, um, I think it's a very prudent thing to do, to have our, our statute reflect the facts. And, um, so I, I support the bill whole wholeheartedly. I hope that you will also Thank you.

Hello, my name is Anthony Tenney. Uh, I'm here on behalf of the law firm of Skolnik Thorn Holland. We are a labor and employment law firm, and we litigate, uh, discrimination cases. And back in 2020, uh, uh, justice Gorsuch, uh, authored Bostock v Clayton County. This is a decision that declared that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, uh, makes discrimination based on or because of sex, includes discrimination and employment practices based on gender identity or sexual orientation. Changing the definitions legally here does not change the way that sex also can include gender and identity and sexual orientation. Under the current landscape of the law, having a different definition is very possibly only going to cause further confusion in the Utah code. And so I urge you to vote no on this bill. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Moore Smith. Um, I'm representing myself. I'm from West Jordan, Utah. Um, and I oppose this bill. Um, to cut it very short, I want to speak to some specific sections that are in sub two. Um, mainly getting rid of the requirements for training about gender identity and sexual orientation and human services. I feel like it's very important to help build understanding. And I know for me, for those who are not familiar, it gives the language to help build understanding. And I have had many good experiences through that. Thank you.

You. Thank you. Uh, chair chairwoman and Committee Metaverse. My name is Rose Hart from Smithfield. I'm here to represent myself. Um, I feel as though this bill will disproportionately put the trans community at risk. Um, just because it's the, the wordage of everything makes it so that you can be discriminated against in multiple different aspects. Um, I fear any police stops that I may end up running into, um, even just for the, the smallest of things, a tail light out. Um, but also when it comes to religion, I feel as though this will create a, an area of opportunity for people to hurt people of religious beliefs. Just because how do you determine whether or not somebody is religious right? There's, there's no way to determine that. Just like, you know, there's no way to determine reli, uh, gender. And so it's, it's kind of hard for you to, to completely take out that protection for one, one side of society and not the rest of the society.

Hello, my name is Brynn Mike. So I'm a 54-year-old trans woman, and I don't wanna be here. And having only 30 seconds to try to defend my humanity is difficult. But I want to, I wanna say really quick that I would love to have a discussion about trans people and who we really are and that we're not a danger and we're not a threat to anyone with any of you. And I think that your email addresses are on there. I may send, I'll try to send you a quick email and just say, this is how you contact me and I'll leave you alone after that. But there's two people, I won't name them 'cause I don't want to put anybody on the spot, but there's two people in here that I think could vouch that I can sit down with people and have a calm, collected, reasonable conversation. But this is my community and we are not a threat to you. We just wanna try to live our lives. I felt like a foreigner in my own body for most of my life. And yeah, I'm, I'm really, really stressed right now. But for the first time in my life, all over the last number of years, I feel at peace. And I feel like when I look in the mirror, I see I, you know, I don't see myself as attractive. I'm unattractive, whatever, but I see somebody who looks like me. And I think that self-expression, how you appear to people is a form of communication. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Astrid Ky. I would like to thank the chair in the committee for giving me this opportunity to speak. I initially was not planning to come up here and speak, but seeing the vast amount of support in this room, um, against this bill inspired me to come up here. I am a member of the transgender community. I live in Logan. And urge you to vote no on this bill because it silences the voices of transgender people and would remove a lot of the protections that the government has a duty to offer to us. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Hayden Quero. I am a member of the trans community and I am here, um, against this bill as this is an attempt to further demonize and separate the trans community. It is not a clarification in law. It is an attempt to be able to erase our identity from history and from legal precedent leading to loosening of protections that we have legally, as well as completely denying the existence of a group of people whose science has supported existing for many, many years. Whoever was speaking before, whoever said they were a physician, should have their license taken away. That is not a scientific statement. And nothing that you said was scientific

Point of order. Representative

Thank you. My name is Kylie. I'm from Orem, Utah, and I'm just representing myself today. I do have major concerns about the fact that, um, I've heard, I heard the word clarity and, um, minimizing confusion, um, throughout the, uh, sponsor's presentation here. Um, I would like to clarify that there's, there was no examples of anywhere in the law that, um, no real sighted examples of where this, um, lack of clarity has actually impacted, um, the ability of our judicial branch to do its job. And I would also add that, uh, if we want to clarify things further, um, we want to found, uh, those decisions in science, um, which would include, um, the fact that intersex people exist. And, um, if we do wanna talk about gender and sex being the same, um, there is no acknowledgement of, uh, of a community who is, uh, is real. And I would just like to add that that's no part of this, uh, bill. So I, I don't think it actually does, um, create more clarity, um, does drive more confusion. Thank

Thank you, committee. My name is April Gardner. This bill has again been presented as refu reus, removing ambiguity and confusion, um, as if this is simply done in without any context, but we live in an abundance of context. We can look at where this bill came from, what's been removed from it, and also other legislation on, on the hill this year, removing access for trans people. Um, one of the things that I find most alarming is that Utah's one of those few states that allows for intersex and non-binary people to have their legal documentation reflect x on their legal documentation. If we are requiring agencies to only treat sex as defined, does that mean we are no longer allowing our non-binary and intersex individuals to correctly identify themselves in their legal documentation?

Hi, I am Riley Beasley, Utah constituent. Uh, I'm not here to talk about how your understanding of biology and social constructs is three or four decades behind the times. I'm not here to argue about your incorrect views about what sex and gender actually are. I am here to shame you about your inhumanity. Your, uh, in 2022 paper titled Suicidality among Transgender Youth. It was reported 86% of youth, trans youth reported suicidal thoughts. 56% admitted to the past suicidal attempt. Your bill. Thank you. Which would give pre preferential, uh, sorry. Your bill will cause the three major contributors of the suicide attempts being school belonging, emotional neglect by family, and internalized self-stigma. Thank you. This bill will Increase suicide. Thank you. I, I apologize. We have, and that blood Is on your hands. One minute.

Hello. Hi. So I'm Kale Crosby. I'm coming to you as a member, as a constituent who is not transgender, uh, but who is gender nonconforming. And I can speak on the fact that, um, wow, I am surrounded by trans people. Nobody has ever once in my life pressured me to transition. And this book could potentially create, um, a situation that is dangerous for me, even if somebody who's not a transgender person. Because if I'm attacked for gender expression, which is different than biological sex, um, it could create a situation in which I can't seek legal repercussions for people who are engaging in a hate crime against me. And that makes me afraid as aan. So thank you so much.

Hello, my name is David Bell, cisgender man from West Jordan. Um, while this bill claims to simply clarify Utah Statute the Sad Truth, it is a blatant attack on transgender Utahans. Multiple studies, including one commissioned by this very legislature, have shown that the best way to support and love and ma increase the mental wellbeing and health of our transgender peers is to support and love them and affirm them. This bill does the opposite. This bill will lead to further attacks and dis disenfranchisement of transgender individuals, some of the most vulnerable people who live in this state. Approval of this bill will drive Utah tons of self-harm and suicide approval of this bill is immoral and evil. And I urge each of you to vote against this bill and sending it to the house floor. Thank you.

Thank you. I move to adopt sub two

I think the sponsor spoke to this motion. This, uh, removes the part about custody evaluation or custody decisions and what the court considers.

I wanna make a motion to amend. Um, do I call myself an order or

Thank you. A motion to adopt amendment one in my name. I'll speak to it briefly. This is online, uh, 360 2. 360 2. This is what one of our, uh, uh, folks who came up and spoke in public comment highlighted. So I would be changing that back. Eliminating, uh, that change.

Leave it to the will of the committee. Alright.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would move that we favorably recommend second substitute house bill, 180 3

Yeah. Um, I, and I have sat down with several individuals that are here in the audience today. And, and I can tell you that they are wonderful people who are trying to live their lives. And I can understand how this seems like an attack. Um, I think the sponsor has done good work with the second substitute with working with Representative Abbott. I appreciate those changes, but one thing I do think we need to have is consistency throughout our code. Um, there are areas in code where we're talking about DNA and criminal things, and those obviously are going to be based off of a biological sex. We can't assume your gender from those sorts of things. And, and it doesn't make sense to me to, to pick and choose and piece those different pieces together. Um, and with this amendment, we have, I believe, kept gender in all of the anti-discrimination portions of the code to help protect against discrimination based on identity. But we also have to keep consistency through all of our laws outside of that. Um, where that can be more fluid. The rest of the statute is not fluid. Um, and that'll conclude my remarks. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Bryn, it's great to see you. Um, Bryn and I have sat down and had, um, uh, a great conversation in the past. Um, I wanna share a few thoughts, uh, today that, um, um, that I can tell you there's been a lot of thought and consideration and painstaking work that's gone into, um, today's bill getting to sub two. Um, and, and I have a couple prepared remarks that, that I wanna to share, um, that I think are, are, are really important, um, and that I like to drive home. But because sex and gender, um, can carry distinct biological, social and legal meanings, clearly defining them in state statute promotes precision and drafting and consistency in enforcement. Absent explicit definitions, agencies and courts may interpret the terms differently leading to inconsistent application of the law, avoidable litigation and uncertainty for regulated entities and residents alike providing clear statutory language. And I want to emphasize this next part. Um, most providing clear statutory language ensures that legislative intent is faithfully implemented and that legal obligations and protections are applied predictably and uniformly across the state. And while I, I appreciate the passion with which everyone is here, um, I just can't convey enough with how much thought and care and consideration, um, that, that my colleagues on this committee have put in, um, to, um, uh, to making sure that the language is right and proper and that all, uh, protections against discrimination for gender identity, um, are still protected and preserved. Those are my comments.

Thank you. I'll be very, very short, uh, because, uh, we're very late for a vote and they're holding a gavel. They need us on the floor right now. What I want to do is recognize and thank everyone who came here to advocate for trans rights. I wish we had more time to listen to you. I'm sorry you got cut off. Uh, your advocacy means something. Uh, when you advocate for trans rights, you're advocating for civil rights. Equal protection under the law is not a luxury for some, it is a birthright for all of us. I just wanna thank you and just know that you have people up here who support you, who are listening to you and are doing everything that we can for you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I, I too wanna note it. It has been interesting to watch and I'll be super brief as well, but appreciate that Representative Clancy was so responsive to that comment of the, the portion in the code that was missed and, and create an amendment on the spot to be responsive to that. So thankful for this committee's work on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, I also just wanna thank everyone who showed up. Uh, you know, it takes a lot to a lot of courage to come and be vulnerable. I appreciate everything you share today. Um, and I also wanna say to the Bill sponsor, I appreciate the improvements in this substitute. It's remarkably better than where it started under Ripley. Um, but my job is to look at how this affects all people. And, and so when I'm looking at this, I'm thinking about our entire state. I'm thinking about my district and I'm thinking about my trans brother-in-law who lives with me. I still have a lot of concerns in this bill. I think it opens us up to a lot of, um, negative things. And so with that, I'll be a no. And I encourage my, my colleagues to also vote no on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you chair and committee. A few of you on this committee, a couple anyway that I've don't know, haven't met and some I've talked to a number of times. So, uh, if you're ready for me, I guess I should have asked that. Yes, the time's yours. Thanks. And we can go very quickly here. Um, maybe some of you have watched this bill. It's much, much, much, much, many, more, much is different now than it was. Um, I know there were some things that were a bit divisive, uh, to start. Um, this is, uh, directly from the, uh, the drafting attorney. I said, could you just gimme a couple little things about this bill? And I didn't start the bill either. So, uh, he says this version of the bill only changes the word gender to sex. The legislator defined the work, the word sex for the entire code in section 68, 3, 12 0.5. And then he said historically the word gender and sex were used interchangeably. However, today they have distinct meanings as we know. Uh, they have changed. So because, uh, to make it easy in code, um, the, they'll change any time we use the word gender to sex, except in any situation where, uh, there's meaning like the Utah Compact and some of these things, it won't affect anything like that. This is a very simple, simple, but not simple, but it's, uh, we do have definitions of that, of sex. And as you know, the the term gender, which we used to maybe use interchangeably, we don't anymore. Um, we now have gender, gender identity and those things. And we don't have firm definitions where we do have a definition of sex. And that is, uh, that is the bill. Now, there is nothing, uh, I'll say nefarious or, or any, uh, any other ways regarding the bill. And that's my presentation.

Yeah, I had a qu a question as I was reading the bill, I was going why that was the first question came up as why it's like, could you help me understand why that we would wanna do that? And then also a follow up question, is this throughout the whole code or is under my understanding at leaves some a section, at least one section out? So I just was curious.

There are a couple of sections that, um, that involve say some agreements that have been made, uh, such as the Utah Compact and other things like that. And I apologize. I um, I inherited this bill just a couple of days ago, but, um, yeah, in, in the, the, uh, sections of code where it's used just in, in regular, I don't even know if regular is the right word, um, uh, anywhere where it's not specific to the, the meaning of the bill, again regarding the Utah Compact and others. So yeah, it just creates, uh, um, some unity across the code with a word that we have defined. And that's probably not a great definition. We may need to phone a friend, uh, the drafting attorney for a little more detail.

Yeah, I, I guess the follow up question is if, if we're leaving it outta some that creates disunity not unity, but 'cause if you got gender one area sex in another, then that, that is does a little, is a little confusing least to me. But I'm not, I'm, I'm not your friend to phone either, so I don't know.

Yeah. This, we may get a similar answer to the last question, but I'm wondering how many individual sections of code are we, are we amending here? Do you, do you know that, that off the top of your head? I know it was, it was a long bill. Yeah. And I don't know that exact number. I know there's what, 5,400 lines or something to that effect?

So yeah, it goes back, um, in fact, the drafting attorney told me they have a, an instructional book they use and there's some direction in that book from several years ago and it says you can use the words interchangeably. And so, um, so the intent here is to say, okay, since we have a de of definition of sex, let's not, anyway, that's, I wish I had some real detail for you.

That would be great. I've gonna admit I've got a, I've got a follow up to that that maybe I'll ask the drafting attorney if that works, but

Uh, uh, I do not Envy do we need my friend as well? Uh, no, I Do not envy you. I mean, I can only imagine this Bill has, has done a lot of things this session and has been a lot of things. And I think perhaps the, the back and forth that we're all experiencing here is part of the, this bill ain't much left except the final piece of what feels like wasn't very kind policy all along. And so I think maybe as we get more answers, a as I'm even just listening to folks, I'm like, wow, that maybe the writing's on the wall that as pieces got stripped out, that maybe that's what's left is just a confusing something. But I, I do applaud you for being willing to step in into a less than enviable position. So I just wanted to add that to the dialogue. Okay, Thanks.

Maryanne Christensen, executive Director of Utah Legislative Watch, I'm speaking in favor of the bill. This is just a matter of being consistent throughout the code. I've been reading bills for a long time and we went towards calling people persons and then we decided we didn't want 'em to be persons anymore. And now, every time we open a bill, first thing the drafters do is change all the word person to individual. This is just a matter of being consistent throughout the whole code and being as factual as we can be. So I hope you'll vote yes for the bill. Thank you. Okay.

Hello, my name is Angel Showalter and I have lived in Utah my entire life and I work with many non-binary and trans individuals. Um, this bill claims to be for clarity, and I can't think of a more confusing thing than seeing a man with an F on their driver's license just because they were born a female. Um, there are people in this room and in the trans community that I've been transitioning for years and no longer look anything like their gender at birth. What's more confusing than that beyond this bill? Creating more confusion. It is cruel and unnecessary. It will put trans and gender nonconforming, nonconforming community even more at risk in the workplace and healthcare, in housing and in every aspect of life. I plead with you to listen to the community that this bill impacts and vote no on HB 180 3. Substitute two. Thank you.

Okay. My name is Berk Stevens. I am the Civic Engagement Director for Utah Moms for America. And we support this bill, um, as language has been plagued with and redefined. I think it's really important to know how to apply the law if you have clear definitions and it goes across the board so that you can apply it accurately and, um, clarify for everyone exactly what the law means. And that's what this bill does. Please vote for this bill. Thank you.

Hi, I am David Torrey. My pronouns are they them. Um, I'm here today to urge you to vote no on this bill. I am non-binary, so I am currently medically transitioning. Um, words are powerful and this causes a lot of issues, not just on a legal level because there is two definitions, but they're all, both different. Gender and sex are two different things. They wanna say it's the same, but it's not. And I urge you to say no in this bill because it affects my community and as being trans and honestly, it, it really affects our mental health as well. So I, I vote you here. No

Delaine England with the Eagle Forum and United Women's Forum. Legal definition of sex, there is one. And when we are dealing with code and laws, we need to be very clear and precise because it is going to be in code is written, it is in law. The definition of gender is very fluid. It changes, it's very problematic to have our language in code that is ambiguous and that is not crystal clear. So I, I would really support, we support this bill because it's very, it's vital that our laws are clear and they use language that has a direct definition. Thank you so much.

Thank you committee for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Cherry Mock. My pronouns are they them. And I'm here representing myself and the trans community here in Utah. This bill on the surface may look like it's to make the language clear. However, if you dig deeper into this bill, it is a gateway like Moses parting the Red Sea, um, by, um, by employers, by law enforcement, by landlords, for more bills to be passed to further discriminate against our community. For example, on February 26th, a bill in Kansas was, bill was passed that immediately invalidated trans and non-binary people's driver's, licenses, birth certificates, and IDs overnight with no grace period, because their gender marker did not match their assigned sex. At birth. They'll be facing jail time and thousands in fines, but it also hinders trans people from being able to vote because if your driver's license is suspended, you'll no longer are able to vote. And this was done on purpose, even with the changes made to HB 180 3 S oh two, the bill stands and it will allow bills like this one in Kansas to be made and put people like me, my chosen family, and the Utah Trans Community Eng grave changer. So I ask for you to say no on this bill, and thank you for your consideration. Thank You.

Um, I'm K Crosby. Um, turn On your camera. Yeah. We need, yes. Can you see me now? No, No. Oh. Um, showing me sending video feed from this direction. Okay. I'm trying to think. Yes, There you go. Oh, yes. Okay. Awesome. You were Sideways. You're you're up right now? I'm up right now. Okay, great. Oh yeah. I'm so good. Hey, I'm, I'm, uh, I'm Kale Crosby. Um, I live down in Orem, Utah. Is there, is there any other, I forget questions that I should answer or for the role or anything? No, Just name and who you represent. Awesome. I'm just representing myself. Um, I'm speaking in opposition to this bill in part because I am, I wanna first of all commend a lot of the substitutes that have been made. A lot of, I feel like, I feel like in some ways we have been listened to, um, in some ways, like a lot of the most harmful language was taken outta this bill. I think it's really telling that the way that this bill started though was, um, these like very, very far reaching attacks on trans people who work in, um, healthcare and in education as well as like banning or making it harder for people to keep custody of their kids if they respect their kids' gender identity. I think this bill has taken a crazy turn and I think part of that is that, like this bill has extreme backlash to it because it was really illogical. Um, and my just thing I wanna bring on the clarity piece is just that, um, in none of the presentations I watched, uh, this is my third committee for this bill, third committee hearing for this bill. Um, I've, I've not seen a single, um, instance cited of where the gender sex confusion in the law has been applied or where it's caused a legal issue. Um, so yeah, I Juab, I wanna, I wanna consider the fact that like, this, this could be a pre, uh, this could be a precursor to more further harmful legislation and also that it's addressing a non-issue. And, and think in the last week of the session we were trying to pass like really, really important legislation. I also am very in support of a lot of great, great Salt Lake legislation being run by a whole bunch of people. Sorry, it's off topic, but like, but like, I think that like, we have very limited time and so I don't think it makes sense to send this to the floor when it's nothing like it's original bill intent and it's not, it's, in my opinion, addressing an non-issue. Thank you so much.

Yeah, I, I don't even know how deep we need to go in there. I guess I, I, you know, more, more just concerns that, you know, with how far reaching this bill is, it seems like there could very well be, uh, instances where there, there could be conflicts between certain federal titles where these terms are used in different ways. Um, I think there's, there's all sorts of, um, of, of issues I think we could run into. It seems like this has been done in a, a little bit of a haphazard way. So, um, I that I don't need to get deep into the questions. I don't think, it seems like, uh, this one is destined maybe for, for something else. So thank you.

I, I think one of the clarifying things that we were stumbling around with was, it seems very much to me and maybe to some of my other committee members that, um, this actually introduces a decent amount of disconnect where it, not to unify the policy, but there are some spaces where it would stay as gender and there others where it would say as sex. And I wondered if, as you would all had constructed this, if there had been dialogues about what kind of that looked like.

See, so Chris Williams's, office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, and I'll also just add that as a nonpartisan office, we neither support nor oppose any legislation. So, um, so the only, the best way I can describe this is that the, currently, this removes every instance of the word gender on its own with the word sex. There are times we use the term gender identity. That was what was put in with it by the Utah Compact. Those sections are not affected. Um, so anytime that gender stood alone in the code, we've replaced that term with sex. There was a house amendment that reinserted one spot where, um, where it was gender standing alone, we replaced it with sex and then the house reinserted gender and removed that term. So that is still there, but if it gender was standing alone in the code, we replace that term with the word sex.

I don't know if there's any other questions, but I think kind of with what I alluded to before, I, one of the things that has been most distasteful to me trying to nego navigate this policy was the cruelty that, that people felt personally directed at them in the beginning. And again, here you are sitting in it. Yeah. Um, and I think that the pieces that in particular made it seem that some were less worthy of, of working in certain spaces or doing certain jobs, um, was frankly heart wrenching and completely inappropriate and did put in some people's minds that oth other sons amongst us are not as worthy as others. And so, while I'm grateful for that, for watching those pieces slowly fall off, I think that what we're left with is something that just convolutes our policy. And, um, from the, from the bottom of my heart for the gratitude for the change, but also the tears that I'm fighting holding back, I, I would move that we hold this bill. Um, and move to the next item on the agenda.

Uh, representative summation on the, Um, yeah, as you mentioned, some of those heartaches, uh, took place long before I was involved. Um, I know that our drafting attorneys, uh, do their very best. The intention of the bill is to make clarity in the code so that, uh, so that, I mean, someone had mentioned in comments that, uh, that sex and gender are different. And I agree with that, and it, it, I think in, when I was young, it really wasn't. And today we know it is different. It's the terms change over time. And so this is an attempt to, to clarify that in code across the board. And I think, uh, that our, our good drafting attorneys attempt to do that in a, in a nonpartisan way. Uh, that's, that's what the attempt is. So I'll, I'll, uh, say I'd, I'd love to have it move forward, but I'll, uh, let the committee decide as they will.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I thought we were gonna get circled all day long and we didn't. Finally. So this bill has come a long way, uh, and I inherited it just recently. Um, simply stated, what this bill does is takes the word, uh, there's, there's two words that we used to use interchangeably, sex and gender. And now it changes all the references of gender in the code to sex because we have a definition of that where gender, uh, as we all know is, is a word that has much different meanings today than it did uh, 10, 20, 30 years ago. When, uh, when we were, uh, making, uh, laws back then. In fact, I talked to one of our drafting attorneys and he said that they have direction in their manuals from many years ago. And it says basically the words can used, be used interchangeably. We know that's really not the case today. So, um, there were things in the bill previously that are gone. It is strictly a technical bill changing the word, uh, when, when reference to gender, changing it to sex, it won't affect any kind of policy. The punk, the Utah Compact or any other thing like that. And with that, I uh, conclude my presentation.