H.B. 404 Sex-Designated Housing Amendments: transcript

George. Thank you. Didn't, I didn't realize data privacy was such an exciting issue. Um, so sex de uh, this bill, 4 0 4 sex designated housing amendment last year, uh, the legislature we passed, uh, dorm room bill designating sex dorms, if you're male housing or female housing on college campuses for state housing, that it would be based off their birth sex, uh, in order to live in those. This, uh, slightly expands that to off-campus housing for private housing. So if you have an apartment that you're rep, uh, renting off campus for male or female housing apartments, that, that would be based off birth sex. So there's been some, uh, uh, real life incidences where, uh, it's been a problem and it's caused some mixed problems and some confusion among landlords and residences. And so making sure that that is just slightly expanded to off-campus housing and based off of the birth sex. Also for, specifically for, uh, intimate spaces where there's shared, uh, shared living or shared bedrooms or shared bathrooms. So shared, intimate, uh, spaces in these housing units, that's where it would apply. And when they apply and fill out the, for male housing or female housing, it would be based off their birth sex. And that would, uh, be my presentation. Would love any questions or comments?

Hi, my name is Zoe Newman and I am representing the Utah Housing Coalition today. So encouraging everyone to oppose this bill today because it appears to con conflict with the Federal Fair Housing Act. I brought this up when it was, um, heard in the house as well. And the reason I bring that up today is federal law already provides specific exemptions for small owner occupied buildings, single family homes, rented without an agent, certain religious or private club housing. So there already is exemptions, um, put in place, um, for these types of conversations. And expanding beyond the Federal Fair Housing Act, um, could expose, um, tenants, um, to, to risk, uh, and to, to harm. And it could also potentially, um, expose landlords to significant legal liabilities. So I would encourage people to look at the Federal Fair Housing Act and to see how this bill can conflicts with, with that, uh, with that law. 'cause regardless of what happens at this level, it, the Federal Fair Housing Act kind of trumps that. So I would encourage everybody to consider that.

for this? For test Fire? It's not necessarily for, for the sponsor. Just as it relates to that question. Mr. Chair, if I could Yes, go ahead. Is that okay? Um, so without this bill, those that are in the private sector could, at their own, uh, kind of decision making process to go ahead and implement this, this, and their, their risk would be whatever that would be possibly pushing back against what was just pointed out by the witness that there's a federal, you know, prohibition or guidelines on this. But my question is, what, what, what does this do? What would, if we pass this bill, what does it do for that individual in that circumstance? Meaning a landlord, are they shielded in some way, uh, from, from action or is it maybe provide some sort of false sense of security? That's, I suppose, uh, Thank you. That's a good question. As far as the Fair Housing Act in any Fair Housing Act in any federal violations, uh, we've met with our, the drafting attorney as well as, uh, landlord attorneys that specialize in this area. We feel that, uh, this would be no violation of any federal law or federal, um, fair Housing Act. In fact, the opposite. They do create exemptions where that sort of stops at the door and they have created exemptions for shared intimate spaces. And that's why that specific language is in there for shared intimate spaces, whether you're could for bathrooms or, uh, bedrooms. Uh, they, that has been a stated exemption and has been upheld by state and federal courts across the country. The problem this is specifically addressing is more of a state, uh, law state issue. It goes back to, I don't know if it's called the compact or the agreement with the state and the church and the LGBT groups where we specifically gave present, uh, protections for LGBT community members in this area. And this creates, actually, some, is one of the side effects of that is it actually creates some liability where someone can just check, I'm a guy, I'm a girl, regardless of what your birth sex is. And it, the landlord has no recourse to address that. And so, uh, we've worked with, uh, equality Utah, we've worked with, uh, different attorneys trying to make sure that this doesn't upset the compact, that it doesn't upset any of that state law, and that it narrowly threads that needle without violating any federal law as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Thank you.

Good morning. Uh, my name is Kaitlyn Hannick. I'm a real estate agent. Um, and I, I'm just, I'm not representing anyone specifically. I'm just a advocate on housing, um, live. And Where do you live? Live? Where do you reside? Saratoga Springs. Yeah. Pardon? Saratoga Springs. Thank you. Okay. And so I just wanna speak this morning in opposition to HB 4 0 4. Um, again, like it was brought up before, federal law under Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. And this was further codified in Bostock v Clayton County in 2020, uh, when SCOTUS held that discrimination based on gender identity did dis uh, did qualify as discrimination based on sex. And whether or not this particular body agrees with, uh, that ruling in Bostock v Clayton, uh, that is the legal precedent. And obviously, federal law comes out on top when state and federal law conflict. Uh, so the state, a state statute cannot immunize someone from a federal legal liability. So this bill authorizes landlords to restrict housing based on biological sex at birth, but it does not even provide any clear verification standard for that. Uh, and that omission puts landlords in a very legally precarious position. So if a landlord denies housing to a transgender applicant, they may face a lawsuit under fair or Federal Fair Housing. Uh, but if a landlord rents to a transgender tenant in what they designate as single sex housing, are they then gonna be exposed to state level lawsuits from other tenants claiming that they failed to enforce the properties state DES designation? So I feel like this bill is, uh, kind of a catch 22 for landlords and landlords are left navigating vague state language, federal precedent, privacy concerns and potential litigation from multiple directions. So there's no procedural guidance in this. Are landlords expected to just request birth certificates, medical documentation, make subjective determinations about someone's body, um, ask probing questions about someone's genitals? Um, are potential tenants expected to provide chromosomal tests along with their background and credit checks in order to obtain housing? So I feel like this is incredibly legally ambiguous and there's real financial liability exposure. And Yes, sir. Sorry, I'm getting, I, I feel that HB 4 0 4, the tenants and the landlords are the losers here. And truthfully, it feels like the only ones that would gain from the passage of this bill are legislators trying to score points by engaging in culture wars. So I would ag I would urge this

Yeah, I appreciate that. And I, um, I, I know that, uh, the sponsor here is trying to help a situation that happened this past year, um, when, you know, five female students showed up and found out that their landlord was forcing them into, uh, shared accommodation with kitchen and bathroom with, with a biological male student. So I, I don't think anybody's trying to score points here. But more importantly, I think the federal law is a little bit more nuanced than what we're hearing in the public comment. And I'm not pretending to be an expert, but in 2021, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD clarified that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. So it is absolutely true that private landlords cannot just car blanche say we're not going to rent to a transgender person. But, um, uh, what it doesn't mean, it doesn't grant a landlord the power to dictate who sleeps in which bed with a private lease, or if a group of students sign a joint lease for a house, it doesn't prevent them from choosing their own roommates. And the anti-discrimination laws, as I read them, um, apply to the sale of rental of housing. But they typically, typically do not apply to the selection of roommates. There's shared unit where intimate living spaces like the bathrooms and kitchens or shared, there's no federal mandate that requires a private individual to share a bedroom with anyone that they do not consent to live with. And so there are federal laws in this space. Absolutely, yes. Um, but I am not convinced that, uh, this bill is a direct violation of them because it, it directly goes to shared intimate spaces. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You. I'll make a motion that we pass it out, pass out the bill favorably.

I, I'll just, I was going to add, uh, in my, um, I'll just add my comments that I agree. Um, if you, if you look through, you know, the, the case that was quoted, Bostok v Clayton was, uh, consolidated based on an employment rights issue and how employment rights are handled. It's not a housing, uh, as it relates to university housing with a, a lottery where you end up with a forced roommate and no choice to cancel the lease or remove it, uh, or remove yourself from the situation. And really, your only opportunity, your only situation that, uh, uh, if a, a, a person is uncomfortable with the person they've been assigned is, is to break the lease, pay significant penalties to do so, and, and do all of that to try and get out of a situation that they're uncomfortable with. This is one of those key situations where I think the other two attorneys, uh, uh, have spoken well, which is it. This is a place where if, if we're going to make this sex-based discrimination, uh, uh, a question and, uh, force, you know, roommate situations, I feel like there ought to be a way for a roommate, uh, for a person to get out of that situation without there being harm. Um, and maybe this is the way to do it. The other way we looked at last year when we passed the other bill, uh, last session, um, was, you know, allowing a, uh, a tenant who is in that forced situation, the ability to get out of that lease as soon as they discover, uh, the problem. Uh, and that might be something else, uh, a way to consider it, uh, if, uh, if the, if we run into, uh, to other issues. But that, that was the only way to, to look at it. We were, we were somewhat nervous about allowing someone to, uh, you know, about inserting ourselves into that contract between the landlord and the tenant. At the same time. We do that all over the place in landlord tenant loss. So, um, this, you know, this is another place to, to consider it. So I appreciate the, the bill and, and hopefully we can get this moving forward. Thanks. Thank You. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you for having me here. Um, this, this, if you remember last year we did, uh, the state owned same sex housing bill, which dealt with school dorms. And it was based off of the birth, sex, uh, for male or female housing. Uh, this is was for universities. This is sort of tagging onto that a little bit and dealing with maybe off-campus housing or private housing. Uh, also applying to same-sex housing. So if you're, uh, offering a female apartment or a male apartment, this is saying if there's, uh, and shared intimate space, a shared bathrooms or shared bedrooms in an all female apartment or an all male apartment, that the applications in order to live there would be based off of the birth sex. And so it's just slightly expanding off what we did last year and, um, trying to very narrowly tailor just for off-campus housing of that shared housing where the target is for female housing or male housing and trying to very narrow narrowly tailor that narrowly tailor, uh, that expansion. So it's just slight, it doesn't upset, um, any of the previous work that the legislature has done in previous years. And I'm grateful for the body he was here and for all the public that are here to come and share their opinions. I know there are strong feelings on these issues. So that is my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions and get into as much of the details as you want or don't want.

Uh, yes. There was an amendment. It was, and

Speaking to the amendment on line 2 0 2, which just changes a reference to a paragraph instead of five B one, it goes to six B one.

Thanks for the reminder.

Thank you Chair. You really don't want me to speak to you? I do actually. Okay. I think we're good. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I do have a few questions about this. Last year we heard a bill that made it so that on college campuses, a public universities, we can, we made it so that only, um, the gender that they were born at birth, that's the housing they had to stay with, right? Is is that what it was? Correct. Correct. And it, it went through and we had lots of testimony against how harmful that was going to be for folks, but we passed it anyways. This bill is making it so now in private residential areas, nothing that has to do with a public state owned property. This is now in private residential areas that landlords can choose to deny Utahans citizens or non-citizens legal immigrants or whatever to not based on their sexual identity, that they are not, they can just deny their ability to, could come and put in an application to live in those facilities. Is that what you're saying?

Well, it doesn't have, Is what this field does, Doesn't have anything to do with Utahans, non UANs or immigration status, nothing of that. So It just has to do with their, um, just When the, if it's, if it's advertised as a single sex housing, all female housing, all male housing, and they're checking the box, I'm a female, I'm a male, then it is off of their birth sex.

Okay. In private residential areas,

nothing to do with Well, Government it is limited. They do in line 2 0 4 and 2 0 3, it's, they try to narrowly tailor it to a dormitory, a boarding house, a shared rental property or other group living accommodations or a private landlord. So it's like traditional areas where it's, there's, we already have female housing or male housing in the community.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I want to ask you about lines 2 0 7 to two 10. Um, it says the exemption does not apply to housing that the state or political subdivision owns, operates unless otherwise expressly provided by law. So this doesn't undo what was done in the bill last year. Correct. Okay. And then the, the next sentence, uh, housing where the designation would violate federal law or a condition of federal funding. So most of the mortgages today are guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, have some kind of federal guarantee. Would would that apply to this? And how do we know that it doesn't apply to

It? We don't think so. And again, we're trying to narrowly tailor this, that if there was some type of federal discrimination designation, then we're saying the federal law, the federal discrimination law is gonna trump this code.

Okay. Yeah. I'm just concerned. 'cause some of the things we've seen in the past that, you know, sadly we've got federal government under either flavor or color takes the smallest opening and tries to move in. I'm just concerned that condition of federal funding, if Fannie, Freddie, if there are loan guarantees, they may try to apply and say, you know, you see what I'm saying? And then undo the

Exception. I'm not familiar with the requirements for a federal loan if what type of, uh, the designated classes they have in their groups. So,

Okay. I I would just maybe encourage we look at that as it moves forward. Yeah. Um, because they do, they guarantee almost all loans for any type of residential small business housing.

And, and I think this sort of piggybacked, I think that language might also be on last year's build tying because this is trying to just very narrowly sort of tie a loophole for off-campus housing type situations. And so if that was a problem in this one, it's gonna also be a problem probably in last year's as well. Alright. Okay.

Let's take a look at it. That's Sure. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Just a couple quick questions. Um, so if I understand this, this is at the discretion of the landlord or of the, um, dormitory board and house rental property, et cetera. Is that correct?

Right. Yes.

Okay. So could there also be a situation where, um, a landlord decides, even though they are still, um, designating this as single sex housing, uh, that they choose to, to not, you know, be in compliance with this law or not, not follow this, and they could say, well, we're still going to allow, uh, transgender individuals to

Well, I think that, yeah, I'm sure that would, it's up to them whether how they wanna run their property. Right, okay. So it gives them the ability, so you don't have surprises where five people show up and then someone that, so the real life scenario is someone showed up, there's five people that showed up, one person showed up that checked the box, says, I'm, uh, I'm a female. And they were just beginning the process. So they, uh, still had all the male plumbing.

Yeah. But how, however, in, in those ca so, so two things, lemme just make sure. So one is this law is not forcing private landlords to do anything. Correct. Okay. And then the second question is then in, in your scenario, so someone signs a contract, they signed up for, let's say all women apartment and they show up and there's a transgender woman, this would not protect them in those cases unless the landlord had exercised the right to say that we're, we're only going to allow for those that are women based on their designation at birth. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

Thank, thank you Mr. Chair, what are the, can you talk to us about the communication requirements? How's, how's this to be understood? How's, are there any requirements to communicate this to both potential clients and, you know, students, I guess if, if that's the target audience so that they understand that this is what they're signing up for, or that there's a landlord that they're signing up for that, uh, that isn't following the proposed statute.

Uh, the intent is if it's being advertised as an all female housing or all male housing that, I mean, it's up to them how they wanna advertise it, but their screening would probably be based off just if you're checking the box, the intent is that you were born as a woman or you were born as a male, if, depending on where you're trying to live. Not sure exactly what you were asking with that, but that was the intent.

So it's one thing I'm asking the question, sorry Mr. Chair's follow up, but I'm asking the question mostly because I'm aware of, of scenarios where I'm, there were supposed to be different policies in place and that was never really communicated to the students. Right. So I'm, I'm wondering if we need to add something that if this is, uh, at where it's advertised. So in particular, if it's advertised to the universities, um, that needs to be super clear. I think if everybody understands what the scenario is that they're signing up for, then it avoids a lot of the potential conflict down the road anyway. If they understand that they're signing up for, you know, all one gender and that it applies under these conditions, then there's not a surprise or that it's not. So I'm just, that's what I'm trying to, to reconcile. Um, it's probably not as big of an issue. Certainly, uh, constitutionally if it's private party just deciding whatever they want to do, they can do whatever they want. But, um, where we're talking about housing in the context of, uh, students, whether it's on or off campus and we permit that advertising at the university, that's probably where we should clarify the standards for how that's communicated.

Okay. Yeah, I, I'm open to recommendations. It's a good point, so,

Thank you Chairman Malloy and committee members. My name is David Ker. I am testifying not as, not as a landlord or tenant, but as a physician. I'm a board certified pediatrician. I trained a primary children's hospital and I retired four years ago after 37 years in practice here. Um, I've learned a little bit about the medicalization agenda theory over the last few years. Representative Shipp had me testify on behalf of his total band bill in 2023 and as his lead witness three days ago on behalf of HB 1 74 in late 2024. I also had the privilege to help and sign, uh, an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on the matter of USB retti. And that was the, uh, landmark bill, uh, case that upheld the Tennessee's, uh, ban on gender affirming care. I would like to see this bill amended to remove the terms gender and DSM for three reasons. First, Representative Lee has a bill HB 180 3, which I will testify on behalf that would expunge the word gender from the Utah Code. These bills are in conflict. Second, DSM is no longer a reliable source and should not be referenced in the Utah Code. Psychiatry has always operated on the edge of science by their own admission on this issue. It has fallen off the, the cliff. The American Psychiatric Association writes, publishes and owns DSM. It has been overrun by gender, active gender activists from wpath who sit on the writing committee and exert undue pressure. WPATH itself is corrupt and discredited. Don't take my word for it, ask any of the two thirds of its members who have left the organization since 2023 when the WPATH files and tapes were released. So I have a third point I'll talk about tti, but you can ask me if you want. Uh, members of this committee may not be aware of this, but gender ideology is crashing down around us under the weight of its own malfeasance, evidence-based medicine, civil suits, and common sense six clinics have closed just this month. So I just request that this bill be amended to remove those words. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, my name is Marina Lowe, policy Director with Equality Utah. Um, I'm here today to speak, uh, against the passage of this bill, and I just wanna say at the outset that this bill is being heard against the backdrop of now this is the fifth year in a row that the legislature has really focused its gaze on the transgender community. This year alone, this is one of five different pieces of legislation targeting the trans community. Um, so we would urge this committee to, uh, take a step back and, and focus on other issues that do matter to, to your constituents and to the community more, uh, more broadly, I do wanna say that we appreciate, uh, the, uh, representative, um, the representative's efforts to really narrowly tailor, uh, the definitions in this bill so that it isn't a, a broader, um, attack on the trans community and are grateful for, for that drafting, um, uh, approach. And then I also just wanna raise up, I think Representative Wilcox's suggestion about providing notice is a really good suggestion as this bill moves through the legislative process. I think that, um, there are ways to diminish conflict when there's a lot of notice provided to everybody involved. And so with that, I would urge that you not pass the bill, but if you do choose to move it forward, that there be some further amendments along those lines. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Zoe Newman and I am here representing the Utah Housing Coalition to oppose this bill. This bill directly conflicts with the Federal Fair Housing Act, which prohibits sex based discrimination in general housing and does not provide a broad exemption for sex segregated housing outside of college dormitories, specific shelters and other very limited ex exemptions. There are already exemptions for sex segregated housing in dorm settings and certain types of shelters already. The act also already exempts owner occupied buildings with less than five units, single family houses sold, rented by the owner without the use of an agent and housing operated by religious organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members. So my question is, what are we really trying to accomplish here? Passing a law that contradicts federal protections, puts tenants at risk of harm and confusion, and exposes landlords to serious legal liability at a time when Utah faces a housing crisis. We should not be expanding or expanding access to, or we should not be limiting access to safe and stable housing and not creating confusion and new barriers for already vulnerable communities. Thank you.

Yes. Uh, thank you Mr. Chairman, committee members. My name is Steve Erickson. I represent Crossroads Urban Center. Um, I won't repeat what, uh, Zoe just said eloquently. Um, but, uh, I was the lead lobbyist and, uh, organizer for the original Utah Fair Housing Act in the, uh, late eighties, early nineties. It took a few years to get it passed, and the big stumbling block at the time was the, uh, existing practice at BYU of separating, um, students by, by sex in approved housing. BYU student approved housing off campus in the private rental market. Um, and we finally reached an exclusion, um, over time with, with that problem. And Utah with Zen enabled to do, uh, enforcement investigations and, and, uh, con conciliatory, uh, results and negotiations with individual clients. Um, in other words, Utah had primacy at that time from the federal government to do enforcement through the Labor Commission here. Um, this potentially could, uh, result in that loss of primacy and going back to the battle old days when all of the adjudications that had to take place under the Fair Housing law in Utah would have to go to the Denver HUD office. Um, we view that, uh, as something that would not be in the interest of the people of the state. And, uh, I don't think we really want to go back in that direction. Um, just a reminder that the original act, uh, in 1968 at the federal level, uh, mirrored by our, uh, statutes, uh, and changed over time to be expanded, really was put in place as a response to redlining that was ubiquitous throughout the, the time. And, um, and to uphold the ideal of equality under law in the United States. This would be a step backwards in that regard.

Go ahead. How do y'all, my name is ZI am a trans community member and very involved in the community here. Um, I believe that this legislation leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Uh, for instance, if a person does legally change their sex and completely transition, does that mean then somebody who let's say is a trans man has a beard, everything that they would be forced to then use a housing situation that is all with women who are all fem presenting? It puts an uncomfortable position for everybody involved. If it is somebody who has not changed their sex but fully transitioned. So somebody who does again, look like a man but has not gone through the medical transition, does that mean that they are not eligible for male dorm as well? There is also unanswered questions when it comes to intersex people. Intersex people are, uh, one to two in 50 people born. These are mixed sex characteristics that can include genitalia as well as physical appearance. And so for people who may have not even gone under transition, don't even identify as trans, but don't look feminine enough, don't look masculine enough to their sex that is assigned, they're left in limbo on this bill as well. Of course, there are option, like this sort of thing is gonna happen when people come together and they find that they're not gonna gonna be compatible roommates, but that's something that they can figure out as adults. This is legislation that is over legislating adults when they can figure it out themselves, whether they're going to feel safe. So I encourage y'all to vote no against HB 4 0 4. Thank you for your time today.

Hi. Oh, hi. My name is Shamu Lee. I'm representing myself. I am a gender fluid individual, which falls under the transgender under umbrella. Um, I just wanted to point out some, uh, blatant overreach that is, we've already passed last year was passed the bill that, um, segregates for student housing specifically, but this one is to go into private housing. So we've already pushed out transgender individuals from being housed in same-sex housing within a university dormitory setting. This one would further be pushing them out, trying to make sure that they couldn't even be in private housing. So when these, when an extremely vulnerable community that already is not allowed to be housed in student housing with other students is forced to go find private housing, and then there are rules in place to make sure that they can be legally discriminated against, it is putting an already vulnerable community. Um, and I do wanna point out that queer individuals and transgender youth are much more likely to be homeless than, uh, cis gen their cisgendered counterparts because of the discrimination against them. I also wanna point out that forcing them to be put in, they, they're assigned sex at birth housing might also potentially out transgender individuals. Um, and by outing them, it puts them at a higher risk of being faced with more discrimination by their peers and also, um, facing more potentially violent situations. Um, I would like to really urge, um, urge everybody to think about the fact that this, this whole, the language in this bill is specifically pointing out the, say the same sex housing for the sex assigned at birth and excluding the word gender from this and conflating the two to make the same word is one, not scientifically accurate. And two, singling out trans individuals because they are trans under the premise that they are not who they say they are. Um, believe trans voices and thank you for your time.

Hi, my name is Annabelle Weisinger. I go by Mason. And I think it's absolutely wild to even entertain a housing segregation bill in a time of a massive housing crisis. This community has far greater opportunities to have improved the housing situations for all citizens than protecting discriminating landlords. What you're talking about is legal discrimination, and this bill protects discrimination in the private sector specifically. And that sets a very dangerous precedent, especially when we're talking about the roof over people's heads. This is what the trans community is trying to tell you when we say that these little restrictions like university housing lead to major disruptions in the lives of trans people, these little shifts have huge repercussions. This is a massive overreach again, especially for a government with such a major housing problem. But ultimately, I wish you would learn that trans people are not a threat to you. We are here, we are real, we are not a figment of someone's ideology. The only person you have speak in favor of this bill has a vocal vendetta against trans people. He is not your community. He will not be in the streets fighting for your rights. He will not be the one making your coffee or serving your dinner. Trans people are real. They're your community, they're your constituents, and there are constituents who remember who stands up for them and who doesn't. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Thank you, committee. My name is April Gardner. I'm a lifelong Utah resident. Um, in 2015, I was really proud to be AAN when this body passed dramatic and fairly unique anti-discrimination legislation that protected our, our trans, um, and other queer individuals and recognized their full humanity and importance to Utah. We protected their and employment and housing and we, we recognized the true full humanity of, uh, our, our broad coalition of Utahans. And it's been heartbreaking over the last five or six years to see pieces of that commitment be betrayed as bills have come every year that have nibbled away opportunity for trans people, trans people, what activities they can participate in, what healthcare they can have. And last year and again this year where they can live where is horrifying in a time when, as some of other, our other witnesses have stated, it's hard for a lot of people, all of us, you know, working people to make housing costs. Nowadays, pretty often, um, trans people are far more likely to experience housing instability and narrowing that within private spaces. Uh, particularly when you're dealing with young people who are trying to go to college and, and maybe are trying to find private accommodations because they're not allowed in public, public housing, um, when they're trying to go to school. What spaces are we allowing left for our trans utahans? Do we belong here anymore? I, I, I put it to the legislature in unfortunately this committee with this bill and others that are up this year. Do you believe that trans utahans are part of our communities? Do you value us or do you see us as see trans people as dangerous? I beg you to recognize our humanity and stop taking away pieces of what trans people can do in our, our, our communities. They're our neighbors and we love them. Thank you.

Hello, my friends, crystal Young lobbyist representing, uh, the policy clients of the safety vertical of the lobbying project. As you know, a number of my clients contribute to let me lobby on the fun stuff. And I'm sorry, representative Shellenberger. I haven't had a, yeah, I'm an opera singer, so I, I I gotta bring, buzz that up. I haven't had an opportunity to work with you yet and I appreciate hearing from all my colleagues, uh, that you have been welcome to hearing, uh, edits and ways to more tailor your bill. And I would like to continue that conversation with you if you would like. Um, my first question, I guess I don't get to say questions, but I do not see in the bill where this is limited to university housing. I read this bill as applying to allowing sex discrimination in all private housing. Maybe I'm wrong. Um, but I know that all of us here, we have worked so hard to find that line between the, I don't tread on you, you don't tread on me. Agreement that I believe is so core and I think we all believe is so core to human interaction. And I have been part of many of these conversations where we get to places that people don't see that we actually got it to really good, really solid places. But I do think this built goes too far and I'd love to keep working with you on it because I know we all want to feel safe here. We all want to feel like we belong and that's what Utah's about and that's what I love Utah. And thank you so much for your consideration.

Hi, this is Delaine England. I'm in Bountiful and I am representing United Women's Forum and Eagle Forum. I wanna thank the sponsor of this bill and, and I wanna thank the committee for their time. I really appreciate it. I support this bill because it does protect every individual. It targets the rights and sovereignty and privacy of every individual, especially those who too not want to share private space with someone of the opposite sex. So it gives them the opportunity to have housing that is sex designated. Um, I do agree and appreciate the suggestion made to give notice so that everyone knows in advance. 'cause I think people deserve to know what their, you know, what they're getting into beforehand. So I, I thought that was an excellent suggestion. And I also like that it protects the rights and sovereignty of property owners, that they get to decide if they have a sex designated property. That that right is also protected. Thank you so much for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Hi. Thank you. My name is Alec Barton. I'm calling from Salt Lake City. We're a resident of Utah, who is, uh, raised in Manta, Utah. I appreciate you hearing my comments today. I just wanna speak in support of my trans community. I, uh, love and support my trans brothers and sisters, and I'm disheartened to see this bill in committee. Um, as others have mentioned, this is not a time to be, um, entertaining a housing discrimination bill, especially for a community that is vulnerable, um, and needs access to safe and affordable housing. So I urge you to vote now on this bill. Thank you.

Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. I just have a question for our legal counsel. Um, on lines 2207 to two 10, it does describe, uh, that this is, uh, valid unless it would violate federal law or condition of federal funding. Um, and that it, uh, does not apply to housing that is owned by the state or subdivision. So my question is, I know that federal laws change, um, what is the current federal status like? Does, is this, are we able to allow this under current federal code or, or not under the current law, I guess is what I'm wanting to just make sure, because if we, if we pass legislation that is changes with the wind of administration, that's what I don't know. Um, but what I am asking is what is the current federal law and is this, are we able to enact this legislation with the status quo?

Motion to hold.

Um, no. I, I I think we've tried to keep this very narrowly tailored to one of the common dormitory boarding houses typically shared, uh, spaces that are intimate shared bathrooms, shared bedrooms that are typically female housing or male housing, and trying to keep this very narrowly tailored. And to address representative Ballard's question from the very beginning, we've tried to make sure that this is not violating any current constitutional, um, or federal laws. So you be opposed to Vote So opposed to the motion to hold? Yes.

I'd like to make a substitute motion to favorably recommend the bill

All right. I'll withdraw my motion and move that we adopt house amendment one.

It was on line 2 0 2 where instead of referencing section five B one or i, it changed it to six B one. It was a typo

I'd like to make motion that we favorably recommend house bill 4 0 4 4.

Substitute motion to hold.

I, I would like to see, speak to the motion. Mr. Chair. Thank you. There's been several committee members today who already brought up some questions that were not quite answered by the sponsor well enough. I'd like to work through some of those and make sure, I do appreciate the sponsor saying that he has worked to tailor to very narrowly tailor this bill, but it sounds like there are still some ambiguities in this bill that I would like to work on with the sponsor.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd de oppose, uh, the substitute motion. Um, I though I would like to see a slight clarification, uh, on the notice requirement. And Representative Wilcox and I have been talking about that. I think we can easily handle that in advance as bill today.

I'd be opposed to the motion to hold and, uh, agree to continue to work with this as it works its way along.

Thank you. I noticed that Tyler just walked in. Is it an appropriate time to see if he could answer some of those legality questions?

Yes. Um, thank you Mr. Chair. Uh, Tyler, thank you for coming over. My question is, because this is contingent upon, uh, being, uh, uh, available with current federal law, with, with being compliant, what is the current federal law, how does this bill apply right now? And do you know how often the federal law changes back and forth or how consistent it's been with, with where we are today?

Thank you. Thank you, representative, uh, Tyler Moore, office of Legislative Research and General Counsel. Uh, our office is here, um, not in any partisan capacity, but just to be able to answer questions and be able to provide the service to the committee. Um, so a lot of questions that you had there. I will try and take them as, as, as I recall, um, there is Federal law on Point, specifically the, um, HUD and, uh, fair Housing Act has pieces in it regarding this matter. Um, specifically, uh, advertising is something that, um, is a very specific exclusion under those acts, um, that you can't advertise based on gender. There are exceptions, however, for, uh, limited situations such as, uh, shared living arrangements, renting a room, owner occupied dwelling where bathrooms and bedrooms are shared, et cetera. Um, that is permissible under those, uh, those federal provisions. Um, as far as how often we're seeing that change, um, I'm happy to look into that. I don't have an answer for you on that. Um, and then as far as how often we're seeing those challenges in court, uh, I, I don't have an answer for that at this time either.

Thank you so much. I think that's what I wanted to know is if this is compliant right now with current federal law. So thank you.

So, just to follow up on, on Representative Ballard's question. So under federal law, a landlord can say, I'm only going to allow biological females to live in this apartment. And if you're not a biological female, you can't live here. That's allowed under federal law, but it is prohibited under current state law or not prohibited under current state law.

I would have to, I don't believe that is prohibited under current state law, um, again, with the, the exclusion that is specifically carved out with shared living arrangements. Um, but again, I wanna double check and make sure that I'm,

I guess my real question is, given what federal law says, and that all landlords are bound by federal law, does this bill actually do anything that they can't already do?

I, I think it provides a protection is the intent of the sponsor, um, of, in case something were to go, uh, someone were to interpret HUD or FHA guidance or regulations differently. Okay. They, They have expanded the scope of sex to include gender identity.

Great. Thank you. That's, that was answers my question. Thank you.

Yeah, I mean, I think back to the Question I had earlier. Just a second.

Right. Thank you. Back to the question I had earlier, and I think, uh, uh, to, uh, representative Thurston's point, the federal non-discrimination laws a apply to most residential housing, unless it's like a shared owner situation or you've got shared, uh, like bathroom space, but it, it, it does apply HUD funding, government sponsored entity funding, Fannie, Freddie, that sort of thing. At least this is what crock and, and, uh, chat GPT are telling me on the fly. But it, but it kind of makes sense. So I think to Representative Thurston's point, I'm, I'm concerned that we may not really be doing that much if we're saying it only applies unless federal law applies and federal law seems to apply a great deal, we may be setting people up with a false sense of security for the bill. I think we ought to dig a little deeper into this. So I'm just, just my thoughts on this.

Thank you, Mr. Uh, chair. I just wanted to draw people's attention as part of this discussion to lines, uh, 1 33, um, kind of through 1 43 of the bill. This is current code that says it is a discriminary discriminatory housing practice to do any of the following because of a person's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familiar status, source of income, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. And then it says, refuse to sell or rent after making the offer of a bonafide offer. Um, refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental or otherwise deny or make unavailable a dwelling for any person. So though may be, though there may be exceptions under the federal law, what Representative Shallenberger is trying to fix here is that Utah law does not allow for that exception. And this just adds that same exception that would be allowed under the federal law in state code.

I'll waive great comments. Thank you for the public's comments. Thank you for your comments. It's, um, appreciate those. I commit to working with the disclosure notice. And,

I'll waive.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, part of the, the line of question i I was going after earlier, it's, it's one thing for in contractual arrangements for folks to go into it, understanding what they're getting into. And I don't know that I'm interested in even wading into those waters, right? If everybody has full disclosure, we've also had cases brought to us where that wasn't the case. And, and I'm not sure, I'm not sure how to argue that. Is that breach of contract is that, uh, you know, non-disclosure. At what point is that void? And that's, that's part of what I think probably needs to address. It's not about keeping anybody out of housing in that scenario. Um, I said if, if adults or persons who are capable of making those decisions decide to enter into those arrangements, then go ahead. Like that's, that's up to you. Um, at the same time, those who enter into the arrangement, especially in an intimate living environment, like sharing a room right within the same, within the same house, if they choose not to do that, they should not be subject to something of which they are choosing themselves not to participate in, let alone be contractually ob contractually obligated to do so. So I think we'll, we'll work with you on that disclosure. What that needs to look like probably will need to include some contract language. That said, I, I'm comfortable enough with where we are in codifying essentially the federal statute at this point, that I think we should move forward and we'll be supporting the motion with the understanding that we're gonna continue working on, on the floor. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I agree with the, the comments of Representative Wilcox here and, and appreciate the, the sponsor for bringing this forward. I, I do think this is, um, just moving along the intent of what, uh, legislation in the past had, had tried to do. And, um, I, I think there, there were some comments during public comment that talked about how there was a fear that this was making things way too broad. And I think there, as, as a good sponsor has talked about this, has been very narrowly tailored to apply to just a small group of housing that is already gender segregated. Um, and if you look at, uh, lines 2 0 9 through two 10 of the bill, um, where it has the, uh, exemption that says that it doesn't apply to any housing where the designation is, a single sex housing would violate federal law, um, or a condition of federal housing. If you look at the Fair Housing Act, there are already certain exemptions that that wouldn't apply. Um, so though we're broadly talking about, um, those situations where it's a dormitory boarding house shared property, or a private landlord and property owner, and you look at that and say, well, that seems pretty broad. That's most of the people that are, that are giving housing, um, because of the lines 2 0 9 through through two 10, that really would only apply to where the Fair Housing Act allows that. And it's really three cases. One, if it's an owner occupied property and they have less than four units, right? So pretty small group, you know, you're renting out your basement or you've got one condo or something like that. You're not a, a landlord of a giant apartment building, but just, uh, four or less units. Second is where you have these shared living arrangements, but not just shared living arrangements, but those where the landlord themself is selecting roommates, so they're renting out a singular room within a larger apartment that has shared spaces, then it would apply in that case. And then lastly, in the, in the situation that we've talked about that I think everyone's comfortable with is those educational or institutional housing places So your colleges, universal universities, religious institution or dorm type settings, ev everything else would be excluded because it's not allowed under the Fair Housing Act. So I, I think that's a very narrowly tailored definition here. I appreciate the great work of the sponsor. I would like the disclosure piece, and I think we can work on that. But I'd urge support of the bill.

No, I'll waive. Thank you. Oh, okay. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Madam Reading Clerk House Bill 4 0 4, sex designated Housing Amendments by Representative Shallenberger. This bill was heard in Business and Labor with a vote of 10 33.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, this bill expands a little bit on a bill we passed last year, uh, dealing with same sex housing, male and female housing, specifically dormitories or shared housing spaces. This is slightly expanding it to off-campus housing where it's targeted to male or female housing, uh, specifically where there is shared intimate spaces, shared bathrooms or shared living spaces. And, uh, in those circumstances, it would be based off of the applicant's birth, sex. No, they're declared sex. That is it. Thank you, Representative Shallenberger.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield to a question?

Yes. Yes, representative.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Um, does the off-campus housing, is the off-campus housing state funded, or is it private?

Private. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. So last year we had a bill related to sex designation, designated housing for, uh, uh, college dorms. Uh, this really goes to the private sector. There's an open legal question in some jurisdictions related to whether or not if you have a space that is, uh, sex designated, how do you deal with that? If there is, uh, an issue that arises, uh, particularly as to transgender individuals that want to rent. And what this does is it says that it is not a violation of the Fair Housing Act to have a, uh, sex designated space or sex designated apartment. Uh, that, uh, especially where there's intimate spaces and that you would, that you can require that the, uh, sex of the person, uh, is that the designation matches the birth sex of the individual. And with that, I'm open to any questions.

Thank you, Mr. President Pro Tem. I, I suppose it took to week five for us to get into this space six years in a row. Here we are in this space again. And I'm, I'm, I try so hard to find the way to be sensitive to people's comfort. And I mentioned this, I know when we talked last year about roommates being uncomfortable in general, my college roommates, some of them, one of them is my still dearest friends and some of them are some of the worst memories of my life. The relationships. We didn't share food, taste, we didn't share music taste. We didn't share a lot of different tastes. And yet somehow we figured out how to coexist because that's what learning how to be an adult is, is learning how to coexist. And while I see where these bills have come from, I keep wondering when we're going to hit the finish line because I don't personally see that we need to discriminate in our housing against people based on their sex, their gender, their race, their religion, any of those. And this is what this bill does to me. In my mind, I should say, I wish we didn't have to have this conversation because to me it just doesn't make any sense. We shouldn't discriminate against people. We should find a way to have love win. That's all. Thank you. Further discussion on the bill.

Um, thank you Mr. President Amp a question to the sponsor. Will you yield? Yes. Yes. Proceed. Thank You. Um, and I know the, the good sponsor is, is an attorney, so he can be helpful here. Are there any concerns of, uh, constitutionality issues related to housing discrimination with his language, Senator Brammer?

Yeah. So first of all, I would just say that, um, while on the floor of the Senate, I am not acting as an attorney or giving legal advice. And so I would, you know, but, but what I would say is this issue has, uh, there was a lot of uncertainty about this over the last few years, but it's, the law has really started to evolve to be a lot more clear that when we talk about sex, it is the immutable characteristic. Particularly as to the federal laws that were passed decades ago, um, that we're really, uh, you know, by and large people were not discussing the, uh, the fluidity of gender or anything like that. What they were talking about was male and female. So for example, if you take Title ix, they were talking about biological females competing in sports. And when you're talking about the Fair Housing Act, what they were talking about was, you know, on the basis of you cannot discriminate on the basis of biological sex. Now, we have always been able to have all male or all female, uh, spaces. And what we're trying to do is maintain that, which has traditionally been the understanding, although it has been subject to challenge with, uh, on, on the basis of transgender individuals. However, traditionally, and in the recent, uh, evolution of the law, uh, or at least clarification of the law, uh, it has been defined more clearly as, uh, biological sex at the time of birth. And that is what this bill keeps us at.

Yeah, follow up question, Mr. President. Go. Thank you. And in, in your view, how will this be implemented in a real scenario, how will that look like to have that determination be made? Thank you. Sure.

Ahead. So what I would imagine is a common scenario where this would be implemented is, let's say that you're near a campus, you're not in the dorms, but there is an apartment, and it is an apartment that is, uh, that is being rented to all girls. And if a biological male that was presenting as a girl were to attempt to rent on the, you know, where the others had all signed up to be in an all girl apartment, that would not be allowed.

Senator, Well, last question, Mr. President Pram, thank you for the time. So at that point, the determination was made by the landlord, um, to determine whether this person is a biological male or female. Correct.

I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?

Yes, sorry about that. So, um, just to make to be clear, the landlord will make that determination at that point whether that person is a biological male or female.

I think at some level, if the landlord learns now, it's not that the landlord goes and checks the sex of individuals, but where they are sharing intimate spaces, if someone were to sign up and sign a lease with regards to that was, uh, that had represented that they were a different biological sex, then the designation of the housing unit, then that would be considered a breach of the lease and they would be able to, uh, to say that the lease is no longer valid.

Thank, thank you, Mr. President ProAm. And I'll just end by saying, I, I think that to me that's a lot of what there's so much, um, concern is how far will someone go to determine that and what type of evidence will there be? Um, is it gonna be pictures? Is that gonna be public information? I mean, I just, it is a little bit, um, concerning that, um, someone will make that determination based on, I don't know what evidence. And if someone, um, based on a cultural background, um, looks or be perceive as something of a different sex, to me, that's where we are, where the line is very concerning and, and will be raising concerns for me. So I'll be voting now. Thank you. Thank

Thank you. I rise in support of the bill. We had a, a healthy discussion, I think, uh, when this bill went through business and labor. And it's, it's, uh, my understanding that while federal housing law would prohibit a, a law or a landlord from just saying carte blanche, I don't, um, I don't allow transgender people to rent from me, that would be discrimination. I think this is a very different issue here. Um, as I understand the law, there's no requirement that someone, uh, in a roommate situation be forced to share a bedroom, a bathroom, or even a kitchen. Those are all considered intimate spaces, uh, with someone, um, uh, who is a biological, you know, a female sharing with a biological male. You know, I think we're all familiar with the expression, my right to swing, my fist ends right before your nose. And I, I believe with all my heart that transgender people deserve love and respect and dignity and humanity and every respect. But, but their rights do not trump their roommate's rights. And we're talking about 18-year-old girls going to college and showing up in a dormitory to find out that one of their roommates is a biological male. And anybody in here that would want would think that their daughter should be subjected to that. I, I, I'm, I'm sorry. I disagree with that. Um, these people have every right to attend college. They have every right to have housing. They do not have a right to make all of their room roommates uncomfortable, um, in, in the bath, sharing a bathroom, sharing a bedroom, sharing a kitchen, et cetera. Um, and that's why I support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President pro tem. Um, the previous senator asked a question about federal regulations regarding state regulat re uh, regulations. Would this run in conflict with, I didn't really get the answer from his, um, statement. Does this run parallel or does it run in, um, contrast with federal regulations?

I believe that it runs parallel. There's been some circuit splits, but gen by and large, the law favors this interpretation. The biological sex actually means the biological sex at the time of birth.

Thank you. Um, I, I am very sensitive to all the conversations and I'm, I struggle with everything that's been said and um, you know, I think back to that young lady that was playing basketball for Cottonwood High and, um, she was a really strong person. And we can also look at the rugby player, that one gold where she was told that she was too big, she was too manly, and they demanded to, um, understand her gender better. I understand we do this in an effort to be protective, and I applaud that, but the problem with this is that it can be used as a weapon against women that are not the ideal image that we think they should be. And I'm seeing this more and more that when a team loses, they call somebody a boy, and then you could be in a housing situation and not really get along with someone and start to harass them saying that woman's a man. So these are the things that are the unintended consequences of the conversations we have around people's gender. And so I, I do un, I am sensitive to everything that's been said here, but as a female who has played sports their whole entire life, who's watched this played out in numerous situations with women that are just big, strong being harassed endlessly because this is a great way to, to harass somebody that's larger than their peers and harass them out of housing. So that's my trepidation with when we say we're protecting women, sometimes we actually victimize them and, um, body shame them. So that's my struggle with this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, Mr. President pro tem, I am wondering if this, um, just because I, I don't know that this, uh, particular law very well, can a private land, uh, owner rent one room under one, uh, set of rules and then rent a different room under a different set of laws?

Yes. They, they, the private landowner can do that if they prefer. So during the Olympics, when I presume just like in 2002 rents of, of, uh, apartments and, and actually even dorms and, and homes went sky high, we might see some rental, uh, or some landowners have some rooms that would follow, uh, this law or this, uh, bill and then rent some that at higher levels under a different set of roles. Is that correct? So let me tell you a, I'm not sure that I fully understand your question, but let me kind of cut to the chase of this. A landlord has the ability to say, I am renting this unit as a female or a male unit if they choose. And the, and what this bill does is it allows those who opt into that contract to rely upon that and for the landlord to enforce their ability to make that designation, uh, at the outset of the contract.

Thank you, Mr. President Pro tem. It seems sort of discriminatory to be able to, uh, say certain people, uh, will have certain laws, but if I can get more money than these laws won't apply to them, and it seems like if we're protecting certain, um, uh, certain groups of people from, uh, feeling, um, uncomfortable in intimate spaces, then we should be protecting all of these people, uh, in, in this way. But, uh, I, uh, with that, I'm gonna be a no on this. Thank you.

Yeah. So it is not discriminatory to say the market yields that I will, you know, rent this space in this way or to say, you know, it's better for me if as the landlord, if I rent to any and all takers. However, there are a, there is a high demand for people to live in a space with those of the same birth sex because they feel safer or they simply prefer to have roommates of the same birth sex, and the ability of the landlord to designate that and have people rely upon that designation is what this is about. This does not stop anyone from saying, I choose to rent to anyone in any of the spaces. All it does is when they feel like there is a sex designated space that they can rent and people can rely upon it. It is important that we do not confuse the ideas of sex and gender and the norms related to sex and gender. Sex is a biological reality and gender oftentimes reveals in di reveals and manifests in different ways. And they are not the same thing. This is not gender designated space. This is biological sex designated space. And for that, I, uh, move the question.

Uh, uh, this, uh, we had a good debate, uh, yesterday on it. Uh, again, this is a bill that allows the landlord to restrict, uh, a, an entire housing unit as a sex designated unit, uh, based on biological sex. And with that, I'm open to any questions.

Thank you. Question to the sponsor. I believe you just Yield. Senator Brammer,

Thank you. Could you talk about how this fits in with SB 2 96 from 2015, which does talk about gender identity and, and I, I think, identifies that as a, essentially a protected class when it comes to housing Senator Brammer?

Yeah, it's still a protected class. However, there are, you know, just as, as that bill protected sex as a protected class, and there's lots of bills that protect sex as an, as a protected class, you can still have a designation into a specific house, uh, for purposes of a protected class. So for example, you may, you may say, we choose to protect this area for biological females and that would still comply with the previous law, as would this Now, uh, where, and what I wanna make sure is clear this bill does not do, is if there is not a designation for the unit and somebody were to say, because you are trans identifying, you may not, uh, you may not be in this space, um, as a result of them identifying as trans, that is not part of this bill. What this is, is it says if they designate a house as being a an entirely female or an entirely male, uh, based on their biological sex, that that is what a landlord can do. Uh, but if it was never designated, they could not then later come back and, and discriminate on the basis of any kind of gender ideology.

Thank you. No, I appreciate that clarification. I think I just questioned what the need for this is. I think this was a heavily negotiated issue a number of years ago and, and there was a, uh, a pretty tough balance struck there. And so I don't know what we have to revisit that for. Uh, especially at a time when housing is tight. Hoax are, folks are struggling to find a, a place to, to live right now at an affordable rate. Uh, this seems like it's just gonna add even more to even more of a burden to, uh, a very small part of our population that is already feeling very under attack. So, um, I think it's, it's, uh, unfortunate that we moved in this direction and, uh, and overturned some of the work that's been done in the past.

Had a question on some further clarification I guess you'll yield. Yes. So had, he's already agreed to yield, Um, so isn't isn't this kind of already happening with individuals who own a house and they'll say they're only gonna rent to females. So if, if that's the case, I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why this is necessary.

Yeah. The, the necessity, and this is also what senate, what the previous senator was asking about is what is the need for this? The need for this is, it is, it is needed to identify what can be enforced with regards to what a female is or what a male is. And so it is not a subjective gender based, uh, determination. It is determined by biological sex. And so it is that clarity within the law that we are seeking.

You.

Thank you. The, uh, I would sum just saying that within the intimate spaces, which includes those that people live, we do need clarity in the law on this. And this does provide the clarity that we need. And with that, I will move that HB 4 0 4, that house Bill 4 0 4 pass the third reading calendar.