Texas just defined man and woman. Here's why that matters.
The Texas Legislature has passed a bill that strictly defines man and woman based on reproductive organs. The bill has no civil or criminal penalties attached, but instead will take these new definitions and apply them across state records.
When Gov. Greg Abbott signs House Bill 229, Texas will become the 14th state to implement one of these so-called 'sex definition' laws in recent years. Supporters of the legislation say it's necessary to protect women's rights and spaces, and the immutable differences between the sexes.
Opponents say it's an attack on trans people, erasing them from state records as the gender they identify as and forcing them to live as the sex they were assigned at birth. They criticize the bill as problematic for intersex people who are born with characteristics from both sexes.
But mostly, there's widespread confusion about what will actually change as a result of this law.
'The question of the hour is how will [HB] 229 be enforced and applied,' said Sarah Corning with the ACLU of Texas. 'What we do know is that it's incredibly disrespectful to so many Texans the Legislature represents, and completely disregards their identity.'
The bill defines 'female' and 'woman' across the government code as an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova. A 'male" and "man" are individuals whose systems are developed to fertilize the ova of a female.
After an amendment added in the House, the bill says intersex people are not considered a third sex, but 'must receive accommodations in accordance with state and federal law.' All government entities are directed to collect data based on this binary.
The bill contains a legislative intent section which doesn't change state statute but is included as guidance on interpreting the bill. It says that men and women possess 'immutable biological differences,' including that women can get pregnant, give birth and breastfeed children, and men are, on average, bigger, stronger and faster than females. Women are more physically vulnerable to violence and have historically suffered discrimination, warranting the creation of single-sex spaces, like locker rooms, bathrooms, prisons and shelters.
It also says that 'in the context of biological sex … separate is not inherently unequal.'
'With this bill, women and girls will know that Texas has their back and will not allow hard-fought rights to be eroded by activists who seek to erase them,' said bill author Rep. Ellen Troxclair, a Republican from Lakeway, in a statement. 'There are pages and pages of references to 'man' and 'woman' in Texas code, which now refer to a specific, clear definition,"
Since 2017, Texas lawmakers have been attempting to legislate strict applications of sex in specific zones, like school sports and bathrooms. Some of these proposals have gotten wide support from the Republican-dominated chambers, while others have stalled out amid partisan fighting.
In the last two years, however, state legislatures across the country have begun considering these sex definition laws, which have a more sweeping application across state statute. At least thirteen states have passed legislation like this, many, including Texas', based on model language from a group called Independent Women's Voice.
The national political advocacy group has support from conservative activists like Riley Gaines, who lost out on a fifth place swimming trophy to a trans athlete and has said she was exposed to male genitalia in a women's locker room.
The push to strictly divide everyone into two sexes, male and female, based on biological differences, got a boost from President Donald Trump, who issued an executive order in January. Abbott followed suit, directing all state agencies to ensure that agency rules, internal policies, employment practices and other actions 'comply with the law and the biological reality that there are only two sexes — male and female.'
Texas voters are, largely, on board with this type of legislation — seven in 10 voters, and 94% of Republicans, believe the sex listed on a birth certificate should be the only way to define gender.
More than 120,000 Texans identify as trans, meaning the gender they identify as differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. Many of them have physically transitioned; some have obtained court orders to change their birth certificate or drivers' licenses.
Abbott's executive order, which was followed by an opinion from Attorney General Ken Paxton, directed state agencies to no longer recognize those court orders. Lawyers representing trans people anticipate that the state will not go back and reissue documents, but rather require they be changed when they need to be renewed.
This will inevitably lead to mismatched documents, Shelly Skeen, a lawyer with Lambda Legal, said earlier this month. Someone who presents as a man but has a driver's license that says they are female will have to out themselves every time identification is required. Plus, they may have other documents, like a passport, school records or medical documents that align with their gender identity, worsening the confusion, legal experts say.
Heather Clark, an Austin woman whose wife is transgender, told a Senate committee that it would be 'untenable' for her to carry documents that said she was a man.
'Anytime that she is required to show her driver's license, she could be compelled to explain why her appearance doesn't align with her documentation,' Clark said, adding that could happen anytime she flew, took money from the bank, applied for a job or voted. 'That creates ample daily opportunities for discrimination.'
Trans people and their advocates are preparing for the changes to drivers' licenses, birth certificates and other identity documents. But they're also trying to prepare for the unknown — all the other ripple effects this bill will have across their lives.
Laura Lane-Steele, a law professor at the University of South Carolina who studies gender and sex discrimination laws, said the application of these sex definition laws tend to be a 'big fat question mark.'
To fully understand the implications would require combing through state statute and applying this definition every time the words male and female are used. The language of the bill indicates it was motivated by keeping trans people out of bathrooms that align with their gender identity, but it doesn't attach criminal or civil penalties for using an opposite sex bathroom, for example.
'We'll have to see if the legislators really looked at the code to understand what unpredictable, unexpected implications this will have,' she said. 'You could foresee there being changes that are unanimously considered bad, no matter your political ideology, that they just weren't prepared for.'
One possible unintended consequence is for the approximately 1.7% of people who are intersex or born with chromosomal and physical differences to their reproductive organs, Democrats have argued. They raised examples of people with various conditions that would prevent them from falling into this definition based on reproductive organs.
'We can't forget that a certain population exists, and you can't necessarily force them to choose one or the other,' Dallas Rep. Jessica González said on the House floor.
Troxclair and others have argued that intersex people have long had a singular sex indicated on their birth certificates and drivers' licenses, and this would not change that. The bill that passed the Senate indicates that they are not to be considered a third, or separate, sex.
Democrats also raised questions about women who can't conceive, are post-menopausal, or are born without a reproductive system designed to produce ova. Troxclair said the bill should be interpreted to mean people who have systems that, if normally developed, would fit into these two categories — 'whether or not they are fully developed, whether or not they are capable of functioning.'
'We should not be boiling down a human's existence into one's ability to reproduce, because this is harmful, it is dangerous, and it is really freaking insulting,' González said.
When Kansas, Tennessee and Montana led the nation in passing these sex definition laws in 2023, they faced potential backlash from the federal government. Fiscal analysts in Montana estimated it would risk $7 billion in federal anti-discrimination funds, and Tennessee worried about $2 billion in federal education and health funds.
Texas is passing this law in a very different political climate, with a very different administration holding the purse strings. In April, the Trump administration briefly froze Maine's access to federal child nutrition funds because the state refused to bar trans athletes from youth sports.
'The federal government is definitely pushing a worldview similar to these state laws,' said Paisley Currah, a professor of political science at City University of New York. 'And that's concerning for people across the country, not just the states that have adopted these laws.'
Montana's sex definition law, which listed out more than 40 places it would be applied across state statute, was struck down by a state judge in February, who said it was 'facially unconstitutional' because it violates privacy protections and equal protection rights for trans people. Kansas' law is facing legal challenges from the ACLU, which say the law is unconstitutionally vague and should be interpreted in such a way that protects trans people.
Lane-Steele said there's a number of potential constitutional arguments against these laws, from privacy to free speech. Corning said the ACLU of Texas is closely watching to see how far Texas goes to implement this law. It's not clear to them whether it will narrowly apply to statistics and documents, as the language of the law says, or be used to pursue broader policy changes based on the legislative intent.
'If it starts being used that way, they'll definitely hear from us,' she said.
For mental health support for LGBTQ youth, call the Trevor Project's 24/7 toll-free support line at 866-488-7386. For trans peer support, call the Trans Lifeline at 877-565-8860. You can also reach a trained crisis counselor through the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline by calling or texting 988.
First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump Posts Thinly-Veiled Message to Judges on Tariffs
With courts threatening to unravel his global trade war, Donald Trump took to Truth Social on Sunday to send a not-so-subtle signal to the judges standing in his way. The president suggested he expects an appeal to go his way following a week of legal whiplash over his signature economic policy. On Wednesday, a federal trade court struck down his sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs on global trade partners, ruling he had overstepped his constitutional authority. But just a day later, an appeals court put that decision on hold while it reviews the case. Trump catastrophized in his post that a court loss would spell economic disaster. 'If the Courts somehow rule against us on Tariffs, which is not expected, that would allow other Countries to hold our Nation hostage with their anti-American Tariffs that they would use against us,' he wrote. 'This would mean the Economic ruination of the United States of America!' The initial ruling came in response to a lawsuit from small businesses that said the tariffs put their operations at existential risk by driving up costs associated with importing goods. The U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the plaintiffs, with the three-judge panel concluding that the 1977 law Trump relied on to impose the tariffs did not give him 'unbounded authority' to do so. Trump and his mouthpieces have characteristically lashed out at the judiciary in response. His White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, on Thursday cast the panel as 'activist judges'—despite the fact that two of the three were appointed by Republican presidents, including one by Trump himself. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has also reaffirmed the administration's intent to push forward with the tariff policy—via other means if necessary—regardless of the legal setback. 'We're going to take that up to higher courts, the president's going to win like he always does. But rest assured, tariffs are not going away,' Lutnick said in an interview on Fox News Sunday. 'He has so many other authorities, that even in the weird and unusual circumstance where this was taken away, we just bring on another or another or another.' Trump has spent months framing his tariffs as a bargaining chip to force overseas trade partners to make new agreements. To date, the administration has finalized only one such agreement—with the United Kingdom—and a separate 90-day truce with China to roll back steep tariffs on both sides. A federal appeals court has set a June 5 deadline for plaintiffs in the trade court case to respond and June 9 for the administration.


New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Nassau DA warns of Albany push to approve early parole for violent convicts
The Democratic-run New York state legislature could rush through a series of bills to give convicts early parole and prevent law enforcement from keeping dangerous criminals off the streets, Nassau County District Attorney Anne Donnelly warned Sunday. In recent years, Democrats clawed back controversial cashless bail and discovery laws after serial criminals were let loose, triggering massive political blowback. 'These bills undercut everything we work for every day — building strong cases, securing convictions, and ensuring justice is served,' Donnelly, a Republican up for re-election this fall, told The Post. Advertisement 3 Nassau County District Attorney Anne Donnelly. Brigitte Stelzer 'When prosecutors do the hard work of putting violent offenders behind bars, we should be backed by laws that protect that progress — not laws that allow those same criminals to return to our communities years before their sentences are complete,' added Donnelly, who is holding a press conference Monday announcing her opposition to the bills. Among the bills drawing concern is the Elder Parole bill — which would require inmates aged 55 and older who have served at least 15 years of their sentence to be considered for early release, regardless of the seriousness of the crime committed. Advertisement The measure is sponsored by Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal (D-Manhattan) and Assemblywoman Maritza Davila (D-Brooklyn). Another bill, the Earned Time Act, would make most violent felons eligible for time allowance credits, potentially slashing their prison sentences in half, Donnelly said. The earned time bill is sponsored by Sen. Jeremy Cooney (D-Rochester) and Assemblywoman Anna Kelles (D-Ithaca). 3 Madeline Brame's son, Hason Correa, was murdered in a scuffle outside a Harlem apartment building seven years ago. Steven Hirsch Advertisement A third bill — the Second Look Act — would permit prisoners to petition the courts for a sentence reduction after serving 10 years, including inmates convicted of violent crimes. The legislation is promoted by Sen. Julia Salazar (D-Brooklyn) and Assemblywoman Latrice Walker (D-Brooklyn). GOP Long Island lawmakers oppose the early parole bills, including Assemblyman Edward Ra and Sen. Jack Martins. 3 The New York State Capitol building. Hans Pennink for the NY Post Advertisement Crime victims' advocate Madeline Brame, whose Army Sergeant son Hason Correa was murdered in a scuffle outside a Harlem apartment building seven years ago, expressed outrage at the proposals to give violent cons a break. 'These proposals completely disregard the pain and effort that go into holding criminals accountable,' she said. 'We need to help prosecutors put violent offenders behind bars — not give criminals new ways to get out early.' Gov. Kathy Hochul toyed with early release proposals in April as a way to try to alleviate the prison population amid an illegal prison guard strike and a staffing shortage. She was forced to bring in the National Guard to staff the prisons. She proposed opening eligibility for merit time in the state budget, then backed down after it was revealed doing so could lead to people who were in for violent crimes to be released early. Donnelly was among those who raised the alarm. Inmate advocates have pushed for early parole and other reforms after prisoners were allegedly killed at the hands of guards over the past year.


Black America Web
2 hours ago
- Black America Web
Redistricting: Majority Black Voting Maps Rejected In Louisiana
Source: Mario Tama / Getty One of the most innocuous yet insidious ways voter suppression rears its head is through redistricting, a process by which a state legislature draws up voting maps along political lines. Despite a federal judge finding that their current legislative map violates the Voting Rights Act, Louisiana lawmakers have rejected a new map that would've included eight new, majority Black districts. The Louisiana Illuminator reports that Bill 487 and Bill 488, which would've redrawn the legislative maps for the Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, were struck down in a 9-6 and 9-5 vote that fell along party lines. The current maps were drawn in 2022 and utilized census data from 2010, despite the fact that the state's Black population has only increased over the last decade. Black voters make up a third of Louisiana's population, but the current voting maps only have one majority Black district. Rep. Edmond Jordan (D-Baton Rouge), ithe chairman of the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus, authored both bills. He explained the changes were necessary to address a ruling by a federal judge last year that found the current map disenfranchised Black voters. 'By us not upholding our obligation and redrawing these maps … I think it sends a signal that we are unwilling to do so,' Jordan told his fellow legislators. 'Rather than wait on the court to come up with a decision, I think it's incumbent upon us to get ahead of that and maybe draw these maps and show the court that we're willing to comply with Section 2' of the Voting Rights Act. The Republican opposition explained that they didn't feel the need to update the maps as the ruling is currently under appeal, and they believe that the courts will rule in their favor. They also brought up concerns that the new district lines would require current elected officials to move in order to still represent their district or possibly have to run against another incumbent to maintain their seat in the legislature. Jordan understood those concerns but stated his priority was giving Black voters an equal voice in determining who represents them. 'What we're trying to do is attempt to unpack and uncrack these districts so that they would comply with Section 2,' Jordan said. Source: Juan Silva / Getty From the Louisiana Illuminator: Packing is a type of gerrymandering that forces a large number of voters from one group into a single or small number of districts to weaken their power in other districts. Cracking dilutes the power of those voters into many districts. Jordan's plan would have added new majority Black House districts in Natchitoches, Lake Charles, Shreveport and Baton Rouge, and Black Senate districts in Baton Rouge, Shreveport and Jefferson Parish. In what can only be described as saying the quiet part out loud, state Republicans added that they found Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to be outdated. For clarity, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prevents any voting law or measure 'which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.' Considering that they're actively using legislative districts to curb the power of Black votes, it's clear Section 2 is still a necessity to maintain voting rights within majority Black communities. Redistricting is always a partisan affair, with the legislative map being drawn by whatever party has power. Far too often, though, the redistricting efforts by state Republicans are largely built around minimizing Black voting power to keep Republicans in office. This isn't only an issue in Louisiana, as several states have drawn legislative maps that explicitly undermine Black votes. Redistricting plans in the state of Texas are also facing legal challenges due to allegations of racism. There's an ongoing fight in Texas's Tarrant County over redistricting plans that several state legislators believe violate the Voting Rights Act, and there's currently a federal case underway against the Texas state government over its 2021 voting map that was believed to have 'diluted the power of minority voters.' One of the worst offenders is Alabama, whose redistricting efforts have been deemed racist by federal judges several times. State Republicans have said that if they don't receive a favorable ruling in their appeal on the decision, they won't update the voting map until 2030 to avoid federal oversight. There is nothing more on brand for the modern GOP than having a temper tantrum when being told to be less racist. If anything, this is a reminder that in America, the boring, procedural racism is often the worst kind. SEE ALSO: Poll Shows Companies Maintaing DEI Intiatives Have Better Reputations MIT Becomes Latest University To Back Away From DEI Initiatives SEE ALSO Redistricting: Majority Black Voting Maps Rejected In Louisiana was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE