Iowa lawmakers have become the first in the U.S. to approve a bill that removes gender identity protections from the state’s civil rights code.
This decision has sparked massive protests, with opponents arguing it could lead to increased discrimination against transgender individuals.
The bill moved quickly through the legislative process, passing in the Senate and then the House along party lines. Five House Republicans joined all Democrats in opposing the measure.
What Did the Bill Change?
The bill removes gender identity as a protected class under Iowa’s civil rights law. It also clearly defines male and female, stating that gender will be considered a synonym for sex.
The law explicitly rejects gender identity, experienced gender, gender expression, or gender roles as valid definitions.
This makes Iowa the first state to remove nondiscrimination protections based on gender identity, according to Logan Casey from the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ+ rights organization.
Governor’s Decision Awaited
The bill now awaits the decision of Republican Governor Kim Reynolds. Reynolds has previously signed laws restricting transgender students’ participation in sports and bathroom access.
Her office has not yet commented on whether she will sign this bill. If she approves it, the law will take effect on July 1.
Protests and Public Opposition
Hundreds of LGBTQ+ advocates gathered at the Capitol, holding signs saying “Trans rights are human rights” and chanting slogans like “No hate in our state!”
The protest saw a strong police presence, with state troopers stationed around the area.
Out of 167 people who testified at a public hearing, most were against the bill. The protests continued during the House vote, with demonstrators shouting “Shame!” and criticizing Rep. Steven Holt, who supported the bill and argued that gender identity in civil rights laws undermines “commonsense” regulations.
Supporters’ Perspective
Supporters of the bill believe that current laws wrongly allow gender transition and give transgender women access to places meant for individuals assigned female at birth.
Rep. Steven Holt defended the bill, arguing that it protects “immutable truth” and maintains cultural values.
He claimed that including gender identity in civil rights protections conflicts with recent laws limiting transgender participation in sports and bathroom access.
Historical Context and Civil Rights Impact
Iowa’s civil rights law protects against discrimination based on race, color, creed, gender identity, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, or disability.
Gender identity and sexual orientation were added in 2007 by a Democratic-controlled Legislature with some Republican support.
This new bill reverses those protections, which opponents argue will further stigmatize and erase transgender individuals from public life.
Read More:
- Measles Outbreak Spreads in US: New Cases in New Jersey and Kentucky!
- ACLU Wins Lawsuit: Wisconsin Must Implement Mother-Child Care Program in Prisons
Emotional Pleas and Opposition Voices
State Rep. Aime Wichtendahl, a transgender woman, spoke emotionally against the bill, sharing her personal story of transitioning to save her life.
She argued that anti-trans bills aim to erase LGBTQ+ people from public life and make their existence illegal. Her testimony highlighted the human impact of the legislation.
National Implications and Legal Interpretations
Currently, about half of U.S. states protect gender identity under civil rights laws. In other states, legal interpretations include such protections under broader sex discrimination laws.
Iowa’s Supreme Court has previously ruled that discrimination based on sex does not include gender identity.
The bill aligns with ongoing efforts by Republican-led legislatures to define male and female based on birth reproductive organs, following an executive order from former President Donald Trump.
Disclaimer- Our team has thoroughly fact-checked this article to ensure its accuracy and maintain its credibility. We are committed to providing honest and reliable content for our readers.