Georgina Lambert

Opposition Testimony on HB 1299 The proposed HB 1299 poses serious risks to vulnerable populations, particularly transgender, intersex, and gender-nonconforming individuals. It legitimizes classification based on biological sex in environments that already serve as potential sites of trauma and discrimination, including bathrooms, locker rooms, correctional facilities, and mental health institutions. These spaces are high-risk for individuals with histories of violence, institutional abuse, and medical trauma. Impacts of the Bill Trauma-Informed Considerations Policies like HB 1299 have profound implications, as individuals within these environments may be re-exposed to harm. Empirical evidence demonstrates that transgender individuals face elevated risks of sexual assault, harassment, and institutional violence, particularly when forced into sex-segregated spaces that conflict with their gender identity (James et al., 2016; Stotzer, 2009). The bill places transgender and intersex individuals in increasingly precarious situations, leading to a higher likelihood of violence and emotional distress. Intersectional Analysis The burdens of HB 1299 fall unevenly on marginalized groups, including: Transgender and Gender-Diverse Individuals: Their identities are subordinated to outdated birth certificate classifications. Intersex Individuals: This bill effectively erases their existence from legal recognition and protective measures (Davis et al., 2016). Incarcerated People: Particularly transgender women of color, who face alarming rates of sexual violence while in custody (James et al., 2016). People with Disabilities: Individuals in mental health facilities can suffer exacerbated psychiatric symptoms due to forced segregation (Gooding, 2015). Low-Income Populations: Those who rely on public facilities are more susceptible to harmful environments. The bill reinforces existing hierarchies that privilege cisgender identities while marginalizing thosewho do not conform to binary sex norms (Crenshaw, 1991; Spade, 2015). Evidence-Based Concerns Major medical and psychological organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association, recognize gender identity as a core aspect of individual identity. These organizations oppose policies like HB 1299 that limit access to gender-affirming spaces (APA, 2015; AMA, 2021). Research consistently finds that inclusive policies do not compromise safety, while exclusionary practices significantly elevate mental health risks, including distress, suicidality, and victimization among transgender communities (Hasenbush et al., 2019; Hughto et al., 2015). Potential Harms and Limitations Individual-Level Harms HB 1299 creates substantial individual risks, such as: Increased exposure to harassment, assault, and violence. Heightened anxiety, hyper-vigilance, and avoidance behaviors. Elevated rates of depression, PTSD, and suicidality. Research indicates that transgender adults denied access to gender-affirming facilities report significantly higher psychological distress and suicide attempt rates (Hughto et al., 2015; James et al., 2016). Systemic-Level Harms Systemically, HB 1299 undermines civil rights by carving out exceptions to existing anti-discrimination laws. It codifies biological essentialism, contradicting contemporary medical consensus, and legitimizes practices that disproportionately harm marginalized groups. This sends a powerful signal endorsing exclusionary practices, thereby increasing societal stigma and hostility. Policy Limitations The bill's limitations are pronounced: It does not require individualized safety assessments. There are no trauma-informed safeguards in correctional or treatment settings. It lacks protections for intersex individuals. The broad discretion granted to entities comes with no accountability mechanisms. The explicit removal of discrimination claims limits legal recourse for individuals facing harm. Evidence-Based Recommendations To prioritize the safety and dignity of all individuals, we must implement: Individualized Placement Assessments: Access and placement should be determined by safety and dignity considerations, not merely birth certificate classifications. Trauma-Informed Training: Implement training for all staff in corrections, athletics, and treatment facilities to better understand and support individuals with diverse gender identities. Prohibition of Involuntary Placements: Ensure no involuntary placements increase the risk of harm for individuals. Conclusion The implications of HB 1299 extend far beyond the intended goal of protecting privacy and safety. The risks to marginalized populations are substantial, and the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that such exclusionary policies are harmful. Policymakers must recognize that there is no empirical justification for this bill and that its enactment would undermine the principles of dignity, safety, and equality. Rather than legitimizing discrimination under the guise of safety, we must strive for inclusive policies that protect and empower all individuals. In closing, I urge you to reconsider the potential consequences of HB 1299 and the detrimental impact it would have on our most vulnerable community members. Thank you.