Iowa lawmakers voted to remove gender identity protections from the state’s civil rights code Thursday despite massive protests by opponents who say it could expose transgender people to discrimination in numerous areas of life.
The measure raced through the legislative process after first being introduced last week. The state Senate was first to approve the bill on Thursday, followed by the House less than an hour later.
Hundreds of 2SLGBTQ+ advocates streamed into the Capitol rotunda on Thursday waving signs reading “Trans rights are human rights” and chanting slogans including “No hate in our state!”
There was a heavy police presence, with state troopers stationed around the rotunda. Opposition to the bill was huge, with 2SLGBTQ+ people and their allies showing up in droves to defend the human rights of transgender and non-binary people. Of the 167 people who signed up to testify at a 90-minute public hearing before a House committee, all but 24 were opposed to the bill.
Protesters who watched the vote from the House gallery loudly booed and shouted “Shame!” as the chamber adjourned. Many admonished Iowa state Rep. Steven Holt, who floor managed the bill and delivered a fierce defence of it before it passed.
The bill would remove gender identity as a protected class from the state’s civil rights law and explicitly define female and male, as well as gender, which would henceforth be considered a synonym for sex and “shall not be considered a synonym or shorthand expression for gender identity, experienced gender, gender expression, or gender role.”
The measure would be the first legislative action removing nondiscrimination protections based on gender identity, said Logan Casey, director of policy research at the Movement Advancement Project, an 2SLGBTQ+ rights think tank.
Supporters of the change say the current law codified the idea that people can transition to another gender, which they believe is incorrect, and granted transgender women access to spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams that they believe should be reserved for people who were assigned female at birth.
“The legislature of Iowa for the future of our children and our culture has a vested interest and solemn responsibility to stand up for immutable truth,” Holt said.
2SLGBTQ+ people and human rights advocates say there is no justification for stripping civil rights protections from trans and non-binary people.
“If this bill passes, many basic life necessities Iowans take for granted will become much more difficult for transgender Iowans to access,” Maz Mowitz, executive director of 2SLGBTQ+ advocacy group One Iowa Action, said last month.
“Landlords will legally be able to deny them the ability to rent an apartment, banks will be able to deny them a car loan and hotels will be able to turn them away for no other reason than because they are transgender. This bill gives those who wish to discriminate the ability to put their thumb on the scales of the American dream.”
Iowa state Rep. Aime Wichtendahl was the last Democrat to speak out against the bill on Thursday, becoming emotional as she offered her personal story as a transgender woman, saying: “I transitioned to save my life.”
“The purpose of this bill and the purpose of every anti-trans bill is to further erase us from public life and to stigmatize our existence,” Wichtendahl said. “The sum total of every anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ bill is to make our existence illegal.”
‘Protections should be … strengthened, not removed’
The legislation now goes to Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, who has been supportive of efforts to limit gender identity protections. A spokesperson for Reynolds declined to comment on whether she would sign the bill.
The Iowa lawmakers’ actions came on the same day the Georgia House backed away from removing gender protections from the state’s hate crimes law, which was passed in 2020 after the death of Ahmaud Arbery.
Iowa’s current civil rights law protects against discrimination based on race, colour, creed, gender identity, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin or disability status.
Sexual orientation and gender identity were not originally included in the state’s Civil Rights Act of 1965. They were added by the Democratic-controlled Legislature in 2007, also with the support of about a dozen Republicans across the two chambers.
Iowa Republicans say their changes are intended to reinforce the state’s ban on sports participation and public bathroom access for transgender students, which were signed into law by Reynolds.
These increasing attacks on trans rights should be a reason to strengthen protections, not remove them, Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD, said Wednesday.
“At a time when transgender people are under unprecedented attack, protections should be enforced and strengthened, not removed to embolden discrimination,” Ellis said in a statement.
“Nondiscrimination laws are critical to protecting our most vulnerable and marginalized communities, and ensuring that no one is treated differently because of who they are. This is a red alert wake-up call that if they can do this to trans people, all civil rights protections could be at risk,” Ellis said.
About half of U.S. states include gender identity in their civil rights code to protect against discrimination in housing and public places, such as stores or restaurants, according to the Movement Advancement Project. Some additional states do not explicitly protect against such discrimination, but it is included in legal interpretations of statutes.
Iowa’s Supreme Court has rejected the argument that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on gender identity.
Several Republican-led legislatures are also pushing to enact more laws this year creating legal definitions of male and female based on the reproductive organs at birth following an executive order from U.S. President Donald Trump.
Trump, in a blitz of executive orders targeting the rights of trans and non-binary people, also signed orders laying the groundwork for banning transgender people from military service and keeping transgender girls and women out of girls and women’s sports competitions, among other things. Most of the policies are being challenged in court.
