In the hushed corridors of the Colorado State Capitol, a piece of legislation has stirred robust discussion and drawn public attention. Late Thursday night, the Senate Judiciary Committee cast their votes, resulting in a 5-2 decision favoring an amended version of House Bill 1312. This controversial bill aims to redefine the landscape of anti-discrimination laws by including "misgendering" and "deadnaming" as potential discriminatory acts under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
The term "misgendering" is understood as the act of not using an individual's chosen pronouns, while "deadnaming" refers to calling a transgender person by their birth name instead of their preferred name. These concepts are at the heart of the debate, touching on the broader societal discussions around identity and respect for personal expression.
Originally, the bill contained provisions that addressed family custody issues and defined "deadnaming" or "misgendering" as coercive control in such cases. However, the latest amendments have removed such language and omitted sections that would have categorized the publication of a "deadname" as discriminatory. Despite these revisions, the bill maintains its stance against courts using Colorado law to remove children from parents who allow "gender-affirming care," which encompasses various forms of support for transgender individuals.
Introduced by Democratic Senators Chris Kolker and Faith Winter, the amendments were a response to both legal and public concerns. Their swift integration into the bill also included a severability clause, a strategic move to safeguard the legislation's survival should any part be challenged and struck down.
The journey of House Bill 1312 has been under the legislative microscope for some time, with its Senate hearing delayed by over two weeks. In that interim, advocacy groups such as One Colorado and Planned Parenthood shifted their positions from outright support to advocating for amendments. Their concerns centered on potential unintended consequences that could undermine existing protections under Colorado's anti-discrimination laws.
Cal Solverson, a representative from One Colorado, highlighted the collaborative efforts with legal experts and organizations like the Transgender Law Center to refine the bill, ensuring its robustness in the face of potential legal challenges. On the other side, Planned Parenthood’s Jack Teter stressed the importance of clear legal definitions and updates that would more effectively shield transgender residents.
The discourse around the bill has not been without its critics. Dr. Susan Selder Wright, a philosophy professor, raised questions about the scientific validity of "gender-affirming care," pointing to the ongoing debate and contrasting approaches in European countries. Glenn Stanton from Focus on the Family labeled the bill as ideologically motivated, voicing concerns over its impact on parents and educators.
In contrast, supporters like Tonya Allen, the mother of a transgender son, and transgender advocates such as Casey Hicks, offered powerful personal narratives. They spoke of the need for protection from discrimination and the daily challenges faced by transgender individuals.
The deliberations culminated in hours of testimony, with the final vote largely splitting along party lines. Some senators, even those supportive of the bill, expressed trepidation about its legal durability, particularly under federal court scrutiny.
