BOISE, Idaho — One of the most heated debates at the Idaho Capitol this session centers on who belongs in which spaces—and who gets to decide.

House Bill 264 aims to restrict access to bathrooms, changing rooms, dorms, and shelters based on biological sex, not gender identity. Supporters argue that the bill is intended to protect privacy and safety.

“Protecting female spaces really is a continuation of a lot of the things that we have done as Idahoans… men should not be in our private spaces,” said Rep. Barbara Ehardt (R). “Imagine if you sent your daughter to go to the university and she found out that for a year her roommate was going to be a biological male who identified as a female. That’s not right.”

Critics, however, counter that the bill targets an issue that is not grounded in Idaho reality and could create more problems than it solves.

“I don’t think they’re going to increase women’s comfort level by forcing trans men into women’s bathrooms, which is what this bill does,” said Rep. Ilana Rubel (D). “This one in particular on the bathrooms is… extremely misguided. I think a lot of the folks in here are legislating without ever having really known a trans person in their life.”

Rubel also noted that there is no record of assault by a trans woman in Idaho bathrooms and expressed concerns that the bill could lead to costly lawsuits. “At best, it’s a total waste of time that is a distraction from the real needs of the people of Idaho,” she added.

Another bill, HB 239, is gaining attention as it would require parents to actively opt their child into any sexual content in classes, as opposed to the current system that allows them to opt-out.

“The opt-in is really about consent, not content,” Ehardt said. She believes the change empowers parents after hearing what she described as alarming stories from families. “The subject matter being taught really was about self-gratification… My child cannot unsee that,” she continued. “They were role-playing sexual situations… I have story after story.”

Rubel warned that the bill could unintentionally block teens from learning important lessons about their bodies due to possible administrative delays or parents forgetting to opt in. “Whenever you flip things from opt-out to opt-in, you end up losing roughly half the people along the way just from paperwork and administrative hurdles,” she stated.

Additionally, HB 352 would ban any classroom instruction touching on sexual orientation or gender identity from kindergarten through high school. Supporters assert that the classroom is not an appropriate setting for such discussions.

“We don’t want teachers… allowing the kids to choose another name, other pronouns… this is not something for the school to decide,” Ehardt expressed.

Rubel argued that the line between what is banned and what is allowed is too blurry and risks erasing many students’ identities. “It’s been a disappointing session… very silly culture war issues… not responsive to the actual needs of the people of Idaho,” she concluded.