HELENA — On Friday morning, the House Judiciary Committee heard more than three hours of testimony on a bill that would require transgender people to use the bathroom that aligns with their sex at birth. Supporters said it was intended to protect single-sex spaces, particularly for women, while opponents called it discriminatory.

House Bill 121 is sponsored by Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe, R-Billings. It would require public schools, correctional facilities, other public buildings and domestic violence shelters to designate bathrooms, changing rooms and sleeping areas for either men or women, based on their biological sex at birth, and to “take reasonable steps” to keep the opposite sex out. Someone could then sue those facilities if they failed to take those steps and someone of the opposite sex used the space.

The bill wouldn’t apply to rooms that only one person can use at a time.

Seekins-Crowe denied that HB 121 was discriminating against anyone. She said women in these spaces are particularly vulnerable, and that the bill was intended to protect them from violence and harassment. She said it was a major issue for voters she spoke to during the last campaign.

“This is not targeting a certain population, this is protecting a certain population,” she said.

Lt. Gov. Kristen Juras also testified in support. She tied HB 121 to several other pieces of legislation that the Gianforte administration has supported in previous sessions: 2023’s Senate Bill 99, which prohibited gender-affirming health care for transgender youth, and Senate Bill 458, which codified a definition of biological sex into state law, as well as 2021’s House Bill 112, which restricted transgender female athletes from competing in girls’ sports.

“Acknowledging biological realities should not be complicated or controversial, and neither should this bill,” Juras said. “Working with the Legislature, the governor’s office has been proud of our shared record of defending Montanans from the far left’s ideological crusade that has swept the nation.”

Opponents argued the bill’s supporters were overstating the danger to women from transgender people, and that laws already exist to address the kind of behavior they’re concerned about. They said there was no way to enforce this requirement without intruding on Montanans’ privacy.

“How is the state expected to prevent me from using the men’s bathroom?” said Shawn Reagor, a transgender man representing the Montana Gender Alliance. “How is the state expected to know that I should be using the women’s bathroom and require me to do so? It doesn’t make any sense.”

Other opponents raised concerns that implementing the bill would be too burdensome, particularly on local governments and shelters. They questioned what these facilities would be required to do and what kind of legal liability they could face.

Kim Patterson, development director for the Friendship Center in Helena, said their organization receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal funding, including through the Family Violence Prevention and Services Program. She said they’re concerned complying with HB 121 might put that at risk.

“All of this funding prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” she said. “We are already under-resourced, and the loss of this funding would be detrimental to the people who rely on our lifesaving services.”

Rep. SJ Howell, D-Missoula, asked Seekins-Crowe about how the bill would be implemented, citing a hypothetical example of an encounter in a bathroom at a public library.

“They don’t have a name, they don’t have an address, they certainly haven’t seen a birth certificate – I’m hoping they haven’t seen anything else private about that person – they file a suit,” Howell said. “How are you envisioning that the librarian in this instance would clarify their liability? Are you thinking cameras in the bathroom, guards at all times, checks at the door?”

Seekins-Crowe said she believed public facilities are already making accommodations and that the impact will not be as large as opponents believe.

“This bill is not for us to invade privacy – and that does include women’s privacy at this point,” she said. “The purpose of this bill is to protect women in private spaces. And it’s not about checking. I think it really is going to also go to the comfort level of that person.”

The House Judiciary Committee took no immediate action on HB 121 Friday.