TEXAS WANTS TO DEFINE WHAT MAKES A WOMAN- AGREE OR DISAGREE, THIS DEBATE ISN’T GOING AWAY. LET’S TALK ABOUT IT.

There’s something about spring in Texas — the bluebonnets bloom, the sun lingers just a little longer, and communities gather in parks and courthouses to march, to celebrate, to be seen.

Last weekend in San Antonio, more than 300 people came together for the third annual “March for Us” — a vibrant celebration of Transgender Day of Visibility. It was emotional, powerful, and, for many, deeply personal.

But just a day later, under the dome of the Texas Capitol, another deeply personal conversation took center stage — one not of celebration, but of definition.

House Bill 229 — the “Women’s Bill of Rights” — passed its second reading in the Texas House. If it becomes law, it would define sex based on reproductive anatomy at birth, requiring all state records and policies to reflect that biological framework. The bill’s author, Rep. Ellen Troxclair, says this is about protecting women’s rights and ensuring that clarity exists in a time where gender identity conversations are evolving rapidly.

Supporters of the bill argue it’s necessary to preserve protections for women in sports, prisons, and public accommodations. They believe that blurring the biological lines could undermine decades of hard-won progress. For them, womanhood is rooted in the physical — not how someone feels, but what they are born with.

Opponents — including Democratic lawmakers and advocacy groups — say the bill is harmful and overly simplistic. They worry it ignores the realities of trans and intersex people, and potentially rolls back recognition already granted through legal name or gender marker changes. They see this as another step toward limiting rights for a community already vulnerable to discrimination and violence.

Now, I want to be clear — I personally believe there are two genders: male and female. That belief doesn’t come from hate or a lack of compassion. It comes from my understanding of biology and how I view the world. But I also believe we can hold personal convictions while still listening. While still seeing the humanity in people who don’t share our views. While still making space for empathy, even when agreement isn’t possible.

The truth is, what’s playing out in Austin isn’t just about legislation. It’s about how we define people, and how much say the government should have in that definition.

Alongside HB 229, the House also preliminarily passed Senate Bill 1257, which would require health insurers that cover gender-affirming care to also cover the costs of detransitioning — even retroactively. Supporters say it’s about accountability and fairness. Critics worry it’s a deterrent meant to pressure insurers to stop covering gender-related care altogether.

What we’re witnessing isn’t just political posturing. It’s the state trying to draw hard lines around something that, for many people, doesn’t feel black and white.

Wherever you land on this issue, what’s undeniable is that these policies will shape lives — not just in theory, but in very real ways. IDs. Access to care. Legal recognition. Public perception.

We can agree. We can disagree. But we shouldn’t look away.

Because this is about people. Their stories, their identities, and whether there’s room for them in the legal language of a place they call home.

READ WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING