Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Featured Opinion

Opinion | Decoding HB111: An equal rights battle

At its core, HB 111 embodies the worst impulses of cruelty and narrow-mindedness. Its proponents peddle fear and misinformation.

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Republicans nationwide are intensifying their push to enact laws that blatantly disregard transgender individuals, aiming to enshrine narrow definitions of sex that legal experts and scientists decry as unscientific and politically motivated.

This isn’t merely about curtailing participation in sports or limiting access to healthcare; it’s a concerted effort to erase the very existence of transgender individuals and dismiss the reality of intersex people. It’s a brazen endeavor to institutionalize discrimination under the pretext of upholding “traditional values.”

HB111, championed by state Rep. Susan DuBose, mirrors similar legislation cropping up in conservative strongholds across the nation.

More than ten states have either introduced or passed bills aiming to narrowly define “male” and “female.” Such legislation carries countless consequences for transgender individuals — from obstructing updates to birth certificates and identification documents reflecting one’s true gender to denying access to restrooms aligning with their identity.

In a recent op-ed by DuBose and state Rep. Paula Scanlan, the true intent of these bills is laid bare. Laden with disdain and intolerance, they seek to justify their regressive stance by scapegoating President Joe Biden and perpetuating harmful stereotypes. Their headline, “YOU KNOW WHAT A WOMAN IS, SO LET’S MAKE SURE OUR LAWS DO, TOO,” reeks of exclusion and division. (APR refrained from publishing State Reps. Susan DuBose and Paula Scanlan’s column due to its inaccuracies and falsehoods.)

Understanding the issues surrounding bills like HB 111 requires delving into historical and societal contexts that shape attitudes towards transgender and nonbinary individuals, as well as the broader legal and policy framework.

Throughout history, transgender and nonbinary individuals have grappled with systemic discrimination and marginalization. From the medicalization of transgender identities to the pathologization of gender nonconformity, society has struggled to embrace gender diversity. Even within LGBTQ+ communities, transgender and nonbinary individuals have often faced marginalization.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Legal recognition and protections for transgender and nonbinary individuals have been slow to materialize. While progress has been made in recent years, including legal recognition of gender identity and protections against discrimination in some areas, many states lack comprehensive nondiscrimination laws explicitly safeguarding gender identity and expression.

Amidst the growing societal acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals, conservative lawmakers and interest groups have mounted a backlash against LGBTQ+ rights through targeted legislation and litigation.

Presenting such bills as necessary to safeguard women’s rights is a strategic ploy to exploit fears and misconceptions about transgender individuals. By portraying transgender women as a threat to cisgender women’s safety and privacy, proponents of bills like HB111 seek to rally support for discriminatory measures under the guise of protecting vulnerable populations.

Furthermore, the debate over transgender rights intersects with broader discussions on gender, sexuality, and identity. As society grapples with evolving understandings of gender and sexuality, there’s increasing recognition of the fluidity and diversity of human experiences. However, resistance persists from those clinging to rigid notions of gender and sexuality.

In this context, bills like HB111 seek to impose binary understandings of gender onto a complex and diverse reality. By erasing the legal existence of transgender and nonbinary individuals and depriving them of essential services and protections, such legislation perpetuates harm and discrimination.

In January 2020 the United States Supreme Court expanded sex discrimination protections to include gender identity and sexual orientation. In a 6-3 ruling, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the four liberal justices in the majority, ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ employees from being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Writing for the majority, Gorsuch argued that discrimination on these grounds is fundamentally tantamount to sex discrimination.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

He argued that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is fundamentally no different than discrimination based on sex.

“An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions,” Gorsuch wrote. “That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

“We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex,” he added. “But, as we’ve seen, discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.”

HB111 represents the latest attempt to roll back hard-earned personal liberties.

The fight for transgender rights is inseparable from the broader struggle for justice, equality, and dignity for all individuals, regardless of gender identity or expression. It’s part of an ongoing movement towards a more just and equitable society for all.

Bill Britt is editor-in-chief at the Alabama Political Reporter and host of The Voice of Alabama Politics. You can email him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter.

More from APR


The bill by Rep. Susan DuBose excludes transgender individuals from being defined by state law as the gender with which they identify.

Featured Opinion

It is the transgender individuals themselves who are put at risk by these policies.


Citizens must continue to show that this overreach is unacceptable if we want to ensure the safety of our nonpartisan spaces.


The bill would codify the definitions of male and female to be based on reproductive biology.