From left, Rep. John Lesch, Rep. Debra Hilstrom and Rep. Jon Applebaum take part in an informational hearing about a bill that deals with gender specific restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms and similar places, at the State Office Building in St. Paul on Tuesday, April 12, 2016. The proposal to require transgender people to use the bathroom of their birth sex drew passionate testimony from both sides at the Minnesota Legislature Tuesday, but appears to be dead for the year. (Pioneer Press: Scott Takushi)

Emily Zinos, a mother of public school children, speaks in support of the bill. At left is Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen, the bill's sponsor. (Pioneer Press: Scott Takushi)

Roxanne Anderson of OutFront Minnesota, who also owns a business, speaks in opposition to the bill. The measure, similar to controversial bills passed in states such as North Carolina, would forbid schools and businesses from allowing access to bathrooms, locker rooms and other similar facilities on "any basis other than biological sex." (Pioneer Press: Scott Takushi)

Marjorie Holsten of Maple Grove speaks in support of the bill. (Pioneer Press: Scott Takushi)

Rev. DeWayne L. Davis, Senior Pastor at All God's Children MCC, speaks in opposition to the bill. (Pioneer Press: Scott Takushi)



Attorney Melissa Coleman speaks in support of the bill. (Pioneer Press: Scott Takushi)

David Edwards, a St. Paul parent of a gender nonconforming child, speaks in opposition to a bill in an informational hearing about a bill that deals with gender specific restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms and similar places, at the State Office Building in St. Paul on Tuesday, April 12, 2016. The proposal to require transgender people to use the bathroom of their birth sex drew passionate testimony from both sides at the Minnesota Legislature Tuesday, but appears to be dead for the year. (Pioneer Press: Scott Takushi)

Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen, sponsor of the bill, speaks, at the hearing. (Pioneer Press: Scott Takushi)

Monica Meyer, Executive Director of OutFrount Minnesota speaks in opposition to the bill. (Pioneer Press: Scott Takushi)

Opponents of the bill hold signs after the informational hearing. (Pioneer Press: Scott Takushi)



The Civil Law and Data Practices committee listens during an informational hearing, held to discuss HF3396 which deals with gender specific restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms and similar places, at the State Office Building in St. Paul, Tuesday, April 12, 2016. The committee did not take a vote and is not planning on meeting again before the 2016 legislative session ends in May. Rep. Peggy Scott, the Andover Republican who chairs the committee, said the transgender bathroom bill will not receive a committee vote unless something changes in the next six weeks. (Pioneer Press: Scott Takushi)

Rep. Barb Yarusso speaks in opposition to the bill. (Pioneer Press: Scott Takushi)

A sign rests against the wall outside of the hearing room. (Pioneer Press: Scott Takushi)

A proposal to require transgender people to use the bathroom of their birth sex drew passionate testimony from both sides at the Minnesota Legislature Tuesday, but appears to be dead for the year.

The measure, similar to controversial bills passed in states such as North Carolina, would forbid schools and businesses from allowing access to bathrooms, locker rooms and other similar facilities “on any basis other than biological sex.”

But the bill’s Republican sponsors are unlikely to get it through even the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.

The House committee to which the bill is assigned held an informational hearing about it Tuesday, but it did not take a vote and is not planning on meeting again before the 2016 legislative session ends in May. Rep. Peggy Scott, the Andover Republican who chairs the committee, said the transgender bathroom bill will not receive a committee vote unless something changes in the next six weeks. Related Articles Early voting begins in Minnesota: Things to know.

Gov. Walz, Minnesota’s pointman on COVID-19, looks back with some regret

Senate Republicans oust second Walz cabinet member as governor extends pandemic emergency

The pandemic changes how candidates run for the Legislature

MN Gov. Tim Walz calls Friday special session; plans to extend powers

Even if the House were to pass the bill this year, it would be highly unlikely to pass the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party-controlled Senate, and Gov. Mark Dayton has promised to veto it.

BILL IS PART OF NATIONAL DEBATE

Bathroom bills in states such as Minnesota and North Carolina are part of a broader national debate about transgender rights and accommodations.

Transgender activists have been pressing for laws protecting them from discrimination — which Minnesota has had since 1993 — and for guaranteed access to the bathrooms of the gender with which they identify. Opponents have resisted mandates to let transgender people use the bathrooms of their identified gender, and in response have proposed bans on assigning bathrooms on anything other than sex at birth.

There are no firm statistics on how many Americans or Minnesotans are transgender. A 2015 study by the U.S. Census Bureau identified around 89,000 Americans in the most recent Census who had changed their gender or changed to a name used by the opposite gender, about 0.03 percent of the population — though that wouldn’t count transgender people who have not changed their names or did not do so with the Social Security Administration.

States such as Minnesota with laws banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity had larger percentages of transgender people than did states without such protections, according to this rough estimate.

The Census study found around two-thirds of the likely transgender people it identified had been assigned the female gender at birth and switched to male, while one-third had been assigned male at birth and later changed to a female name.

Other surveys have found higher numbers of transgender people, such as a 2011 Williams Institute study that identified about 0.3 percent of the population as transgender — about 700,000 people.

SUPPORTERS: BILL WOULD PROTECT PRIVACY, SAFETY

Supporters said the measure is needed to protect the privacy and physical safety of women and children while changing or using restrooms.

“The presence of a member of the opposite sex in a locker room or restroom immediately violates the bodily privacy rights of everyone else in that facility,” said Jim Ballentine, an attorney testifying in favor of the bill.

Others worried that male sexual predators could falsely claim to be transgendered in order to get access to women’s restrooms.

“Anyone can use any bathroom … they choose,” said Emily Zinos, a mother of five children who said she was concerned for their safety. “That’s a situation that’s ripe for abuse by those who have the intention of harming children.”

Several female testifiers told of feeling uncomfortable when a transgender woman used the women’s restroom at work or another public place, or of conflict about transgender girls having access to changing facilities at schools.

OPPONENTS: MEASURE IS UNNECESSARY, HATEFUL

A string of critics, including many people who are transgender, said the arguments in favor of the bill were based on fear, not fact.

“We’ve heard a great deal about the bill’s attempt to deal with fear of harm. No instances of actual harm have been cited,” said state Rep. Barb Yarusso, DFL-Shoreview, and the mother of a person who is transgender. “Fear does not equal danger.”

Attorney Catherine Crowe, a transgender woman, said the bathroom bill is “an all-out assault on women like me.”

“I am not a rapist. I am not a child molester. I am not a pedophile,” Crowe said.

Other transgender testifiers told of feeling hurt and excluded when they were required to use the bathroom of their birth sex and not their assigned gender.

PASSIONATE, PACKED HEARING

Tuesday’s hearing featured testimony from 12 opponents and nine supporters of the bathroom bill, in front of a capacity audience of around 135 people.

Both sides had large groups of supporters in the crowd, many wearing buttons and stickers with slogans such as “No boys in girls’ bathrooms” or “No hate in our state.” Audience members periodically interrupted testimony and debate with applause.

Despite the passion, the discussion remained largely civil on both sides. The tensest moment came when Crowe said bill sponsor Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen “wants to call me a rapist so he can win some seats at the state and national level.”

Gruenhagen, a Republican from Glencoe, said he wasn’t claiming all transgender people are rapists. He even got a backhanded defense from Rep. John Lesch, a St. Paul DFLer who sharply criticized the bill.

“If there were anyone else presenting this law but you, I would suggest that they were being disingenuous … that they’re doing it in order to gin up fear for political reasons,” said Lesch about Gruenhagen, one of the most outspoken conservative lawmakers in the Legislature. “But I know you, and I know you actually believe this.”

Most of the committee discussion time was taken up by DFL committee members criticizing the bill.

“I find it incredibly disappointing, embarrassing and sad that bills like this are the priority of this committee and this House majority,” said Rep. Jon Applebaum, DFL-Minnetonka.

Republican lawmakers largely held back from commenting until the very end, when Scott and Rep. Kathy Lohmer, R-Stillwater, defended the issue as one deserving of a public debate even though it won’t get a vote this year.

“All across the state of Minnesota, there are parents showing up in school districts today that are concerned about the privacy and safety of children at their own schools,” Scott said. “That is the reason that we’re having this discussion today. Minnesota needs to have this discussion.”