Texas Legislature Advances Trio of Bills Targeting Trans Rights and Legal Recognition

In a legislative session marked by intense cultural battles, Texas lawmakers advanced three bills—House Bill 1106, Senate Bill 1257, and House Bill 229—that redefine legal standards around child welfare, insurance coverage, and gender identity. The legislation has triggered a wave of criticism from civil rights groups and LGBTQ advocates, who warn the bills signal a broader rollback of protections and recognition for transgender and nonbinary Texans.

HB 1106: Redefining Abuse in Family Law

House Bill 1106, which has cleared the Texas House and now moves to the Senate, amends the Texas Family Code to explicitly state that a parent’s refusal to affirm their child’s gender identity or sexual orientation does not constitute abuse or neglect. This includes refusing to use a child’s updated name or pronouns—even when legally changed.

Critics argue the bill undermines basic protections for LGBTQ youth. Rocío Fierro-Pérez, political director for the Texas Freedom Network, called the legislation “a shield for cruelty” disguised as a protection of parental rights. “HB 1106 invites rejection and erasure into the home and labels it as care,” she said, emphasizing the psychological harm such rejection can cause.

Data from the Trevor Project highlights the risks: 42% of LGBTQ youth in Texas reported seriously considering suicide in the past year, with trans and nonbinary youth who receive affirmation at home reporting significantly lower mental health risks.

During floor debate, Democratic lawmakers presented documented cases of familial abuse tied to gender non-affirmation. When pressed by Rep. Gene Wu, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Matt Shaheen, acknowledged that he did not consult state child protection agencies and based his proposal on media reports.

SB 1257: The “Trans Tax” and Insurance Burdens

Senate Bill 1257, passed by both chambers, mandates that insurers assume unlimited liability for “all possible adverse consequences” of gender-affirming care. Opponents say this language is intentionally vague and financially punitive, potentially discouraging insurers from covering any transition-related services.

“This bill discourages coverage of essential and even life-saving care,” Fierro-Pérez said. “It’s a tax on trans people,” she added, noting the likely ripple effect on mental health access and basic healthcare services.

The House expedited SB 1257’s passage by substituting it for the House companion bill, HB 778, effectively shortening the timeline for public input. The bill’s opponents say this maneuver undermined transparency and marginalized already vulnerable communities. If signed into law, the bill is expected to make gender-affirming care prohibitively expensive, or functionally inaccessible, for many trans Texans.

HB 229: Legally Mandating a Binary Gender Definition

House Bill 229, known as the “Women’s Bill of Rights,” defines “woman” and “man” in strictly biological terms, based on reproductive anatomy at birth. Passed by the House on a party-line vote after extended debate, the bill mandates that all state records reflect this binary classification—effectively barring trans Texans from having documents that align with their gender identity, even if those documents were previously changed through legal channels.

“This is harmful, dangerous, and really freaking insulting,” said Rep. Jessica González, D-Dallas. Advocates warn the law could jeopardize safety and legal recognition for more than 120,000 transgender residents by forcing them to carry state IDs inconsistent with their gender presentation.

Rep. Ellen Troxclair, the bill’s author, framed the legislation as a defense of women’s rights, saying, “If we can no longer define what a woman is, we cannot defend what women have won.” However, critics noted the definition excludes not only trans individuals, but intersex people and those with reproductive variations.

An amendment was adopted to acknowledge intersex individuals, offered by Rep. Mary González, but the bill’s core binary framework remained intact. Legal analysts warn the measure could lead to conflicts with federal guidelines and court rulings, particularly around identification documents, prison assignments, and discrimination protections.

A Broader Legislative Pattern

Taken together, HB 1106, SB 1257, and HB 229 mark a deepening legislative trend in Texas that prioritizes biological essentialism and restricts the rights of transgender and nonbinary individuals. The bills reflect a shift from regulating specific behaviors—such as participation in sports or bathroom use—to codifying broader philosophical views on gender and identity in state law.

While supporters defend the legislation as affirming parental authority and protecting women’s rights, civil liberties groups have pledged to challenge the bills in court. For LGBTQ Texans, the outcomes of these legal and cultural battles will be felt far beyond the Capitol.