Though majority of anti-trans bills rejected, Maine House narrowly advances trans girls sports ban

After hours of debate, both chambers of the Maine Legislature took initial votes to reject most attempts to restrict the rights of transgender students to use bathrooms, locker rooms, names and pronouns aligning with their gender identity. 

But one bill that prohibits trans girls from playing on girls teams narrowly passed the House of Representatives on Friday.

That means most protections for trans students — including preserving gender identity as a protected class in state law —are expected to remain intact. Of eight total anti-trans bills, five were rejected by both chambers as of Friday evening. Those bills included broad restrictions, including what school facilities students could use, what names and pronouns they can go by at school and whether gender identity should remain a protected class under the Maine Human Rights Act. 

But late Friday the majority of House lawmakers, including a handful of Democratic state representatives, backed LD 233, which would ban trans girls from girls sports. That bill, introduced by Rep. Richard Campbell (R-Orrington), was the only trans athlete bill this session that did not also propose restrictions on bathrooms and locker rooms.

That bill was rejected in the Senate on Monday by a vote of 21-13 but faces several more procedural votes now that the chambers are in nonconcurrence.

Maine’s protections allowing trans girls to compete in girls’ sports has put Maine in the national spotlight, since President Donald Trump threatened to withhold federal funding unless Maine complies with his executive order banning transgender girls from playing girls’ sports. The U.S. Department of Justice is currently suing the state over what it says are violations of Title IX, which protects against discrimination in schools. 

‘This is about more than sports’: The real stakes for trans athletes

During floor debates, lawmakers pointed to that federal scrutiny, with those in support of the bills questioning whether the state’s inclusive policies were fair to all students and, in particular, cisgender girls. Many argued that these bills were not intended to punish trans students, but to bring fairness to athletics and preserve girls’ spaces. 

Critics of the bills reiterated the harms caused by excluding or marginalizing trans youth, particularly when depriving them of opportunities to participate on team and other affirming spaces, when they are already more likely than their cis peers to face bullying and exclusion. Some lawmakers also pointed out the increased scrutiny of all girls, cis and trans, that the bills invite.

One of three trans athlete bills approved by the House

After receiving notice that Maine was in violation of the Trump administration’s interpretation of federal law for allowing trans girls to play on girls’ sports teams in March, the Maine Attorney General’s Office pushed back, though flagged two bills — LD 233 and LD 868 — which the federal government said it would pay attention to. 

Four Democrats voted in favor of LD 233: Reps. Stephan Bunker of Farmington, Wayne Farrin of Jefferson, Dani O’Halloran of Brewer and David Rollins of Augusta. O’Halloran and Farrin both said they were concerned about fairness in high school sports, citing unfair advantages they believe trans girls have over their cis teammates. 

“To be clear, I have no tolerance for bullying and hate or exposing children to public ridicule and harm. Every child deserves to be supported and respected,” O’Halloran said. “But we also need to recognize that allowing trans athletes on all girls sports teams gives trans athletes an advantage that they would not otherwise have. And to me, this is not fair.”

Farrin said Maine should evaluate whether trans girls can play on girls teams on a case-by-case basis, which was the policy of the Maine Principals Association before gender identity was explicitly added as a protected class under the Maine Human Rights Act in 2021. Between 2013 and 2021, there were 56 such hearings, including four with trans girls, according to public testimony the association submitted in 2023. All 56 cases were deemed fair and safe.

“With respect to transgender girls participating in Maine sports, there is nothing new to see here,” said Rep. Amy Kuhn (D-Falmouth), co-chair of the Judiciary Committee, who during the public hearing heard more than 12 hours of testimony, overwhelmingly in support of trans inclusion. 

Citing the Maine Principals Association policy, she said, “This has been the express practice in our state for many years, and I would further submit that it appeared for a long time to proceed without any real discord.”

The other measure the Trump administration is keeping its eye on, LD 868, would also ban trans girls from school girls restrooms and changing rooms. That bill was narrowly rejected by the House with a 72-71 vote and rejected by the Senate on Monday 21-13.

An additional bill (LD 1134) that combined restrictions on trans athletes with use of school facilities was rejected by the Senate on Thursday, with the House following suit on Friday with a 73-72 vote.

“Here we are debating a piece of legislation that would empower adults to scrutinize, interrogate and exclude young women from their own school community simply for being who they are,” said Rep. Amy Roeder (D-Bangor) during floor discussion on LD 1134.

 “Trans girls are not a threat to high school sports. They’re not a threat to anyone. There are children who want to play, who want to compete, who want to be part of a team.”

Transgender teens and allies crowd State House to fight anti-trans bills

Bills proposing broader restrictions in schools now dead

Both the Maine House and Senate rejected another bill, LD 1704, that specifically bans school districts from adopting policies that allow students to use bathrooms aligned with their gender identity. House Minority Leader Katrina Smith (R-Palermo), who sponsored the bill, spoke in favor of several of the proposed restrictions, saying they would protect cisgender girls. 

“We cannot sacrifice the many for the few who are struggling with identity,” she said about the need for LD 1704, which was rejected in the House by a 74-74 vote and in the Senate 20-12.

The question of bathroom use has been settled law in Maine since at least 2014, Kuhn said, pointing to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court decision in Doe v. Clenchy, which ruled that an Orono school violated the Maine Human Rights Act when it did not allow a trans girl to use a bathroom consistent with her gender identity. 

“I would also add that data show that in fact it is transgender people who are more in danger in bathrooms and locker rooms, not their cisgendered peers,” Kuhn added. “This bill seeks to impose restrictions that are in conflict with an inclusive school environment, in violation of current law and will undoubtedly subject Maine to costly litigation.”

Another similar bill, LD 1337, was rejected by the House and has not yet been considered by the Senate. 

Legislation that would impose limits on what names and pronouns students could use in school also failed both chambers on Friday. Rep. Sheila Lyman (R-Livermore Falls), who sponsored the measure, said LD 1002 was about parental rights. 

“This bill keeps parents informed. This is about trust, transparency and parental rights,” she said. “It does not target or exclude anyone.” 

The measure was rejected by House with a 76-71 vote, and in the Senate 20-12.

Maine Human Right Act, gender affirming care remain intact

A proposal (LD 1432) to remove gender identity as a protected class in the Maine Human Rights Act was defeated by the largest margin of all the anti-trans measures in the House, with 81 representatives voting in favor of preserving the status and 65 opposed. A handful of Republicans voted against the bill, including Reps. Nathan Carlow of Buxton, Robert Foley of Wells, and Kenneth Fredette of Newport.

Rep. Matt Moonen (D-Portland) called the proposal a “wild, extreme overreach.”

“I urge people, even if they have points of genuine disagreement on the issue of sports, to recognize this bill for how bad it is and how horrifying it would be to go back to legalizing employment discrimination and housing discrimination and on and on,” he said. A similar measure was signed into law in Iowa in February.

Legislation rolling back protections for young people to seek gender-affirming care was also rejected by the House on Friday with a 75-72 vote after the Senate turned it down the previous night.  

LD 380 would no longer allow minors that are at least 16 years old to consent to gender-affirming care, which can include a wide range of services, including hormone therapy and counseling.

Republicans in favor of the bill argued that 16- and 17-year-olds are too young to make decisions about transitioning. 

“All I’ve heard from the other side is that minors’ brains are not developed enough for gun ownership, not for marriage, and not for a punishment that should fit their crime,” Smith said. “But we come back to this issue that says 16- and 17-year-olds should be able to choose — without parental approval — hormone replacement therapy.”

Kuhn responded that while it is “best when young people are able to confer with adults in their life about important health care decisions,” she noted that “for some people, that is not a safe thing to do, and in fact, can result in abuse, neglect, even being forced into homelessness.”

“It was for this very small group of young people that this law sought to provide a pathway for help, because for these kids, gender affirming care can literally be life saving, and the repeal of this law would put those kids at risk,” Kuhn added.

Editor’s note: This story was updated to include details about Monday’s vote in the Senate.