North Carolina’s New Law on Biological Sex: A Clear Statement on Definitions and Funding
On July 29, 2024, North Carolina’s General Assembly took a significant step by passing House Bill 805. The move came after legislators overrode a veto from the governor, establishing a formal definition of biological sex as strictly male or female in state policies. This law will take effect on January 1, 2026, halting the use of taxpayer dollars for gender transition services, including surgeries and medications, for individuals in state care settings like prisons.
This legislation enshrines a binary view of biological sex, grounded in objective factors such as chromosomes, hormones, and anatomical characteristics present at birth. The law unequivocally defines biological sex as:
“Biological indication of male and female in the context of reproductive potential or capacity, such as sex chromosomes, naturally occurring sex hormones, gonads, and nonambiguous internal and external genitalia present at birth, without regard to an individual’s psychological, chosen, or subjective experience of gender.”
By making a clear distinction between biological sex and gender identity, the law states that an individual’s self-declared gender identity is not equivalent to their biological sex according to state regulations. This could lead to significant changes in how gender identity is treated at the state level.
Supporters of the bill argue it brings clarity and consistency to public policy. Republican House Speaker Destin Hall stated, “The governor was siding with radical activists over the overwhelming majority of North Carolinians who believe in parental rights, biological reality, and protecting women and children.”
The origins of this legislation lie in an attempt to strengthen protections against online exploitation of minors, but it later expanded to include controversial amendments on biological sex. Governor Josh Stein vetoed the bill, calling it unfair to vulnerable populations. He commented, “My faith teaches me that we are all children of God no matter our differences,” emphasizing a more inclusive approach.
Despite opposition, the Republican-controlled legislature moved forward with the veto override. State Senator Kevin Corbin framed the law as a defense against ideological shifts in governance, remarking, “It has become a bit of a culture war… you’ve had men, you’ve had women defined from the Bible forward.”
However, many critics see this as evidence of a broader anti-LGBTQ agenda. Democratic State Senator Julie Mayfield warned, “It’s another example of importing to North Carolina this national anti-LGBTQ agenda… we aren’t in the 1950s anymore.” Such comments reflect the tension and differing perspectives on gender issues that persist in contemporary discourse.
The law also creates profound implications for state operations. Identification documents will now feature only “male” or “female” as classifications. State agencies must adjust all official records and processes to comply with the new binary classifications. Importantly, the law also extends legal liability for gender transition procedures, meaning health practitioners will be held accountable for ten years, potentially increasing the stakes for medical professionals.
This legislative push aligns with previous federal attempts to define sex based on biological characteristics, particularly actions taken under the Trump administration. North Carolina’s law could signal a growing trend among conservative states to reaffirm traditional definitions of sex, contributing to a collective response against perceived progressive ideologies.
As of August 2024, numerous states have enacted laws limiting state funding for gender-related medical treatments. North Carolina’s HB 805 adds complexity by intertwining definitions of sex with liability frameworks. This shift raises the stakes for health practitioners dealing with gender transition and could exacerbate existing barriers for transgender individuals seeking care.
Critics have raised alarms about the potential repercussions for mental health and access to treatment. Though the bill was originally intended to address the sexual exploitation of minors, the legislative process shifted its focus, and amendments that sought to separate those issues from the sex-definition aspects faced significant pushback. Democratic Senator Sophia Chitlik lamented, “We would have loved to salvage the original bill and we tried almost a dozen times to do that.”
The atmosphere surrounding the law reflects a profound cultural and political divide in North Carolina. While supporters maintain they are advancing objective policy, opponents argue that these decisions marginalize vulnerable communities. Governor Stein warned against the growing polarization, suggesting that the law does not serve the state’s best interests: “They don’t advance the state, they just serve to put us in separate corners.”
Although many provisions of HB 805 are already in effect, including those on photography consent and criminal behavior involving minors, the full implementation of the sex-definition components will not occur until 2026. This extended timeline opens the door for potential legal challenges and administrative adjustments in the interim.
The passage of this law indicates a significant shift in North Carolina’s governance, signaling a reassertion of control over fundamental definitions in society, healthcare financing, and legal liability. Whether this law faces challenges in court or inspires similar measures in other states, it sets a precedent in the ongoing dialogue surrounding biological definitions of sex. Its impact on future legislation and social norms remains to be seen.
"*" indicates required fields
