Lawmakers on the Assembly Health, Aging and Long-Term Care committee weighed what happened during a tense hearing on a bill to ban gender affirming medical care and then voted along party lines to advance the bill. Rep. Lisa Subeck became emotional while speaking to her colleagues. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.

A little over 12 hours after a tense public hearing on a resurrected bill to ban gender affirming medical care for children, lawmakers on the Assembly Health, Aging and Long-Term Care committee weighed what happened and then voted along party lines to advance the bill.

AB 104 would ban gender affirming care, including prescribing puberty-blocking drugs or gender-affirming surgery, for those under 18. It would also require revocation of a medical provider’s license found to be providing the care. It is the fourth bill focused on transgender youth in Wisconsin to receive a hearing over the last two weeks. 

“After sitting through the hearing on this bill yesterday, I would hope some people are taking a step back and saying, wait a minute, maybe this isn’t the route that we should go,” Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) said during Thursday’s executive session. She noted that one person at the hearing even had a “change of heart.”

Larry Jones of Milwaukee spoke about seven hours into the hearing. Sitting in front of lawmakers, he began apologizing for being there and said he was invited to the hearing to show his support for the bill.

“I have very little knowledge of gay people and things like that there, so when I came here, my eyes were opened,” he said Wednesday at around 9:12 p.m. “I was one of the critics that sat on the side and made the decisions there was only two genders, so I got an education that was unbelievable and I don’t know just exactly how to say this but my perspective for people have changed. I’d like to apologize for being here and I learned a very lot about this group of people.”

Subeck, talking to her colleagues the next day, became emotional as she spoke about the committee’s upcoming vote on the bill.

“The governor is going to veto [the bill]. I feel really good about that,” Subeck said. “I don’t feel so good about the fact that we’re gonna have a vote here where people are gonna vote to support this.” 

Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a similar bill last session, and vowed to LGBTQ+ youth in January to continue vetoing any bill that “makes Wisconsin a less safe, less inclusive, and less welcoming place.”

Subeck said the bill causes harm. It is the latest in a slate of bills focused on LGBTQ+ youth introduced by Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin. The bills come as President Donald Trump has also made targeting transgender people a key point in the first couple months of his term. In a recent survey of Wisconsin LGBTQ+ youth by the Trevor Project, 91% of respondents reported that recent politics negatively impacted their well-being.

Subeck pointed to the emotional testimony lawmakers heard into the night, including from Charlie Werner, a teen, who testified with his parents, Allison and Dan Werner, around 8 p.m. The family was also present in 2023 at a bill hearing and when Gov. Tony Evers vetoed the bill. 

Werner told lawmakers that he was dealing with depression before realizing he was dealing with gender dysphoria. He said that therapy and finding community, especially among other queer and trans people, has “lifted” him.

Werner said the gender affirming care he has received, including puberty blockers and later receiving testosterone, has helped him go “from being so uncomfortable in my body to finally feeling a bit of clarity.” He said the care has allowed him to experience similar traits as his cisgender peers, including a lower voice.

“I finally feel like myself,” Werner said. “Gender affirming care saved my life… I don’t believe you are bad people. I simply think this is what you have been taught, but you still have the opportunity to change and make better decisions for the people that you serve.” 

Subeck had a similar message for her colleagues during the executive session. 

“Many of you I’ve known for a very long time, some of us came into this Legislature together. I know that you’re good people who care. I know that,” Subeck, who has served since 2014, said. “That is why it’s so bothersome to me to think … you can sit in this room and vote for this bill… We’re better than that as a body. This isn’t about doing what’s right.”

Rep. Adam Neylon (R-Pewaukee) said that he used the hearing time to listen and to learn, and pushed back on the idea that the bill is a “judgment on trans people.” Rather, he said, the bill comes from a “conservative approach to medical care that may be irreversible.”

“If you’re accusing us of wanting to be conservative when it comes to the medical care of minors, then that is true…,” Neylon said. “That doesn’t mean we want them dead, right? That doesn’t mean we don’t recognize their right to exist.”

However, Neylon also acknowledged that the bill may not be the exact right approach. 

“It might not be hitting directly where it should and it might come across political and I understand the pain and I wanted to stay [at the hearing] to make sure that people had an opportunity to share their things…,” Neylon said. “I would be angry if I was young too, but it’s not coming from a place of saying, like trying to other them or saying, like, you don’t belong in our society.”

Committee Chair Rep. Clint Moses said that the hearing was beginning to become unproductive because of “political theater” as some members were being yelled at. He had two people removed by officers from the committee room for yelling during the hearing. 

Throughout the hearing, there were moments of frustration for both lawmakers and members of the public who came to speak.

One of those moments came a little over 6 hours and 18 minutes into the hearing when FAIR Wisconsin Executive Director Abigail Swetz finally got her opportunity to speak to lawmakers. She used her time to tell transgender youth in the state that there are “many of us in this state who love you exactly as you are and exactly as you are becoming.” She reached the time limit before finishing her comments.

Rep. Tara Johnson (D-Town of Shelby) asked if Swetz had anything she wanted to add. Moses stopped this, saying it wasn’t allowed. Johnson replied that others had done the same earlier. 

Swetz started finishing her comments as the lawmakers went back and forth and others in the room started to clap. Moses then began banging his gavel and threatened to adjourn the meeting if the clapping continued.

Moses told the committee on Thursday that he “was ready to adjourn and just walk out because it was not productive.” He then suggested that members look at the Assembly rules again. 

“The chairman of the committee has a lot of power the way it’s set up, so I try not to abuse it — be a tyrant,” Moses said. “I want to hear from everybody. I don’t care if you agree with me or not. I want all perspectives in there, so I’m doing my best to do it, but yesterday it got a little much, a little much, so I think maybe dial it back on some of these with the theater.” 

Moses said he had to start cutting time because of the number of people who came to speak and how late the hearing was running. 

Johnson said the tension in the room was partially because people had been waiting so long to be heard by lawmakers. 

“Some of the escalation came because they felt disenfranchised,” Johnson said. “They felt like it was very lopsided that the pro-voices were heard at greater length, including when my colleagues also asked questions that extended testimony for very long stretches of time.” 

Hearings on bills focused on transgender youth have often been lengthy and emotional. Last week, a hearing on bills that would mandate how schools deal with transgender athletes and name changes lasted over 10 hours. In 2023, many showed up in opposition to a gender affirming care ban bill.

The hearing Wednesday lasted nearly nine hours, but mostly supporters spoke during the first three hours of the hearing despite being vastly outnumbered by opponents.

According to the record of committee proceedings, there were 79 people who appeared against the bill and 18 who appeared for, including the two bill authors. There were also 17 people who registered in favor of the bill, but didn’t speak and 103 people who registered against, but didn’t speak at the hearing. 

At one point during the hearing, Subeck asked Moses to begin alternating between supporters and opponents of the bill, but he responded by saying that was up to him.

Some opponents to the bill spoke about their frustration with this when they finally got their chance to speak.

“We sit here for all this time, all these people, you’re allowing the anti-trans voices to go first. It feels like the world is stacked against us and we’re getting tired of it,” Cory Neeley said. “My voice is cracking because I’m literally fuming at the fact that I’ve sat here all day long listening to people call me a groomer. People calling me a person who doesn’t care about their children… I’m a good parent.”

Subeck told the Wisconsin Examiner in a call Friday that she has seen chairs put certain voices first before, but the degree to which it was done was “unusual” and “pretty unprecedented.” The first three hours of the hearing were mostly supporters of the bill, aside from Sens. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) and Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove).

“Committee chairs often try to, if they can, literally go back and forth, one to one,” Subeck said. “But even if you’re not literally going one for, one against, certainly front loading it so heavily when you have a room full of people there to testify against, including families with children who are going to be impacted by the bill, it certainly felt more like a tactic than a simple oversight.” 

Subeck noted there was some disruption during the hearing and there can be consequences for that.

“I also can’t help but wonder how it could have been different if the chair had actually let some of the folks who were there to testify against the bill testify before we were already a couple of hours into the bill,” Subeck said. “Some of the hateful rhetoric of those early testifiers was directed directly at some of those young people who were coming to testify about how this bill impacted them.”

Moses told lawmakers Thursday he would take the criticism into consideration

“If there’s any issues anyone has, you know, how they’re running? Please come and see me,” Moses said. “We’ll try and work it out privately if I’m still doing it.”

Rep. Rob Brooks (R-Saukville) acknowledged that the conversation about the issue was painful for everyone involved, but he said he thinks the conversation does need to be had. He and Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston) said that an informational hearing, rather than a hearing on a bill, may have been a more “prudent” approach for lawmakers to learn more. 

“You’re right, it’s not going to become law,” Brooks said. “I do think yesterday was beneficial from an educational standpoint for a lot of us, regardless of how you vote. I don’t know how you can’t come out of there a little richer with your knowledge on both sides. I’m going to support the bill.”

The committee voted 10-5 with Republicans for and Democrats against to advance the bill, setting it up to go to the Assembly floor.

Subeck told the Examiner that she was “disappointed and frustrated and upset” Republicans voted for it, saying “they are still putting what is truly partisan motivation… political agenda ahead of the kids and families who came and testified to us.”

However, she said the conversation during the Thursday executive session did give her some hope. 

“In private, legislators have a lot of conversations that don’t reflect the votes that are taken on the floor, and I think the tenor of the conversation in that room was a little bit closer to the conversations that we often have when we are sitting one on one, talking to each other,” Subeck told the Wisconsin Examiner. “It makes me a little bit hopeful, because while my Republican colleagues continue down the path of voting their party line — even when they have said they have things to learn and it gives them pause — the fact that they were willing to even sit in that room, in sort of a public sphere, and have a conversation means that there is room for change.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Correction: This story has been updated to correct the number of people that spoke for and against the bill.

Wisconsin Republicans introduced new bills targeting transgender youth last week after President Donald Trump signed several related executive orders. People gather in New Orleans for Transgender Day of Visibility on March 31, 2023. (Photo by Greg LaRose/Louisiana Illuminator)

Wisconsin Republicans are again turning their focus towards LGBTQ+ youth, especially those who are transgender, introducing bills that would prohibit gender-affirming care for youth, ban students from playing on certain sports teams and mandate that school districts get permission from parents when using different names and pronouns for students. 

The four bills come as President Donald Trump has signed a slate of executive orders targeting transgender people. The bills have received pushback from the Wisconsin Legislative LGBTQ+ Caucus, the Transgender Parent and Non-Binary Advocacy Caucus and LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations. 

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit), chair of the LGBTQ+ caucus, told the Wisconsin Examiner that the bills are “part of broader national Republican effort” to attack trans people. 

“Republicans are now trying to essentially legislate trans people out of existence by denying medically necessary life-saving care, by preventing people from playing team sports, by trying to make it harder for people to be called by the name and pronouns that they go by when they’re in school,” Spreitzer said. 

Targeting transgender athletes

The first two bills would ban transgender girls in Wisconsin K-12 schools and transgender women attending UW System schools and Wisconsin technical colleges from participating on teams that reflect their gender identity. 

The bills’ introduction followed the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association decision in early February to change its policy, which previously permitted transgender athletes to compete on teams consistent with their gender identity. In response to an executive order signed by Trump, the new policy prohibits an athlete from competing on a team that does not match the biological sex that they were assigned when they were born.

“Working in consultation with legal counsel, our Board updated this policy to ensure clarity is provided to our membership as they work to comply with new federal guidance from the White House,” Stephanie Hauser, executive director of the WIAA, said in a statement. 

The WIAA’s decision was celebrated by Reps. Barbara Dittrich (R-Oconomowoc) and Dan Knodl (R-Germantown), who have led unsuccessful efforts in the Legislature to restrict what teams transgender athletes play on for many years. The lawmakers said in a column that they would reintroduce a bill “to secure women’s and girls’ rights in Wisconsin.”

FAIR Wisconsin Executive Director Abigail Swetz said in a statement that sports should be an inclusive space for youth. 

“When an athlete gets to play sports on a team where they belong, that can make such a huge difference, and that is especially true for our trans athletes when the trans community is under attack from a hostile federal government. Now is the time to show our trans kids love and support, not exclusion,” Swetz said. “Our trans kids and young adults, and all trans Wisconsinites, need to know that there are so many people in this state who love you exactly as you are. The fact that a few members of the Wisconsin legislature want to play political games with your joy is inappropriate.” 

Swetz said in an email to the Wisconsin Examiner that the decisions by lawmakers and by the WIAA are examples of the power that the Trump administration is trying to exert on policies at all levels, “using their platform in a calculated, chaotic, and hateful way.”

“There is so much a federal administration cannot do, but let’s be real here, this administration is trying to govern by executive overreach, and although I do not think they will succeed in changing many federal laws, there is power in their federal agencies and also in their significant use of the very loud microphone at their disposal,” Swetz said.

The anti-trans orders “will undoubtedly create a chilling effect of pre-compliance,” Swetz added. “We cannot allow obedience in advance, although we’re already seeing it; the WIAA ruling is a disappointing example of pre-compliance, and it’s frankly antithetical to the values WIAA espouses.”

Gender-affirming care for minors

Another bill — coauthored by Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee), Rep. Scott Allen (R-Waukesha), Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) — would ban gender- affirming care for people under the age of 18. It would prohibit health care providers from engaging in or making referrals for medical intervention “if done for the purpose of changing the minor’s body to correspond to a sex that is discordant with the minor’s biological sex,” including prescribing puberty-blocking drugs or gender-affirming surgery for minors.

“Our children are not experiments and parents should not be scared or pressured into having their children receive non-medically necessary drugs or irreversible procedures before their brains are fully developed,” the authors wrote in a memo. 

Health care providers under the bill could be investigated and have their licenses revoked by the Board of Nursing, the Medical Examining Board and the Physician Assistant Affiliated Credentialing Board if there are allegations that they have provided this type of care to a minor.

Following an executive order by Trump to withhold funds from medical institutions that provide gender affirming care and to require federal health programs to exclude coverage of gender-affirming surgeries and hormone treatments for young people by 2026, Children’s Wisconsin hospital paused gender-affirming care for teens. The hospital reinstated the practice.

Spreitzer called the bill the “cruelest” of the proposals. 

“Republicans are touting this idea that kids shouldn’t make permanent medical decisions until they’re 18,” Spreitzer said. “There are plenty of permanent medical decisions that need to be made before the age of 18 because of different conditions, and that’s why doctors exist.”

He added that such decisions “should be made between doctors, parents and the affected young people, based on medical necessity, based on rigorous medical evaluation, and politicians should not be inserting themselves into that.”

Spreitzer said that medications to delay puberty are intended to give young people the chance to grow up and potentially be able to make additional medical decisions once they turn 18. He said that banning them could create significant psychological harm and leave permanent physical effects that may require additional medical interventions in the future that wouldn’t have been necessary if they’ve been able to take puberty blockers. 

The process for gender affirming care is lengthy and is a decision that includes the child, their families and health providers, including mental health providers, and gender affirming care before 18 mostly focuses on pubertal suppression or hormone therapy.

Studies have found that de-transitioning is quite rare, according to the Human Rights Campaign, and one study found that transgender youth who start hormones with their parents’ assistance before age 18 years are less likely to detransition compared with those that start as adults.

Spreitzer noted that those under 18 who have been receiving care would also have to stop receiving it. The bill would include a six-month period before it goes into effect which would be meant for health care providers to discontinue care for minor patients 

“People are going to essentially be told in six months you’re going to have to stop taking medications you’re currently on, and you’re going to have to go through puberty as a sex that you don’t identify with. That is going to create incredible trauma for those young people,” Spreitzer said.

Names and pronouns

The fourth bill introduced last week would require school districts to implement policies stating that parents determine the names and pronouns used by school staff. The proposed policies must require a parent’s written authorization for school employees to use something different. 

The bill includes an exception if a nickname is a shortened version of a student’s legal first or middle name.

Bill authors Dittrich and Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken) said the legislation is in response to parents feeling like schools are excluding them. The bill was modeled after a policy implemented by Arrowhead High School in 2022, even as there was some pushback from students and families.

“Its intent is not to punish children or eliminate their ‘safe spaces,’” the bill authors wrote in a memo. “Instead, the goal is to ensure transparency and prevent school district employees from withholding or, in some cases, encouraging life-changing decisions regarding a child’s sexuality or gender identity without parental involvement.” 

Spreitzer said the bill was poorly drafted. Besides “making it just harder for trans students to be called by the name and pronouns that they use in everyday life, it would really put school districts in a ridiculous position,” he said. 

“People go by all sorts of nicknames in everyday life — maybe it’s a version of their last name, maybe it’s a totally different name. It’s not as simple as just a shortened version of your first or middle name for everybody,” Spretizer said. “This is the Legislature trying to micromanage decisions that are made in everyday life without great controversy, and inserting itself into every school district, and I think it just would have absolutely absurd effects that the authors have not even thought of.” 

Spreitzer said bills targeting transgender youth are not particularly new in Wisconsin. He noted that in 2011 a bill that would have restricted bathroom use for transgender people was introduced, but it never got to then-Gov. Scott Walker’s desk. 

“It’s obviously become more front and center, just seeing how early in the legislative session these are being put out, and how much of coordinated effort there seems to be with bills coming out three different days this week, all attacking trans people,” Spreitzer said. 

Spreitzer said that even in the current national political environment, advocates opposed to such legislation are in a stronger position than in the past. Gov. Tony Evers has vetoed similar legislation in the past and has pledged to continue vetoing such legislation, he noted. The Legislature’s LGBTQ+ caucus has a record number of members this year — 12 lawmakers from across the state including Eau Claire, Appleton, Ashland and Green Bay.

“While we are deeply concerned about what’s coming down from Washington DC, we are in a very strong position to not only stop attacks on the LGBTQ+ community here in Wisconsin, but hopefully in two years, to be in a majority and be able to pass proactive legislation and protect equality,” Spreitzer said.

Swetz told the Wisconsin Examiner that FAIR Wisconsin will continue working with local, state and federal elected officials to strengthen protections for LGTBQ+ people. 

“I think fear is understandable. There is a lot that’s uncertain. I’m scared, too. I also think we have to remember that the LGBTQ+ community has always faced hostility, often from the government, and we are still here,” Swetz wrote. “This is a moment to organize and mobilize and most importantly, to take care of ourselves and our community.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE