HB0571, titled the “Women's Safety and Protection Act,” would create a new chapter in Tennessee law defining sex in strictly biological terms and directing that those definitions control when state laws or agency rules refer to sex. The bill defines terms such as male, female, man, woman, boy, girl, father, and mother, and expressly excludes gender identity from the chapter’s meaning of sex. It also states that laws distinguishing between the sexes in furtherance of the chapter are subject to intermediate scrutiny.
The bill then imposes sex-based privacy and access rules for multi-occupancy restrooms, changing rooms, and sleeping quarters in domestic violence shelters, public schools, correctional facilities, and juvenile detention facilities. In those settings, facilities must designate shared spaces for exclusive use by females, males, or same-family members, and individuals generally may not enter spaces designated for the opposite sex except for limited exceptions such as custodial work, medical assistance, law enforcement, emergencies, or disability accommodations. The bill also authorizes civil actions for people harmed by violations, allows injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages and attorney fees, and creates a rebuttable presumption that housing someone with members of the opposite sex in the covered settings is inherently discriminatory and harmful to biological women.
If enacted, the bill would amend and affect Tennessee law across Titles 4, 37, 41, 49, and 68 by requiring state agencies, schools, shelters, and correctional institutions to apply the bill’s biological-sex definitions and privacy rules. It would likely require policy changes in public schools, domestic violence shelters, prisons, and juvenile facilities, and could expose public entities and contractors to litigation for noncompliance. The act is set to take effect July 1, 2025, and includes a severability clause.
The available voting history shows the bill advancing out of the House Civil Justice Subcommittee and the House Judiciary Committee with clear majorities, suggesting meaningful support among committee members. The committee summaries indicate the bill was recommended for passage with amendments and referral onward, but the recorded votes also show some opposition. No committee transcript was provided, so the discussion record is limited.
The main point of contention is the bill’s treatment of sex and gender identity. Supporters appear to frame it as a public safety and privacy measure protecting women and girls in sex-separated spaces, while opponents are likely to object to its exclusion of gender identity, its restrictions on transgender access to facilities, and the creation of a private right of action that could increase litigation risk for schools, shelters, and correctional institutions.
The bill would add a new chapter to Title 68 and require Tennessee laws and agency rules that refer to sex to be interpreted using the bill’s biological definitions. It would impose mandatory sex-separated policies for restrooms, changing rooms, and sleeping quarters in public schools, domestic violence shelters, correctional facilities, and juvenile detention facilities, while preserving limited exceptions for maintenance, medical care, law enforcement, emergencies, and disability-related accommodations. It also creates civil remedies, including injunctive relief, damages, attorney fees, and a two-year limitations period, which would increase legal exposure for covered entities and their contractors.
The committee vote history suggests the bill was generally received favorably in committee, with passage recommendations at both the subcommittee and full committee levels. The margins indicate support outweighed opposition, though not unanimously. Because no transcript is available, the broader debate cannot be quoted directly, but the bill’s framing and the recorded votes indicate a polarized issue with support centered on privacy and safety arguments and opposition likely focused on transgender rights and implementation concerns.
The central dispute is whether the state should define sex strictly by biology and require sex-separated facilities in schools, shelters, prisons, and juvenile detention centers. Supporters are likely to argue that the bill protects women and girls from harassment, assault, and privacy intrusions, especially in vulnerable settings. Opponents are likely to argue that the bill discriminates against transgender people, may conflict with existing civil rights or accommodation policies, and could create operational and legal burdens for public institutions and service providers. The private right of action and rebuttable presumption of harm are also likely to be contentious because they increase the risk of lawsuits and may be viewed as favoring one side of the policy debate.