House Bill 2127 would create a new “West Virginia Women’s Bill of Rights” article in state code. The bill defines sex-based terms for use in West Virginia statutes, administrative rules, regulations, and official public policies, including definitions of “woman,” “man,” “girl,” “boy,” “mother,” “father,” “female,” “male,” and “sex.” It states that sex is biological and fixed at birth, that there are only two sexes, and that “gender identity” or other subjective terms may not be used as synonyms for sex. It also provides that individuals with differences in sex development (intersex/DSD conditions) are not a third sex, while requiring that medically verifiable DSD diagnoses be accommodated consistent with state and federal law.
The bill further directs that where West Virginia law uses the word “gender” standing alone, it must be replaced with “sex” as defined in the act. It says anti-discrimination laws should be construed to protect females and males from unfair treatment relative to similarly situated members of the opposite sex, and it expressly authorizes separate single-sex environments in areas such as athletics, living facilities, locker rooms, bathrooms, domestic violence shelters, and rape crisis centers. The bill also requires public schools, school districts, and state agencies that collect sex-related vital statistics for legal compliance or public data purposes to classify individuals as either male or female under the act, while clarifying that it does not itself require new data collection if not otherwise required by law.
If enacted, the bill would add a new article to the West Virginia Code and affect how state agencies, political subdivisions, and public institutions interpret sex-based terms across laws, regulations, and policies. It would likely influence implementation of anti-discrimination rules, data reporting, and the administration of sex-separated facilities and programs, while also creating a statutory basis for distinguishing between sex and gender identity in state law. The bill includes a severability clause to preserve the remainder of the act if any part is found unconstitutional.
Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, there is no documented legislative debate or formal vote history to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to appeal to supporters of sex-based legal definitions, privacy, and single-sex spaces, while likely drawing criticism from those who view it as excluding or limiting recognition of transgender people and potentially narrowing existing anti-discrimination protections. The main point of contention is the bill’s explicit rejection of gender identity as a legal substitute for sex and its authorization of sex-separated policies in public settings.
The bill would create a new article in the West Virginia Code establishing binding definitions of sex-based terms for state law, administrative rules, regulations, and official public policies. It would require state and local public entities to use those definitions when classifying people as male or female, replace standalone uses of “gender” with “sex,” and authorize sex-separated facilities and programs in specified contexts. It would also affect public data collection by directing agencies and schools to categorize sex-related statistics as male or female, while not mandating new data collection unless otherwise required by law.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment from the process history. The bill’s framing suggests support from proponents of sex-based legal definitions, privacy, and single-sex environments, but it also raises likely opposition from advocates for transgender rights and broader gender-identity protections. Overall, the measure appears politically and socially contentious, with the central debate focused on whether the state should define sex strictly by biology and exclude gender identity from legal usage.
The primary controversy is the bill’s definition of sex as strictly biological and its statement that there are only two sexes, which opponents may view as erasing or marginalizing transgender and nonbinary people. Another major point of contention is the bill’s authorization of separate single-sex spaces in athletics, bathrooms, shelters, locker rooms, and similar settings, which supporters frame as a privacy and fairness measure but critics may see as discriminatory. The bill also draws attention for its treatment of intersex/DSD individuals, who are acknowledged as not constituting a third sex but must be accommodated under state and federal law.