Texas Senate passes 'Women’s Privacy Act'

In a move stirring renewed debate over privacy, safety, and transgender rights, the Texas Senate this week passed Senate Bill 240, also known as the “Texas Women’s Privacy Act.” The legislation, authored by Sen. Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), would prohibit biological males from entering state-funded female-only spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and shelters — regardless of gender identity.

The bill passed along party lines Wednesday in a 20-11 vote and now heads to the Texas House, where a companion bill, HB 239 by Rep. Valoree Swanson (R-Spring), has already gained strong Republican support with 78 co-authors.

A “Statewide Standard” for Private Spaces

SB 240 seeks to create a statewide policy that limits access to “private spaces” in public institutions — including schools, prisons, and domestic violence shelters — to individuals based on the sex listed on their original birth certificate. Facilities impacted would include restrooms, changing areas, showers, and sleeping quarters.

“As a husband and dad, I want my wife and daughter to be safe when using facilities designed for women's privacy,” Sen. Middleton said in a statement following the bill’s passage. “Safety and privacy are common sense things we all should want for women and our families.”

Middleton, who also championed the “Save Women’s Sports Act,” framed the legislation as a continuation of efforts to protect women’s rights from what he described as “fringe activists” attempting to blur legal definitions of sex and gender.

Fierce Opposition from Senate Democrats

Democrats in the Texas Senate voiced strong objections during debate, arguing the bill unnecessarily targets transgender Texans and is rooted more in politics than public safety.

“There is no data to support the claim that transgender individuals pose a threat in bathrooms,” said Sen. José Menéndez (D-San Antonio). “This legislation perpetuates a dangerous narrative and further marginalizes an already vulnerable group of people.”

Menéndez added that legislation like SB 240 sends the message that transgender individuals are not welcome in public spaces, a sentiment echoed by Sen. Molly Cook (D-Houston), who called the bill “harmful to all Texans.”

“This legislation will enforce and embolden invasions of privacy that place women and girls at risk,” Cook warned. “And it will put our trans neighbors in even more danger than they already are.”

Historical Context and Political Momentum

The bill draws comparisons to Texas’ controversial 2017 “bathroom bill,” which was ultimately stalled after national backlash, business opposition, and internal party divisions — despite receiving support from Gov. Greg Abbott at the time.

This time around, however, social conservatives are seeing more traction amid a national push by Republican lawmakers to pass gender-related restrictions. In the opening days of his current presidential term, Donald Trump signed executive orders declaring that only two biological sexes — male and female — would be recognized by the federal government and banning biological males from participating in women’s sports.

What’s Next

With strong Republican backing in the Texas House and vocal support from the party’s leadership, SB 240 appears poised to become law — though legal challenges from civil rights groups are expected if it does.

The bill’s supporters insist the measure is about safety, not discrimination.

“No woman should be made to feel unsafe or uncomfortable in spaces dedicated for their sex,” Middleton said. “Safety for women and children is common sense and certainly should not be sacrificed for the left’s radical gender ideology. Women should not be forcibly exposed to men in private spaces, period.”

Opponents argue that the bill not only infringes on the rights of transgender Texans but opens the door to intrusive enforcement and increases risks for marginalized communities.

If passed into law, SB 240 would make Texas one of the strictest states in the country when it comes to regulating gendered access to public facilities — reigniting a nationwide conversation over where to draw the line between privacy, identity, and civil liberties.