[00:00:00 - 00:02:30] Intro Music and Quote
[00:02:26] "Men do not make laws; they discover them. Laws must be justified by something more than the will of the majority. They must rest on the eternal foundation of righteousness." — Calvin Coolidge, 30th President of the United States.
[00:03:05] Alright, welcome to another episode of The Liberty Dad Podcast, a discussion on politics and culture. I’m your host, DL, America’s most objective libertarian. You’re tuning in live—thank you so much for giving me your time this afternoon. I woke up this morning to an internet outage, so streaming wasn’t possible earlier. I figured I’d do it during lunch instead, but then I ran into issues with Rumble. It wouldn’t let me schedule a future stream; I had to go live immediately, which was odd.
[00:03:33] Then it seems X is down too. I’m not sure if we’re streaming there right now. Some people on mobile might have access, but web browsers are showing errors. I’ll check my phone—huh, it’s not loading tweets, but it says I’m hosting. So, I think we’re streaming to X, but I’m not certain. We’ll keep going. My VA is checking it out. The show must go on—we’ll do what we can.
[00:05:41 - 00:06:14] Topic Introduction: Texas Bills
[00:05:41] So, what are we talking about today? Legislators keep me busy. I was thinking of doing a bunch of bill reviews this week—I’ve got several on my radar. Today, we’ll cover two from Texas, both related to trans issues. Let’s see what the media says: "Lawmakers have filed bills that could impact transgender Texans this legislative session, including one this week creating a new crime: gender identity fraud."
[00:06:14 - 00:07:23] Overview of HB 3817 and HB 239
[00:06:14] House Bill 3817, by Representative Dr. Tom Oliverson from Cypress, says if a transgender person makes a verbal or written statement to a government agency or employer claiming the sex they identify with—rather than their biological sex—it’s "gender identity fraud," a state jail felony punishable by up to two years in jail.
[00:06:52] Then there’s House Bill 239, co-authored by a majority of the Texas House. It’s getting lots of support. It requires family violence shelters, prisons, bathrooms, and locker rooms in state and county buildings to be used based on biological sex. Violators face a $5,000 fine for the first offense, $25,000 for the second. There are exceptions for single-person or family restrooms, kids under 10, and people needing assistance. It’s been referred to the House State Affairs Committee.
[00:07:23] So, we’ve got HB 3817 creating "gender identity fraud" and HB 239 dealing with bathrooms. Let’s dive into HB 239 first.
[00:08:06 - 00:11:06] HB 239: Definitions and Biological Sex
[00:08:06] Here’s HB 239 on the screen—it’s 10 pages, which I don’t like. Bills should be short unless they’re revising extensive code. Let’s start with definitions, because they matter. "Biological sex" is defined as "the physical condition of being male or female," determined by:
- Sex organs, chromosomes, and endogenous profile (like chemical makeup).
- A person’s original birth certificate, if it correctly states biological sex as entered at or near birth, or modified only to fix clerical errors—like correcting "mle" to "male."
[00:10:54] I don’t take issue with this definition. It’s not complete—people argue about this stuff all the time—but it’s fine. Biological sex typically hinges on five criteria:
- Chromosomes: XX for female, XY for male. Variations like XXY or XO exist, but they’re anomalies, not the rule. They stem from XX or XY; they’re not a third category.
- Gonads: Ovaries for females, testes for males. Simple.
- Hormone Levels: Higher testosterone for males, higher estrogen for females. These fluctuate, so they’re not definitive alone.
- Internal Reproductive Structures: Fallopian tubes, uterus, vagina for females; prostate, vas deferens, seminal vesicles for males.
- External Genitalia: Penis and scrotum for males, clitoris and labia for females.
[00:11:03] These five let us accurately identify male or female, or note anomalies—without moral judgment, just what nature aimed for.
[00:14:54 - 00:17:33] Philosophical Take on Design and Anomalies
[00:14:54] If you’re religious, you might say God designed humans as male and female, and these criteria confirm that. If you’re not, you might say evolution brought us here—male and female, with anomalies like someone born without two arms. We recognize they’re human, meant to have two arms, but didn’t for some reason. Same logic applies to sex: anomalies exist, but they’re still human, not a different species.
[00:16:54] I’m okay with this definition—sex organs, chromosomes, endogenous profile mirror what I described. But I’m not impressed with the birth certificate part. Saying it’s valid "if correctly stated" feels circular. Just remove it or say the certificate must list male or female based on biological sex. It’s too ambiguous as is.
[00:18:39 - 00:20:32] HB 239: Private Space Definition
[00:18:39] Let’s jump to page two, lines 9-15. "Private space" means a facility for multiple people where someone might be undressed in another’s presence—think restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, shower rooms, family violence shelters, correctional facilities, or sleeping quarters. It applies regardless of curtains or partial walls.
[00:19:25] They’re saying if you’re in a space where undress happens with others, it’s private. They include shelters and prisons to cover more than small areas—like ensuring a battered women’s shelter doesn’t admit a trans woman (born male, identifying as female) who’s been abused and seeks refuge. This law says no, based on biological sex.
[00:20:15] I’m okay with this at the state level. I’d object if it were federal—that’s not the federal government’s role. At the state level, I’m more flexible.
[00:20:42 - 00:21:53] Public vs. Private Entities
[00:20:42] If it’s a state facility, they need to make these calls. If it’s private—like a coffee shop with a multi-stall bathroom—they should decide: men’s, women’s, or whatever. The free market should handle private entities; state rules apply to public ones.
[00:56:07 - 01:01:08] Libertarian Critique of HB 239
[00:56:07] From the Libertarian platform: "Laws should be limited to violations of others’ rights through force or fraud, or deliberate actions placing others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. We favor repealing laws creating crimes without victims." Is there a tangible victim here? A man walking into a women’s bathroom doesn’t immediately create one. Nefarious intent might, but just entering? That’s discomfort, not a crime.
[00:57:13] I don’t think you have a right to a specific bathroom. If a woman says, “I have a right to a bathroom without biological men,” a trans person could say, “I have a right to use it based on my identity.” Rights clash, so is it a right at all? If the free market can have single-use, biologically based, or identity-based bathrooms simultaneously, no right’s violated.
[01:00:02] In prisons or violence shelters—where people are vulnerable and morality’s questionable—stricter rules make sense. We already bar abusers from shelters. But at a Target? Less so. I don’t see this as a rights violation; it’s preference.
[01:01:15 - 01:02:18] Free Market Solution
[01:01:15] Conservatives might say I hate women or don’t want to protect them. No—the free market would likely produce women-only and men-only bathrooms anyway. Government laws saying “no discrimination” create this mess. Without them, businesses would cater to comfort, and biological women would get what they want. Libertarians see this clearer than people think—it’d produce better results.
[01:02:37 - 01:04:46] Platform Support and Conclusion
[01:02:37] The Libertarian platform under "Economic Liberty" says property rights are key, and owners should control their property unless it harms others. I don’t see bathroom choice as a right, so this supports private discretion. In public sectors, rules should protect rights—like in prisons, not courthouses. My objection aligns with the national platform.
[01:04:47] The Texas LP platform is less clear. It seeks to abolish laws defining family, which might clash with shelter rules, and supports property rights. It’s 50/50 on these bills—they don’t carve out private exceptions, risking future overreach.
[01:08:18 - 01:11:17] Wrap-Up and Comments
[01:08:18] Sorry if this dragged—everything’s off today with internet and streaming issues. Let’s check comments. Time Surfing Alien says: “Laws and the Constitution protect everyone regardless of race, color, creed, ethnicity, or gender identification. Singling out groups for special treatment is discrimination.”
[01:09:05] I don’t mind discrimination broadly—like choosing my wife over others. It’s about rights, not fairness. No right’s violated here in private settings. In jails, where violence is likely, rules make sense. Courthouses? Toss-up. Single bathrooms are the easy fix.
[01:11:17] Hope you enjoyed this. I’ll be back tomorrow—today was rough with tech glitches. Talk to you then!
