Despite pleas from constituents, Dunwell votes in favor of removing gender identity from civil rights code

Even though every person who tuned into Rep. Jon Dunwell’s listening session last week was against the bill removing civil rights protections from transgender Iowans, and even though they pleaded with the Republican lawmaker to vote against it, he sided with the majority to pass it and send it to the governor’s office.

The Iowa House on Feb. 27 voted 60-36 to pass the bill that removes gender identity as a protected class in the Iowa Civil Rights Act. Earlier that same day the Iowa Senate voted 33-15 to pass the bill. All three of the lawmakers representing Jasper County communities voted in favor.

Before the Iowa Legislature put the bill to a vote, Dunwell hosted a Feb. 25 Zoom meeting with constituents of District 38 to discuss the bill. All of the speakers who shared their opinions were adamantly against the bill. Michelle Smith, of Mingo, said changing civil rights code in Iowa is a very slippery slope.

“My son’s best friend is very nervous she would lose her job just because they can, maybe they don’t like the fact that she’s transgender,” Smith said.

Others called the legislation “harmful” and “downright mean and hateful” and that it would take away human rights from transgender Iowans, despite claims from Republicans — which have overwhelmingly supported the bill — that it will not do so. Listening session participants also predicted more discrimination will follow.

Whether or not the discrimination is widespread, participants said any kind of discrimination is “not acceptable.” One constituent was surprised the bill made it through committee and that Dunwell was a supporter of it. Brad Magg, who ran against Dunwell in the 2024 election, questioned what the bill accomplishes.

Dunwell said when something is included in a state’s civil rights code it provides enhanced protections, and in many ways those protections work well when it comes to housing and employment. Dunwell argued most of these protections are covered by federal law or other laws already.

“Where it gets to be challenging is in the situations we’ve seen with sports. Where it gets challenging is some of these things in terms of locker rooms,” he said. “…The rights of young women become subordinate to the right of the transgender who may come into a bathroom and create a sense of discomfort.”

Dunwell said some laws passed with “overwhelming support from Iowans” like protecting girls sports or the bathroom bill have become the subject of lawsuits.

“Remember, this bill is not taking away rights,” Dunwell said. “It’s taking away enhanced protections that are covered in the civil rights code. Every American has the same rights, the equal rights, and the ability to live their lives freely. This isn’t a bill that says you can’t have a surgery or transition after the age of 18.”

The lawmaker added the bill doesn’t stop people from identifying as they want to identify, nor does it “outlaw any behavior in terms of it.”

Magg said Republican Rep. Brian Lohse, of Bondurant, disputes the claims that federal protections are in place for transgender Americans. Dunwell said Lohse is entitled to his opinion and that the issue of employment is totally covered by federal law. Housing does not apply automatically across the board.

“The problem is when you put (gender identity) in the civil rights code, it gives de facto enhanced rights to one group over another, and that is the issue,” Dunwell said.

Following the vote, Dunwell posted an infographic from Iowa House Republicans on his Twitter/X page that reasoned the changes under House File 583 prevents biological males from using public bathrooms, dressing rooms and showers designated for women. The graphic goes on to say other freedoms remain intact.

Freedoms such as speech, religion, assembly and protest, and the right to the petition the government and to bear arms. The graphic lists a bevy of freedoms and rights afforded through the Constitution, as well as protection from bullying in school and assault and other criminal or tortious behavior.

But the bill does not let Iowans to access prison cells, homeless shelters, hotel rooms and other spaces designated for the opposite sex. It also prevents hormones and sex reassignment surgeries from being paid for by taxpayers. The graphic also says 27 states don’t include gender identity in their civil rights code.

President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social interpreting the legislation as a way to remove “radical gender ideology” from Iowa’s laws.

THE ISSUE IS VERY PERSONAL FOR PEOPLE

Danica Wilson, a resident of Newton whose wife and child are transgender, argued in the listening session that the bill does not lift transgender Iowans above anyone else. Wilson also pointed out that gender identity and sexuality was introduced in the civil rights code in 2007.

Wilson does not believe the state has gone so far in 18 years to remove these protections.

“No one is looking to remove protections from Americans with disabilities. No one is looking to remove protections from Black Americans or Americans of color or indigenous Americans,” Wilson said. “Probably someone wants that. But not here. Not in Iowa. We enacted this in 2007 for a reason.”

Without these codes, Wilson argued discrimination against transgender people — “which is already extremely high” — will become legal.

“Extra protections to a class like disabled Americans, people of color, queer Americans, queer Iowans does not give them a higher standing,” she said. “It gives them an equal ground. If we take that equal ground away we will become lower class citizens. And that’s unfair. Please listen to all of your constituents.”

Wilson questioned if Dunwell would support removing Iowans with disabilities or Black Iowans from the civil code. Dunwell said he would not support it at this time. But Wilson urged it was the same law. Dunwell disagreed and said there are differences and that no one is taking rights away from anyone.

“The reality is your child has a right to identify how they like to identify, you have the right to identify as you want, you have the right to live your life how you want to live your life,” Dunwell said. “We all live within laws, but the reality is this bill is not about taking away those rights.”

Dunwell acknowledged to listening session participants that every American has equal rights that need to be respected, and he said he is more than willing to look at examples or areas of discrimination and fixing them. But he said fixing these issues may not be through the civil rights code but through legislation.

“That’s exactly what we do every day up here,” Dunwell said.

LISTENING SESSION PARTICIPANTS WANT A NO VOTE

Before Dunwell finished his listening session, he told constituents he will always be an advocate to get rid of agendas that sometimes creep into schools. But at the same time he stressed that schools cannot be valueless. One thing Dunwell said he has continually told members of his party is:

“I’m all in favor of getting rid of agendas, but I’m not in favor of replacing it with your agenda,” he said. “So we have to be careful about that. The values we have here in America are some of the values we’re talking about here. We’re talking about diversity. That is an American concept that’s part of our Constitution.”

Teaching that value at schools and valuing diversity and respecting diversity is “absolutely important,” Dunwell added. He agreed with Wilson that what the Constitution tries to do is balance rights. He also hoped the complaints that the bill will bring more discrimination and acts of hatred towards transgender Iowans don’t come true.

“If you hope this doesn’t happen, vote no on the bill and then it really won’t happen,” Wilson said. “…I don’t think a single one in this meeting who actually cares came here to say that you should vote for it. Every single of us who spoke said no. Your constituents are telling you what we want.”

Dunwell said, “You’re not all my constituents. You’re part of it and that’s why I’m listening and having a conversation.”

Regardless, Wilson pleaded with Dunwell to “please vote no” on the bill.

Dunwell later told Newton News he voted for HF 583 because Iowans continue to ask for common sense solutions. To him, leaving gender identity in the civil rights code infringes upon the rights of other Iowans, specifically women when it comes to bathrooms, locker rooms, sports and privacy.

He also argued it stands in the way of Iowan’s implementing common sense policies. Whether it was the incident at Pella Aquatic Center or the Forest City YMCA choosing to close men’s and women’s locker rooms, Dunwell said there is fear in violating the state’s civil rights code.

If gender identity was still in the civil rights code, Dunwell said it puts past legislation at risk, such as the bathroom bill and prohibiting gender affirming surgeries for minors. Dunwell said it also puts Iowans on the hook to pay for someone else’s gender affirming care.

“Every Iowan deserves to have their human rights protected, and to be treated with dignity and respect,” Dunwell said. “Currently, Iowa Code with gender identity as a protected class falls short.”