2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB229

HB229 adds definitions of sex-related terms to Texas's Code Construction Act and requires covered government data collection to identify each individual as male or female.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to general definitions for and collection of governmental information regarding biological sex.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Troxclair, Swanson, Slawson, Hull, Leach. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.

Bill highlights

Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.

HB229 adds definitions of sex-related terms to Texas's Code Construction Act and requires covered government data collection to identify each individual as male or female.
The act defines “female” and “woman” by a biological reproductive system developed to produce ova, and “male” and “man” by one developed to fertilize ova.
The Code Construction Act has a scope and a qualification: it applies to the codes, amendments and rules described in Section 311.002, and its general definitions apply unless the statute or context requires a different definition.
The data rule applies when a governmental entity collects vital-statistics information identifying sex for antidiscrimination compliance or for public-health, crime, economic or other data gathering.
The act also contains legislative findings asserting reasons for sex-based distinctions and separate spaces, describing the legislature's view of constitutional scrutiny, and stating that people diagnosed with a disorder of sex development or as intersex are not a third sex and must receive accommodations under state and federal law.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB229 adds definitions of sex-related terms to Texas’s Code Construction Act and requires covered government data collection to identify each individual as male or female. It took effect September 1, 2025. The definitions are rules for interpreting covered Texas laws and rules—not a scientific finding made by this briefing or a change to how people may describe their own identities. Final act, Sections 2–4

The act defines “female” and “woman” by a biological reproductive system developed to produce ova, and “male” and “man” by one developed to fertilize ova. It defines sex as biological sex, either male or female; boy and girl as children of the respective sex; and father and mother as parents of the respective sex. It does not define those terms by current fertility, chromosome testing or a person’s stated gender identity. Section 2

The Code Construction Act has a scope and a qualification: it applies to the codes, amendments and rules described in Section 311.002, and its general definitions apply unless the statute or context requires a different definition. HB229 leaves that introductory qualification in place. Saying the new definitions automatically override every use of these words in every legal setting would overstate the text. Sections 311.002 and 311.005

The data rule applies when a governmental entity collects vital-statistics information identifying sex for antidiscrimination compliance or for public-health, crime, economic or other data gathering. It requires a male-or-female identification. The incorporated governmental-entity definition includes institutions, boards, commissions and departments of the state and political subdivisions, including cities, counties and districts. This is not an instruction requiring every private organization to collect sex information. Section 3 · Governmental-entity definition

The act also contains legislative findings asserting reasons for sex-based distinctions and separate spaces, describing the legislature’s view of constitutional scrutiny, and stating that people diagnosed with a disorder of sex development or as intersex are not a third sex and must receive accommodations under state and federal law. Those are the legislature’s findings; they are not a court ruling validating every distinction. HB229 itself does not set out a new restroom-entry offense, a particular accommodation procedure or a new criminal penalty. Section 1 and complete act

What changed along the way?

The filed and House committee versions contained the same definitions and mandatory government-data rule. The substantive addition retained in the House-passed, Senate committee and final versions was Representative Mary González’s second-reading amendment, adding the finding about intersex people, two sexes and accommodations under existing law. It was adopted May 10. Filed text · House report · Adopted amendment · House-passed text · Senate report

All nine other indexed amendments did not become law:

On second reading, Jessica González proposed striking the enacting clause; it failed. Venton Jones proposed removing the findings section; that amendment was tabled. Failed amendment · Tabled findings amendment
On third reading, Erin Zwiener offered two replacements of everything below the enacting clause with findings about equality and discrimination. The longer version was withdrawn; the shorter version was tabled. Neither replaced the definitions or data rule. Withdrawn replacement · Tabled replacement
Ron Reynolds proposed removing the finding that “separate is not inherently unequal”; Jessica González proposed removing the “mother” definition. Both were tabled. Reynolds amendment · González amendment
Venton Jones proposed an express statement that the changes could not be construed to permit gender-identity discrimination, including against transgender, nonbinary or intersex people. It was tabled. That proposed clause is not in HB229; its rejection does not itself repeal other applicable legal protections. Jones amendment
Gene Wu proposed removing the public-health, crime, economic and other-data purposes and changing the collection command from “shall” to “may.” Barbara Gervin-Hawkins proposed September 1, 2030 expiration dates for the new definitions and data subchapter. Both were tabled, so the mandatory rule and no specified sunset remained. Wu amendment · Gervin-Hawkins amendment

The official index and history record those dispositions. The House passed HB229 May 12 by 87–56, with one present but not voting. The Senate passed it May 28 by 20–11 without changing the House-passed substance. The governor signed it June 20. Amendment index · Official history · Final certificates

For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.

Official bill versions

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?

Agencies seeking a uniform two-category classification may find the rule more consistent across covered records. People whose gender identity differs from the required sex classification, and people whose sex is not yet determined in a record, may face records that do not reflect their identity or the uncertainty in the available information. Removing an “unknown” field can also limit how accurately a system expresses missing information. These are practical consequences to consider, not measured outcomes or a claim that HB229 resolves every identification dispute. Definitions and data rule

The Legislative Budget Board estimated a $2,568,300 general-revenue cost for the 2026–27 budget period, all in fiscal year 2026: $2,370,000 for Department of Public Safety crime-record system changes and $198,300 for training materials, documentation, audit guidelines and related work. DPS’s systems then allowed male, female and unknown; the estimate assumed removing the unknown identifier. The health department expected to remove unknown/not-yet-determined options from its vital-events system within existing resources. No significant local-government fiscal implication was anticipated. These are estimates, not verified expenditures. HB229 itself makes no appropriation. Latest posted fiscal note, May 14

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.