On Tuesday March 24th five Massachusetts women testified at a public hearing, held by the Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Women (MCSW), in favor of policies and legislation that prioritize sex over gender identity. This was not the first time that women who support women’s sex-based rights appeared before the MCSW, but it was the first time that their speech was reprimanded by members of the commission.
The MCSW
The MCSW is an independent state agency mandated with promoting equal rights and opportunities for women and girls in the Commonwealth. Public hearings are crucial to this endeavor. The March 24th hearing was the first of two regularly scheduled annual MCSW public hearings. Any resident who wishes to present testimony, in-person or virtually, on any issue affecting women and girls in Massachusetts, may speak for up to three minutes. Hearing testimonies help shape the MCSW’s advocacy initiatives and legislative recommendations which are submitted annually to the Governor, the Massachusetts General Court and the Massachusetts Caucus of Women Legislators.
According to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 3, Section 66, Subsection (3):
As you read, please keep in mind these words from A Handbook For MCSW Regional Commissioners, page 26, emphasis added:
During the hearing, invite community members to testify before the commissioners and to share their issues or concerns about the status of women in their community, encouraging women from all backgrounds to share their stories to create a dialogue which includes the entire audience.
The Testimonies
Tuesday’s hearing was relatively brief, with only nine people offering testimony, five of whom spoke about women’s sex-based rights, such as: the need for a sex-based definition of female to promote female representational justice as well as lesbian and gay rights; the harms of housing violent male offenders with female inmates at MCI-Framingham; the dangers of self-ID; and the necessity of upholding Title IX protections for female athletes and single-sex spaces. Below are transcripts of four of those testimonies in the order in which they were delivered, accompanied by comments made by the Chairwoman, when applicable.
Testimony 1
I am here to speak about a bill which is a legislative priority for MCSW, titled: An Act to Promote Gender and Racial Diversity on Public Boards and Commissions. This bill would insure at least 50% female and 30% underrepresented minority or LGBTQ+ representation on public boards and commissions. Quoting from the MCSW Parity On Board advocacy website: “We need more diverse representation in leadership and governance that more accurately represents the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”
I support parity legislation as a necessary means for addressing historical and contemporary social, cultural, economic and political inequities faced by women, lesbian, gay and transgender individuals, as well as racial and other underrepresented minorities. While many groups are impacted by this bill, I am going to confine my comments to how it affects women.
This bill, as it is currently drafted, defines female as “an individual who self-identifies her gender as female, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.” This means that a public board or commission composed entirely of males, half of whom self-identify as female, would meet the bill’s diversity target for female representation.
While it may be true that women and transwomen share some things in common, it is important to recognize that women and transwomen have different material needs and life experiences, face different forms of discrimination and exploitation, are subject to different demeaning stereotypical depictions, and have different political interests, which may sometimes conflict with each other.
Both women and transwomen deserve social, cultural and political recognition and representation, but the representation of one group must not come at the expense of another.
I strongly urge the MCSW to propose an amendment to the House Ways and Means Committee that replaces the identity-based definition of “female” with a sex-based definition of female. Otherwise, this bill is a trojan horse, signaling progressive values while in fact entrenching yet another regressive obstacle to female representational justice. Thank you.
Chairwoman’s comment: The chairwoman said that they took notes about the bill and the suggested amendment and will review the bill’s language.
Testimony 2
My name is Beth Kurth, from Watertown. I am a long-time liberal Democrat, wearing my Kamala t-shirt for those who cannot see. I want to be very clear, I voted for VP Harris even though I knew she was mistaken on gender ideology, I also know she is smart, the child of a doctor, and someone who understands the difference between biology and ideology – just like members of this commission.
So today I am here in front of the Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Women to talk about protecting the most vulnerable of women – female prisoners.
Here in Massachusetts, under the veneer of “progress,” child rapists, serial sex-offenders, and wife-killers have secured access to one of our most exploited female populations.
I am not making this up. Under Massachusetts’ 2018 Criminal Justice Reform Act, male offenders convicted of exactly those crimes - rape, serial sex offense, and murder, are being housed at MCI-Framingham, the women’s prison. How is this possible? Well, by uttering five simple words – “I identify as a woman”
Female inmates describe the facility as “a haven for sexual predators who pretend to be transgender.” And, this is dumbfounding, if they speak up, they, the female inmates are the ones who face retaliation – from prison officials, and also from the trans-identified male inmates with whom they are locked in cells.
So I am here today, testifying to the Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Women, with your long and proud history of ensuring basic human rights for women and girls. I am here today to say: DO YOUR JOB. Stop including men as women. Stop with the rigid groupthink that rewards ideology over biological reality. DO YOUR JOB. Stop marinating in the moral vanity that allows you to feel kind and progressive, while subjecting the most vulnerable women to harm. DO YOUR JOB and be an effective voice for the women who do not have one.
Chairwoman’s comment: The Chairwoman said that when the MCSW visited MCI-Framingham in the past that none of the inmates there had mentioned this issue. She added that the MCSW did not know about male inmates in the female prison and that when when they go back next year they will look into it.
Editor’s comment: This is not true. Forest Romm testified at the October 2025 MCSW public hearing about violent men being housed at MCI-Framingham. Following Forest’s testimony, the Chairwoman said that the MCSW would investigate the situation.
Testimony 4
My name is Michele Chapais. I reside in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Women’s Declaration International (or WDI) is a global, nonpartisan group of volunteer women dedicated to protecting women’s sex-based rights. Its U.S. chapter is WDI USA, Inc., and its purpose is to promote the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights, which has about 40,000 signatures globally. I am a signatory.
Our interest in this bill is based on Article 1 of The Declaration: “Reaffirming that the rights of women are based upon the category of sex.” Massachusetts currently recognizes and protects so-called gender identity throughout its law & policy. In doing so, it prioritizes the right of men to deny their sex, over the rights of women and girls which are based on sex.
“Gender identity” is nothing more than the masculine & feminine sex roles which are a fundamental aspect of women’s inequality. These regressive stereotypes, which are enforced on both sexes, are materially harmful to women & girls, and should be eliminated, not codified in law.
Sex is determined by our reproductive biology. Because women and girls face discrimination on on the basis of this biology, we cannot “identify” our way out of sex discrimination. By reasserting sex, not gender identity, as central to law & policy, The Declaration defines “woman” to mean an adult human female; “Lesbian” to mean adult human females whose sexual orientation is towards other adult human females; and “mother” to mean a female parent. All these categories exclude men who claim to have a female “gender identity”.
WDI USA fully supports the protection of equal rights for all people who do not conform to sex-role stereotypes. We have proposed our own federal bill, the “Equality For All Act” (EFAA), as a rational and just alternative to the codification of “gender identity” into law. Our proposed bill provides comprehensive federal civil rights protection for women & girls on the basis of sex; for homosexuals of both sexes based on sexual orientation, and for everyone on the basis of non-conformity with sex-role stereotypes. It does not provide additional protection based on feelings that are unverifiable and not subject to discrimination. I urge you to address this area of discrimination against women and girls in Massachusetts.
Testimony 5
My name is Erica Avery, I live in Greenfield, and I am concerned about the status of women and girls in Massachusetts. I’ve always felt grateful to live in a state like Massachusetts that valued women’s equality and was committed to women’s freedom and progress. But in the last few years that line of progress has taken a sharp turn backward.
In many ways, in the US at present, a person’s sex doesn’t matter, and I’m glad about that. Women have more opportunities than ever at work and throughout society. I love that both women and men are free to dress however they want and love whoever they want. But there are times when sex does matter, when we separate males and females because they are physically different, not because of how they feel inside.
Over the last decade Massachusetts has switched to using identity, not biology, as the standard for separating the sexes. Our state leaders at all levels are embracing this definition, including our attorney general and all of our Democratic lawmakers. It’s an attempt to be kind and welcoming, which is a wonderful impulse. The problem is that someone’s biology doesn’t change when they adopt a new gender identity. Even more importantly, the only standard we have for gender identity is a person’s own declaration. This is harming women and girls.
Women and girls in changing rooms and bathrooms are prohibited by law from objecting not only to a trans woman but to a man *pretending* to be a trans woman to be among women and girls. Any man at all can simply declare himself a woman and have free access to vulnerable women, including women who are incarcerated and can’t escape.
Earlier testifiers have spoken about how women in prison are literally trapped with males who have committed horrific crimes against women and children. These are some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and we are failing them.
Massachusetts also declares gender identity as the standard in student athletic competitions. But the purpose of Title IX was to give girls a way to play sports without having to compete against boys, whose biology naturally gives them greater athletic capacity. Allowing identity to override biology defeats the sole purpose of women’s sports. It sounds nice to let everyone play together, but when girls compete against bigger, faster, stronger males their safety is at risk. And they lose out on titles and scholarship opportunities. Girls want the same chances that boys have to be taken seriously and compete. By telling them to just set that aside and “be kind” we are violating Title IX and we are letting them down.
I would like the MCSW, and all Massachusetts leaders who advocate for women, to recognize that female biological sex is real and important. Thank you.
The Scolding
Chairwomen Mary-dith Tuitt said that she had heard testimonies that were ‘phobic,’ an “attack” on women and girls, and unworthy of MCSW support. She implied that the five women who testified were not “humane,” “civil,” or “respectful,” and that their remarks were threatening. Tuitt acknowledged that the speakers had a right to their “opinions” and “beliefs,” but that perhaps their arguments shouldn’t be publicly expressed because they projected “negativity onto others.” Concluding her remarks, Tuitt said: “Shame on us, shame on humanity, for turning our backs on each other and not being humane…. Stop knocking us [the MCSW] down.”
Vice-Chairwoman Christine Monska spoke next. She said she shared Chairwoman Tuitt’s sentiments and that she was “deeply troubled.” Monska said that the MCSW affirms that “transwomen are women and should have equal access to human rights.” She stated that transwomen “face disproportional amounts of violence.” Before passing the mic to Commissioner Giselle Byrd, a trans-identifying male, Monska cautioned Byrd: “Don’t engage.”
Giselle Byrd, Program & Planning Committee Vice-Chairwoman, compared “What I heard today” to “the oppressive South that my grandparents survived” and characterized the testimonies as “tearing others apart,” warning those who spoke about women’s sex-based rights that they were paving the way to being the next victims “in the line of fire.”
The Aftermath
Two days after the hearing, the MCSW emailed participants, thanking everyone for their testimony, inviting feedback and noting some of the testimony topics. Five of the nine testimonies were about women’s sex-based rights, yet these were all relegated to the category of “other key issues.”
According to A Handbook For MCSW Regional Commissioners, the MCSW should, within a month of a hearing, “distribute a hearing report to all attendees, legislators, and other individuals who could benefit from the information learned during the hearing” (page 25). It is unclear if the above mentioned email constitutes the “hearing report,” or if that will be forthcoming.
Women responded to the request for feedback by asking for clarification on MCSW language restrictions, offers of dialogue, and this request for an explanation of the commissioners’ charges. The MCSW has yet to respond.
Finally, the MCSW posts videos of the public hearings on their YouTube channel. Usually these are made a few days after a hearing. It is important to note that the video for the previous public hearing, 10/28/25, (during which women testified about violent male convicts being housed with female inmates at MCI-Framingham and a MA bill which would mandate insurance coverage for detransitioners) was delayed by several months, is not listed on the MCSW YouTube web page and yields no search results in either YouTube or Google. One can only wonder if the video of this hearing will meet the same fate, or worse.
Update 5/29/26: It has been over two months since the MCSW 3/24/26 public hearing and MCSW still has not posted the hearing video to their YouTube channel, additionally, a request for the hearing report, which should have been issued by 4/24/26, has been ignored.
Please read our NOTES to stay up to date on news items related to women’s sex-based rights and child safeguarding in MA and surrounding areas.
Who "fully supports the protection of equal rights for all people who do not conform to sex-role stereotypes."? Males who conform to female sex-role stereotypes like James aka Giselle Byrd? Men who want to parade their sexual fetishes in front of a captive audience like Mr. Byrd. I don't support them, fully or otherwise. Let them keep their sexual fetishes and misogynistic obsessive/compulsive behavior private, in-house with their consenting partners. Presently, millions of schoolgirls like my niece can no longer use the bathroom at school for fear of encountering boys like Hunter Heckel, Trixie Tei, Becky Pepper Jackson, Patty Hagen there. These girls have to wait until they get home from school before using the bathroom.
This is so bad for their health, both physical and mental. Adolescent girls navigating puberty have enough to deal with. Now they have no bathroom, while boys have two to use. What a way to grow up. This effects all women who are leary about sharing a bath, locker or dressing room with males. In many cases it can deny women access to public life. Yet this is only one small area where women are being denied safety in addition to batteredwomen'sshelters, rape crises centers, prisons, etc. When Mr. Byrd tries to compare racial segregation to sex separation he is inferring that since only men in womanface are given access to women's bathrooms, not ALL men, that only African-Americans in whiteface, not all African-Americans were given access to all public bathrooms. Ridiculous comparison.
they are the kapos in the gender identity compound.