A new proposal in the Michigan House is sparking fierce debate over censorship, identity, and the limits of government power. House Bill 4938, introduced by Republican Representative Josh Schriver of Oxford, seeks to ban nearly all forms of pornography online. But the legislation goes far beyond adult content, raising serious concerns for free expression and, in particular, transgender communities.
The bill is written broadly, outlawing the depiction, simulation, or even description of sexual acts. Its language doesn’t just target explicit video or photography. Text, animation, audio recordings, and even suggestive content like ASMR moaning could fall under its scope, unless used in strictly scientific or medical contexts. Violators, including internet providers and platforms, could face felony charges, decades in prison, and six-figure fines.
What has drawn the most alarm, however, is a clause that explicitly prohibits any material showing what it calls “a disconnection between biology and gender.” The bill frames this as criminal when “an individual of one biological sex” represents themselves as another through attire, makeup, prosthetics, or depiction of reproductive traits. To many, this reads less like an anti-porn provision and more like an attack on transgender people and gender-nonconforming communities.
Critics argue that the language is so vague and sweeping it could criminalize everyday expressions of identity. A drag performance, a photograph of a transgender person, or even online self-expression could be swept into a definition of obscenity. While the bill is framed as a defense of children and public morals, its reach extends into adult spaces and personal lives, creating a chilling effect on anyone whose gender identity doesn’t align with their assigned sex at birth.
For transgender Michiganders, the implications are personal and frightening. Visibility is already fragile, and being conflated with obscenity risks reinforcing stigma that translates into real-world harm. Advocates warn that the bill not only erases trans identity from public life but also positions it as criminal, a move that could exacerbate isolation and negatively impact mental health.
The proposal has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, with five Republican co-sponsors backing Schriver. Even if it were to advance, it faces significant hurdles in a Democratic-controlled Senate, and constitutional experts suggest it would almost certainly face legal challenges. The First Amendment’s protections for speech and expression have historically struck down similar morality-based restrictions. Yet, for many, the damage is already being done in the rhetoric: the mere introduction of a bill equating trans existence with pornography sets a troubling precedent.
For the broader public, HB 4938 raises questions about how far government can and should go in regulating online life. For trans people, it signals something more existential: the risk of having their very identities defined as obscene under state law. As the debate unfolds, the stakes are clear: this is not only a fight over pornography but also over who gets to exist openly, visibly, and without criminal suspicion in Michigan and beyond.
