.png)
AUSTIN — Bastrop County state Rep. Stan Gerdes faced sharp questioning and criticism last week as fellow lawmakers scrutinized his proposed legislation targeting reported “nonhuman behavior” in Texas schools.
Gerdes introduced the bill earlier this session as House Bill 4812, later refiled as House Bill 54, identifying it as a legislative priority. Known as the Forbidding Unlawful Representation of Roleplaying in Education, or “FURRIES” Act, the measure seeks to ban behaviors such as barking, licking and wearing animal-themed accessories in public schools.
But the bill has since become a lightning rod in the state’s education debate. During an April 30 House Public Education Committee hearing, Rep. James Talarico, D-Round Rock, accused Gerdes, a Republican, and other supporters of promoting debunked internet rumors to discredit public schools.
“I know we’ve been joking about this bill, and I agree this bill is a joke,” Talarico said. “But the consequences for our students and our educators is not a joke.”
The controversy centers on claims that some Texas schools have accommodated students who identify as animals with items such as litter boxes—claims Talarico said have been widely disproven.
“You cited Smithville in your layout and in your press release,” Talarico said. “But I have the minutes from last month’s Smithville (Independent School District) board meeting, which reads, ‘At this time the district has no concerns related to students behaving as anything other than typical children.’” Gerdes defended his bill and its claims before the board, stating he was told by a Smithville ISD administrator that a student had exhibited these behaviors.
“That’s what we’ve gotten reports of,” he said. “Did I go to these school districts and see it with my own eyes? No—I take (district leaders) at their word.”
Talarico also noted that Gerdes’ original social-media post about the bill was flagged for promoting false claims, stating that “sensationalist claims about furries literally behaving as animals and receiving accommodations such as litter boxes have been repeatedly debunked as hoaxes.”
“My question is, do you think it’s a good use of our time to write laws based on debunked internet conspiracy theories?” Talarico asked.
Gerdes reiterated the intent of HB 54, and that while litter boxes were mentioned, they are not what defines the act, and its purpose reflects observed issues. “What we’re trying to do is provide the tools that I was told they didn’t have to stop this type of behavior,” he said. The Round Rock-based representative argued the bill fits into a broader political narrative aimed at undermining public education, linking it to what he described as “culture war attacks” promoted by state leaders.
“If you want to defund neighborhood schools across the state, you have to get Texans to turn against their public schools,” Talarico said. “You call librarians groomers, you accuse teachers of indoctrination and now you say schools are providing litter boxes. That’s how a lot of educators across the state see this bill—as part of a smear campaign.”
Gerdes denied these claims.
“The fact that your own school district had to come out in their public school board meeting and debunk the false conspiracy theories that you are peddling is a problem,” Talarico added. “Instead of holding a hearing about student mental health, we are spending precious legislative time, toward the end of this legislative session, on a bill called the ‘FURRIES’ Act.”
The bill proposes fines of up to $10,000 for school districts found in violation, and up to $25,000 for repeat offenses. It also authorizes the Texas Attorney General to investigate complaints filed by parents.
Talarico said that opens the door to false accusations and potential defamation, criticizing the bill’s vague language.
“If a student eats Cheetos and then licks the cheese dust off their fingers, would that be considered licking oneself?” he asked.
Gerdes clarified it would not count if the licking was part of eating.
“That’s not a nonhuman behavior, that’s in line with the normal behavior,” he said. “The intent of the bill is for licking oneself for grooming purposes, like a cat.”
Talarico pushed back. “Your bill doesn’t say that,” he said. “So, who decides whether the licking is nonhuman behavior? I would hope that the attorney general has better things to do than investigating licking or that kind of behavior among kids.”
Gerdes said it would be up to school administrators, though the attorney general could investigate complaints.
“That’s not necessarily how that plays out,” Gerdes added. “This goes through the teacher or the administrator to see if the kid is acting out. If a parent has reasonable belief, they can file a complaint, but the attorney general does their due diligence, they don’t immediately get fined.”
According to Gerdes, the state’s top cop would ensure that complaints contradict the implemented language of a district’s plan before any type of fine is assessed.
“I’d be more than happy to work with you on some language that you’d feel comfortable with,” Gerdes said.
HB 54 remains pending in committee.
“Again, to be honest, I’m not comfortable with any bill that’s going after a nonexistent issue,” Talarico said.
Gerdes did not respond to a request for comment.
