How Zooey Zephyr’s Powerful Speech Flipped 13 Red Votes and Defeated Montana’s Anti-Trans Bill
On March 6, 2025, something remarkable happened on the floor of the Montana House of Representatives. A controversial anti-LGBTQ+ proposal, House Bill 675 – which aimed to ban drag performances and even Pride events by allowing parents to sue performers – was up for debate. It seemed headed for passage in the Republican-dominated chamber, until freshman Representative Zooey Zephyr rose to speak. In a striking turn of events, Zephyr’s impassioned plea swayed 13 Republican lawmakers to break with their party, joining Democrats to defeat the bill in a 44–55 vote . This outcome was almost unheard of on transgender issues, where partisan lines rarely budge . How did one speech prompt such a dramatic shift? Below, we analyze the rhetorical strategies Zephyr deployed – from persuasive appeals and speech structure to tone, delivery, and context – to understand how her words changed minds and votes.
Montana Rep. Zooey Zephyr speaking on the House floor against HB 675. Her authentic heartfelt rhetoric during the March 6 debate persuaded 13 Republican colleagues to vote against the drag ban bill, leading to its defeat.(screenshot from Montana HoR video feed)
What Was House Bill 675?
House Bill 675 was a plan to make a new law in Montana. This bill would ban drag performances and Pride parades in the state . In simple terms, that means it wanted to stop shows where people dress in drag and to stop Pride events (such as parades celebrating LGBTQ+ people). The bill was anti-LGBTQ+, and it worried many people in that community.
watch the video of the speech here
Speech Structure: Building the Case Step by Step
The structure of Zephyr’s speech was deliberate and strategic. She guided her audience through a progression that framed the debate, dismantled the bill’s premise, and rallied listeners to her conclusion. Here’s how she built her argument:
Opening – Calling Out the Pattern
Zephyr began by acknowledging the context and her fatigue with it: “Here I am again to rise on another bill targeting the LGBTQ+ community,” she said . This opening line conveyed exasperation at repeatedly having to defend her community, immediately setting a tone of urgency and moral seriousness. It also implicitly asked colleagues to reflect on why so many bills like this were coming up, priming them to question HB 675’s necessity.
Reframing the Issue – Drag as Art
Rather than accept the bill’s framing of drag shows as dangerous or obscene, Zephyr reframed drag in positive terms. “At its very core, drag is art. It is very beautiful art. It has a deep history in this country, and it is important to my community,” she asserted . By celebrating drag as a form of artistic expression and culture, she shifted the narrative from fear to appreciation. She reached a larger audience by making the analogy with a Disney Princesses (Also an exaggerated performance of femininity). This reframing positioned the debate around artistic freedom and cultural heritage, making the bill’s punitive approach seem not only overreaching but culturally destructive. It also set a respectful tone – she was inviting colleagues to see drag through her eyes, as something of value, rather than launching straight into condemnation of the bill.
Connecting with the Audience – Shared Values
Next, Zephyr built a bridge to her audience’s own experiences and values. She used the analogy of women lawmakers wearing pantsuits: if even that simple act would have defied gender norms decades ago, then everyone in the room had a stake in the freedom to express oneself. “You know, if you are a woman in this body wearing a suit today, you are in some way challenging gender norms that existed long ago,” she observed . This was a pivotal structural move (similar to the Disney analogy) – it humanized and universalized the issue. No longer was the conversation just about drag queens or queer people; it was about everyone’s right to break with outdated norms. By inviting colleagues (including Republicans) to put themselves in those shoes, she created empathy and a sense of common cause against unjust restrictions. Republicans desiring less government oversight for private family centred decisions could relate to the overarching ethos.
Historical Context – Learning from the Past
Having opened hearts and minds, Zephyr then invoked history to warn of consequences. She recounted the “three-article-of-clothing” laws from 50 years ago that policed people’s attire and led to police raids on LGBTQ+ spaces, ultimately sparking the Stonewall riots . By drawing this parallel, Zephyr implied that HB 675 was history repeating itself – an oppressive measure that, like those past laws, would trample civil rights and incite backlash. This historical example added gravity to the debate, reminding legislators that their votes would be remembered. Structurally, it served as a cautionary tale: she was effectively asking, Do we want to be the legislators who ignore the lessons of Stonewall and enact a modern-day version of those discriminatory laws?
Refuting the Opposition – Direct Rebuttal:
With the groundwork laid, Zephyr turned directly to the bill’s justification and its sponsor’s words. She quoted Rep. Caleb Hinkle’s own assertion that the bill was needed “because transgenderism is a fetish based on crossdressing” . By repeating this claim on the House floor, Zephyr shone a light on its extremism and absurdity, likely making some moderate colleagues uncomfortable with such rhetoric. She then delivered her rebuttal with measured fury: “I am here to stand before the body and say that my life is not a fetish. My existence is not a fetish.” This point-by-point refutation was the emotional climax of the speech. Structurally, it served to demolish the core argument behind the bill in a very personal way without attacking rep. Hinkle as a person. She transformed the debate from an abstract moral panic about “drag queens” into a direct affront on her dignity and life. By doing so, Zephyr made supporting the bill feel like a personal attack on a colleague – a discomforting position for anyone in that chamber who respected her even a little.
Personal Anecdote – Highlighting Real-Life Stakes: To drive the point home, Zephyr shared a touching personal anecdote: just weeks earlier her young son had visited the legislature, sitting up in the gallery . Many lawmakers had met him. “When I go to walk him to school, that’s not a lascivious display … That is my family,” she declared . By talking about her role as a mother, she reframed the supposed “harm” the bill targeted. The real harm, she implied, would be to families like hers if this bill passed – families who would be stigmatized or restricted from participating in public life. This was a strategic use of storytelling: it put a relatable, innocent image (a parent walking a child to school) in lawmakers’ minds, dramatically contrasting it with the bill sponsor’s lurid insinuations. It also invoked the cherished value of parental rights, but in defense of LGBTQ+ parents’ rights to raise their kids without undue interference – a clever turn, since proponents of such bills often claim “protecting parents’ rights” as a motive. In fact, this point resonated so strongly that immediately after Zephyr’s speech, a Republican representative, Sherry Essmann, rose “speaking as a parent and a grandmother” to argue that if legislators truly believe in parental rights, they must vote against this bill . Essmann’s remarks reinforced Zephyr’s argument about family and personal freedom, showing that Zephyr’s anecdote had successfully bridged the partisan divide on this value.
Conclusion – Laying Bare the Stakes
Zephyr closed by clearly identifying what was really at stake. She noted that HB 675 was “not [about] obscene shows in front of children” – those were already illegal – but rather “a way to target the trans community” . This final point crystallized her thesis: the bill was fundamentally an attack on a marginalized group under the false pretense of protecting kids. By ending on that note, Zephyr challenged her colleagues to consider their legacy. Would they be complicit in targeting the trans community, or would they stand up for fairness? It was an implicit call to action to vote no. The structure of her speech had led them logically and emotionally to that very question. By the time she finished, those listening had been guided through framing, evidence, moral appeal, and refutation, culminating in a clear moral choice. The fact that 13 Republicans crossed the aisle to join her side suggests that her conclusion was convincing. She had systematically dismantled the justifications for the bill and replaced them with a powerful moral narrative of her own.
Overall, Zephyr’s speech was organized for maximum impact – an introduction that set the tone, a body that combined factual and emotional arguments in a rising arc, and a conclusion that drove the point home. This thoughtful structure ensured that by the end of her speech, the audience was primed to act on her words, not just applaud them.
Key Takeaways from Zooey Zephyr’s Speech: How Public Speakers Can Use Storytelling to Authentically Connect with an Audience
As we’ve seen, Zooey Zephyr’s speech on House Bill 675 was powerful and persuasive because she used storytelling to build authentic emotional connections while delivering a clear, structured argument. Here are the key takeaways that public presenters, speakers, and leaders can apply to their own storytelling:
⸻
1️⃣ Start with a Personal Story to Build Trust
Why it worked: Zooey didn’t just talk about policy—she shared her own life. She spoke about walking her son to school and being a parent, making herself relatable to lawmakers who might not have personally known a transgender personto use it:**
• Open with a real, personal story that makes the audience see you as a person, not just a speaker or a partisan talking bot.
• Choose universal themes—family, love, resilience—so people across the political spectrum as well as apolitical people can find common ground with you.
• Make the story brief but vivid so it sticks.
💡 Example: If you’re presenting on leadership, start with a short story about a moment when you had to step up in an unexpected way.
⸻
2️⃣ Make Your Audience See Themselves in Your Story
Why it worked: Zooey used inclusive storytelling by comparing her experience to things her audience could relate to. She reminded lawmakers that years ago, even women wearing pantsuits was seen as breaking gender norms . The issue then felt personal to the women in the State House and relevant rather than distant.
✅ How to use it:
• Use analogies or comparisons that connect your story to your audience’s world.
• Ask questions that make the audience reflect: “Have you ever been told you don’t belong?”
• Show how the issue affects them, not just why it matters to you.
💡 Example: If you’re persuading people to embrace change, compare it to something everyone has experienced—like switching from a flip phone to a smartphone (if they are of a certain age 😂)
⸻
3️⃣ Use Emotion, But Stay in Control
Why it worked: Zephyr spoke with passion and urgency, but she stayed composed. Her voice rose when she declared “My life is not a fetish,” but she did not yell or attack anyone . This balance made her ul rather than overwhelming**.
✅ How to use it:
• Speak with genuine emotion, but don’t let it overpower your message.
• Pause for effect—silence can be as powerful as words.
• If your topic is personal, practice until you can deliver it with poise.
💡 Example: If you’re telling a personal struggle story, let your voice soften at emotional moments instead of breaking. A well-placed pause can make the audience feel the weight of your words and can help you keep composure when revisiting emotional scenes from your life.
⸻
4️⃣ Structure Your Speech Like a Story Arc
Why it worked: Zephyr’s speech had a clear beginning, middle, and end:
1. Introduction: She set the stakes (“Here I am again, rising to speak on another bill targeting the LGBTQ+ community.”) .
2. Conflict: She refuted the intents and exposed its real intent .
3. Resolution: She ended by showing what t stake—not just law, but real families like hers .
✅ How to use it:
Introduce the issue with a
Build tension by showing challenges or conflicts.
Resolve with a call to action or key takeaway.
💡 Example: Instead of listing facts about climate change, tell a true story of a farmer who lost their crops due to extreme weather, then explain the science behind it.
⸻
5️⃣ Speak to Shared Values, Not Just Your Own
Why it worked: Instead of making it just about LGBTQ+ rights, Zephyr framed her argument around family, freedom, and fairness—values her audience cared about . Even lawmakers who disagreed with her identity agreed on protecting se it:
Identify the values your audience cares about and frame your story around them.
Use phrases like “This isn’t just about me, it’s about all of us.”
Avoid polarizing language that makes it “us vs. them.”
💡 Example: If talking to business leaders about diversity, don’t just say it’s “the right thing to do.” Show how it drives innovation and profits—things they already value.
⸻
6️⃣ Call Out the Problem, Then Offer a Solution
Why it worked: Zephyr didn’t just say why the bill was wrong—she explained why existing laws (Miller test) already covered the issue and how HB 675 was unnecessary . This made her argument stronger because she wasn’t just criticizing—she was educating and solvHow to use it:**
Point out why the current approach is failing.
Offer a better solution or explain what action people should take.
Use simple, confident language like “Here’s what we can do instead.”
💡 Example: If presenting about workplace burnout, don’t just say “burnout is bad.” Show why current work habits cause it and give practical ways to prevent it.
⸻
7️⃣ Show, Don’t Just Tell
Why it worked: Instead of just saying “this bill is unfair,” Zephyr painted a picture of its impact:
She described herself as a mother.
She reminded lawmakers that her son was watching from the gallery.
She made them imagine what it would feel like if their own child saw them being attacked.
✅ How to use it:
Use vivid descriptions to make your audience “see” the story.
Bring in real people or examples to illustrate the point.
Instead of saying “This issue is urgent,” describe a real moment where the issue caused harm.
💡 Example: If you’re talking about education, don’t just say “schools are underfunded.” Tell a real story of a teacher struggling to buy supplies with their own money. it often requires actively listening to people in your community.
⸻
8️⃣ End with a Strong, Memorable Line
Why it worked: Zephyr’s final words stuck because they were simple, clear, and emotional:
“This isn’t about obscene shows. This is about targeting people like me. And that is wrong.”
✅ How to use it:
End with one powerful sentence that sums up your message.
Make it easy and repeat.
Say it slowly and clearly so it leaves an impact.(remember to breathe!!!)
💡 Example: If your talk is about the power of education, end with:
“When we invest in kids, we invest in the future. And that’s a future worth fighting for.”
⸻
Final Thought: Speak So People Feel Something
Zooey Zephyr’s speech changed votes because it made people feel something real. She used:
✅ A personal story to make her audience care
✅ Emotional and logical appeals to reach both hearts and minds
✅ A clear structure so her message was easy to follow
✅ Common values to connect with people outside her own community
Want to give a speech that moves people?
✔ Tell a story, not just facts.
✔ Speak with passion, but stay composed.
✔ Make your audience see themselves in your story.
Because when people feel the truth, they listeN and sometimes, act. Those small actions build glimmers of hope for the future that sometimes, these days, feels a bit hard to reach.