Transgender woman defies Wyoming's new bathroom bill with stunt inside state's capitol building
Rihanna Kelver, 27, had been planning for months to use the women's restroom at the Wyoming State Capitol in protest of a new law that restricts people to the bathroom corresponding with their sex in public buildings.
She explained to the Laramie Reporter that she saw her use of the women's bathroom at the state capitol - right next to the governor's office - as 'a pretty simple and creative direct action to either A) force litigation that could help us dismantle this policy or B) at least force the message that the policy is kind of worthless.'
Kelver then traveled to Cheyenne on Tuesday, when the law went into effect, for her act of protest.
'I do not inherently believe in the state's interpretation of my identity,' she told supporters before walking into the women's room. 'Nor will I willfully be silent in the enforcement of where and how I can exist in public and who I am.'
By 12.30pm, Kelver marched into the capitol and approached a Wyoming Highway Patrol officer stationed at a desk near the restrooms and announced her intention to use the bathroom, Cowboy State Daily reports.
The officer did not have any issue with that, and Kelver then entered the women's room next to Gov. Mark Gordon's Office.
Moments later, she exited the building via the front entrance without any issue - despite telling her supporters there was a chance she would be arrested.
'Now I don't know what I'm going to do with my evening,' Kelver admitted in the aftermath. 'I didn't really plan anything. Kept it really free.'
But when addressing her supporters who had gathered outside the state capitol, Kelver said: 'This is exactly what should just be happening.
'I should have just been able to walk in and out like that,' she declared.
Yet Wyoming's bathroom law does not include criminal liability for a transgender person found violating the act, unlike a similar bill in Florida.
Instead, the only people who would suffer any consequences under the law if a transgender person used the bathroom of their preferred gender are the taxpayers.
As written, the law gives women who encounter biological males in their bathroom at a public building - and vice versa - the authority to sue the governmental entity that oversees the facility.
That governmental entity would then become liable for damages, reasonable attorneys fees and costs if it did not take 'reasonable steps' like posting signage and adopting enforcement policies.
In Kelver's act of protest, however, her former English teacher, Nikki Bondurant, announced that Kelvar would be entering the women's room and made sure no one else was in there at the time of her demonstration - thereby removing any plaintiffs.
'I didn't want anyone else to get caught up in anything,' Kelver said of her decision to announce her bathroom use ahead of the protest.
But some of the laws cosponsors argued she did not understand the crux of the legislation, as they hit out at her for her 'political stunt.'
'The fact that they're publicizing this and making this into something that they're trying to - I guess - get their name known [makes me] feel sad,' House Speaker Pro Tempore Jeremy Haroldson told Cowboy State Daily of Kelver.
'I believe this is just protecting spaces for our women and our girls - and that's predominantly what needs to be addressed here and highlighted here, and has nothing to do with this individual.'
State Rep. Tom Kelly also called Kelver's protest a 'publicity stunt for a transgender cause' as he argued that the law seeks to honor 'objective reality,' and Rep. Joel Guggenmos said he felt sorry for Kelver.
'This whole trans issue is about getting attention since it has been glorified in certain groups in society,' he said, claiming he would prefer not to give Kelver the attention she seeks.
'I feel sorry for him actually,' Guggenmos said, purposely misgendering the protester.
'He is trying to be someone he can never become.'
Still, the right-wing Wyoming Freedom Caucus took umbrage with Kelver's act of protest.
It had called on the governor to use the Highway Patrol Capitol Security detail to 'defend' the new bathroom law ahead of the protest on Monday.
'It's time to show women - real women what it means to be an equality state,' the group said in a statement at the time.
Following Kelver's protest, it declared that Gov. Gordon 'waved the white flag' by allowing her to use the women's bathroom.
'Wyoming deserves a leader who fights for real women,' the caucus said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
MPs back proscribing direct action group Palestine Action as terror organisation
MPs have backed the Government's move to ban direct action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, despite warnings it will have a 'chilling effect' on protest. Legislation passed in the Commons on Wednesday, as MPs voted 385 to 26, majority 359 in favour of proscribing the group under the Terrorism Act 2000. The motion is expected to be debated and voted on by the House of Lords on Thursday before it becomes law. If approved, it would become a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison to be a member of the direct action group or to support it. Security minister Dan Jarvis told MPs that protesters expressing support for Palestine 'have always been able to, and can continue to do so' as he urged support to ban Palestine Action. He said: 'Palestine Action is not a legitimate protest group. ' People engaged in lawful protest don't need weapons. People engaged in lawful protest do not throw smoke bombs and fire pyrotechnics around innocent members of the public. 'And people engaged in lawful protest do not cause millions of pounds of damage to national security infrastructure, including submarines and defence equipment for Nato.' Palestine Action is seeking a legal challenge against the Government's bid to proscribe it, with a hearing expected on Friday to decide whether the ban can be temporarily blocked, pending further proceedings to decide whether a legal challenge can be brought. The Government's move comes after two planes were vandalised at RAF Brize Norton on June 20 in an action claimed by Palestine Action. Five people have since been arrested on suspicion of a terror offence in relation to the incident. Mr Jarvis said the attack at RAF Brize Norton 'was just the latest episode in Palestine Action's long history of harmful activity', adding: 'Palestine Action has orchestrated a nation-wide campaign of property damage featuring attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the threshold from direct criminal action into terrorism.' But the minister faced backlash from some MPs who described the move as a 'draconian overreach' and likened the group to the Suffragettes. The United Nations also warned ahead of the vote for the UK not to proscribe Palestine Action, as experts are concerned at the 'unjustified labelling of a political protest movement as 'terrorist'.' Independent MP for Coventry South Zarah Sultana also told the Commons: 'To equate a spray can of paint with a suicide bomb isn't just absurd, it is grotesque. 'It is a deliberate distortion of the law to chill dissent, criminalise solidarity and suppress the truth.' Former soldier Clive Lewis, now the Labour MP for Norwich South, said: 'I understand what terrorism is. I was in London on July 7 in 2007 and I watched my community, this city, attacked by real terrorists. 'And at that point, rightly or wrongly, I decided I was going to Afghanistan to fight the terrorists. 'And I went because I love this country, and I love our democracy, and I want to see it protected. I think today's proscription order against Palestine Action undermines that and I wish my Government wouldn't do it.' A spokesperson for Palestine Action said: 'We are confident that this unlawful order will be overturned. 'As United Nations experts have made clear, spraying red paint and disrupting the British-based operations of Israel's largest weapons firm, Elbit Systems, is not terrorism.' Outside of Parliament, four protesters were arrested by the Metropolitan Police following a demonstration to oppose the move to ban Palestine Action. The police had imposed Public Order Act conditions aimed at limiting the protest to Richmond Terrace, off Whitehall. One woman, who identified herself as Emma Kamio to the PA news agency, appeared to use the protest technique known as 'locking on' to cause an obstruction outside of Carriage Gates, one of the entrances to the parliamentary estate. Her daughter Leona Kamio was among a group of pro-Palestine protesters who have appeared in court to deny breaking into the UK site of an Israel-based defence firm with sledgehammers, causing £1 million of damage. Police were seen speaking to Ms Kamio as she sat on the pavement outside Parliament with her arm inside what appeared to be a suitcase. Listing the four arrests, a Met spokesperson said a woman 'who locked herself onto a suitcase outside the gates of Parliament' was among them for 'breaching the conditions and for being in possession of articles intended for locking on'. Among those arrested was also a 'man who blocked the gates of Downing Street with his mobility scooter and refused to move to the conditioned area'. A larger than usual number of officers could be seen in the area around Parliament. The Met said the 'significant policing presence in the vicinity of Parliament' was because of its 'responsibility to take action to prevent serious disruption to the life of the community', including by ensuring MPs 'can go about their business free from intimidation or unreasonable interference'. The legislation approved by MPs also bans two white supremacist groups, Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement, including its paramilitary arm Russian Imperial Legion. The Home Office describes the Maniacs Murder Cult as a neo-Nazi transnational and online organisation which has claimed a number of violent attacks around the world. Russian Imperial Movement is a ethno-nationalist group which aims to create a new Russian Imperial State. Its paramilitary unit fought alongside Russian forces in the invasion of Ukraine to advance its ideological cause. It also runs a paramilitary training programme to support attendees to carry out terror attacks, the Home Office added.
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Washington has crushed Trump's Maga revolution
New presidential administrations often spur talk of revolution in Washington, and that goes double for Donald Trump. Supporters promise an end to the old politics; opponents warn of the end of America as we've known it. But the minute anything needs to be done through Congress, the forces of politics as usual reassert themselves. So it is with the 'One Big Beautiful Bill'. The gigantic tax and budget bill isn't just the centrepiece of Trump's legislative agenda. Given the narrow Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, the power of the Senate filibuster to block party-line bills outside of the tax and budget context, and the disinterest of all sides in forging bipartisan compromise, the bill is likely to be Trump's entire legislative agenda for 2025-26. There was a lot of talk about how the bill would do big, dramatic things and break with Republican policies of the past in favour of a new, populist agenda. Perhaps, Trump suggested, Republicans would raise taxes on the wealthy. There was fierce lobbying to undo some provisions of the 2017 Trump tax bill. But the forces of political gravity are not so easily defied. From the beginning, Republicans understood that this was a must-pass bill. Without it, not only would many of the 2017 tax cuts expire, but the GOP would likely miss the opportunity to satisfy priorities such as funding more immigration enforcement. In the end, the bill passed the House by just one vote, 215-214 (with two Republicans voting no and three others absent or abstaining), and did the same in the Senate, with vice-president JD Vance casting the 51-50 tiebreaker (with three Republicans voting no). The bill's passage followed a 'vote-a-thon' of record length in the Senate, as Senators voted down one amendment after another. When a must-pass bill needs every single yes vote to pass, that's a lot of people who have to be appeased or outright paid off. If the House baulks at the Senate's changes, the same dynamic is apt to repeat itself. So, the broad outlines of the bill look a lot more like traditional conservative policymaking with some Trump flavouring. Tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy are preserved, and coupled with working-class tax relief such as eliminating taxes on tips, overtime, and car loans. There's more money for warships and other weapons, and also for the tools of border enforcement (a wall, more agents, and more detention facilities). Poverty programmes such as Medicaid are subjected to work requirements, tightened eligibility rules, and restrictions on benefits for immigrants. The bill cuts back on subsidies for student-loan repayments and green energy. Republican moderates got their own concessions. The deduction for state and local taxes, which effectively subsidises high-tax blue states, was raised from $10,000 to $40,000 (at significant cost to the budget deficit) to secure a few votes from blue-state Republicans, mainly in the northeast. The child tax credit was expanded, which amounts to a payout to many lower-income taxpayers. Alaska was given more generous treatment in some benefits programmes once Senator Lisa Murkowski's vote became a must-have. Hospital and nursing-home lobbies made out like bandits. Fiscal hawks who wanted deeper spending cuts are instead presented with a bill that does nothing to alter the debt-ridden nation's grim fiscal trajectory. Other conservative ambitions were scaled back or ended on the cutting room floor. Abortion giant Planned Parenthood was defunded from the Medicaid programme – a long-time goal of pro-lifers – but the Senate cut the duration of that defunding to one year. The Senate version also cut out plans to ban Medicaid funding for gender transitions, sell public lands in the West, tax third-party funding of lawsuits, or prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence or giving state-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants. A Senate effort to reduce the federal subsidy for Obamacare health insurance plans was scrapped. The end result is a bill nobody likes – which is how lawmaking in Washington usually works. Among Republicans, only the handful of purist fiscal conservatives casting 'no' votes are truly at peace with their votes. Trump and Vance can doubtless sell the deal to Maga diehards as a necessity, and the donor class will be pleased. Democrats are back in their happy place, complaining that Republicans are cutting taxes on the rich and paying for it with welfare cuts for the poor – a hymn they've been singing since the 1930s. Voters instinctively dislike the bill because it's huge and messy, but that's precisely why they're unlikely to remember much about it a year and a half from now at midterm election time other than the Medicaid cuts, which Democrats aim to make the centrepiece of their campaigns. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Telegraph
33 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Zohran Mamdani isn't as clever as he thinks
A bizarre obsession with the Palestinian issue continues to poison progressive politics – including (surprise!) the campaign of Zohran Mamdani. The Democratic nominee for New York's mayoral race has refused to condemn the phrase 'globalise the intifada', despite sharp criticism from fellow Democrats. The phrase, seen by many as a call for violence against Jews, is actually 'a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights,' said Mamdani, not long before his surprising win. Then, this past weekend, he again declined to decry the phrase. Instead, he meekly noted 'that's not language that I use,' on the news show Meet the Press, before adding that he would serve as a mayor 'that protects Jewish New Yorkers' if ultimately elected in November. Mamdani's equivocations are hardly surprising. Presumably he thinks he's being clever by attempting to reassure Jewish voters, while signalling a quiet approval for some of the darkest rhetoric of the Palestinian cause. But he has actually exposed how sinister his campaign really is. He's made championing Palestinian nationalism a cornerstone of his political career – despite (beyond his Muslim faith) having very little in common with most Palestinians. The son of an Oscar-nominated film-maker mother and university professor father, Mamdani – like so many who voted for him last week – is the product of privilege, with scant experience in politics or holding a job, let alone of real 'oppression'. He exists in a world of feelings and vibes – in place of consequence or facts. And Mamdani has given every indication of believing that calling for 'intifada' – despite its clear association with bus bombings, knife attacks and thousands of Jewish dead (it means uprising in Arabic and is used to refer to two periods of Palestinian violence against Israelis) – is legitimate political discourse. The investor Bill Ackman – who helped take down former Harvard president Claudine Gay – took to X on Monday to ask: 'What if someone called for the killing or suicide bombings of those of a different ethnic background, Zohran, would you not be willing to condemn such a call to violent action? Or is it just for the Jews that you remain silent?' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries joined the attack, saying Mamdani would 'have to clarify his position on that as he moves forward,' during a weekend appearance on ABC's This Week. 'Globalising the intifada, by way of example, is not an acceptable phrasing.' Both Ackman and Jeffries could not be more correct. That too many progressives accept effective calls for violence against Jews that they would never tolerate for other ethnicities is not just limited to phrases like 'globalise the intifada'. The double-standard reflects the entire pro-Palestinian movement since the Hamas attack on Israel two Octobers ago. The violent encampments in cities like New York, the wide-scale property damage and, now, the numerous deaths in the United States directly attributed to anti-Semitism somehow avoid the type of critique heaped upon even the most minor affronts against, say, African-Americans or sexual minorities. In 2020, recall that New York Times opinion editor James Bennet resigned after the paper published an op-ed by Republican Senator Tom Cotton that some black staffers felt made them unsafe, merely because it suggested calling in the National Guard during the height of the Black Lives Matter protests. Mamdani, meanwhile, continues to campaign as the Democrat nominee despite refusing to condemn a phrase that Jews rightly perceive as a call for their murder. Will Mamdani eventually clarify his position? Don't hold your breath. Like so many on the extreme-Left, Mamdani exists within a bubble of impunity that ascribes negative motives to anyone who criticises its stances. Question the morality of phrases like 'intifada', goes the thinking, and you're a 'Zionist' whose opinion can be safely discounted. Malicious equivocation is also a veritable party trick for Mamdani. He has refused to say that he supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation. He's said he supports its right to exist 'as a state with equal rights'. But he has added that 'I'm not comfortable supporting any state that has a hierarchy of citizenship on the basis of religion or anything else'. We've heard this all before – including from Mamdani's own mother, director Mira Nair, who in 2013 refused to participate in the Haifa International Film festival, saying she would 'go to Israel when the state does not privilege one religion over another'. They conveniently ignore the Muslims and people of other faiths who do, in fact, enjoy equal rights in Israel. Perhaps I've also missed their criticism of the numerous nations that actually do oppress minority religions – either in practice or in law. Saudi Arabia prohibits the public worship of any religion other than Islam. Across much of the Middle East, countries once known for their religious diversity are no longer safe for Jews or Christians. Why are the likes of Mamdani allowed by their interviewers to get away with it? However overwhelmed and underprepared they are, they must know that they are not dealing with normal politicians, but radicals for whom the obsession with Israel has become almost a pathology. Many New York voters – including my fellow New York Jews – have failed to see through Mamdani. But now he has to win over the wider New York electorate, not just the Democratic base. Let's hope that we don't have to wait for him to put his agenda into practice before everyone wakes up to the truth.
