A heated debate took place on the floor of the Wyoming House of Representatives on Thursday over the controversial bill known as the “What Is A Woman Act.”
Supporters argue that the legislation is necessary to protect women, while opponents express concern about its potential to lead to invasive practices such as genital checks.
The bill, officially titled House Bill 32, passed its first vote in the Wyoming House despite opposition from all the chamber’s Democrats and a small group of Republicans. The legislation, which has two more readings and a final vote before moving to the state Senate, aims to define male and female according to biological sex across Wyoming’s laws. If enacted, it would reinforce sex-based separations in government-run facilities such as prisons and public bathrooms, and instruct the state’s judiciary to apply a lenient standard when reviewing laws that distinguish between sexes.
One of the bill’s key provisions that raised concerns was its directive to Wyoming courts. Specifically, the bill seeks to guide the courts in their evaluation of sex-based laws by applying the “intermediate scrutiny” standard, which is less stringent than the strict scrutiny standard courts apply when fundamental rights are at stake. Critics, like Rep. Ken Chestek, a Democrat from Laramie, argue that this undermines the separation of powers by telling courts how to interpret the Constitution. Chestek, a recently-retired law professor, cautioned that the legislative branch should not attempt to direct the judicial branch’s role in interpreting laws.
Rep. Karlee Provenza, a Democrat from Laramie, echoed concerns over the bill’s potential to lead to invasive practices. In particular, she highlighted the provision that allows for the separation of domestic violence centers based on sex. Provenza questioned whether this would require vulnerable individuals, including victims of rape, to undergo invasive examinations to gain access to necessary services.
Supporters of the bill, however, countered these arguments by stressing the importance of protecting women’s spaces. Rep. Rodriguez-Williams, a Republican from Cody, criticized the judiciary for what she perceived as confusion in defining biological sex, citing the controversial US Supreme Court confirmation hearing of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, where she famously said, “I’m not a biologist,” when asked to define a woman. Rodriguez-Williams argued that the bill would provide clarity to the courts and defend the rights of women.
Rep. Julie Jarvis, a Republican from Casper, expressed concerns about the invasive nature of some provisions, particularly regarding bathroom access, and questioned how the state could enforce such measures.
Rep. Abby Angelos, a Republican from Gillette, argued that the bill was a response to local concerns about gender-segregated spaces, referencing a controversy in her district involving a transgender person using a public locker room. She contended that communities across the state were calling for a clearer definition of gender in public spaces to protect women, especially in locker rooms.
With input from Cowboy State Daily and Jackson Hall News&Guide.
