Washington Initiative 638: Restrict girls’ school sports to students verified as female
What it does. Washington schools must offer sports without regard to sex but may provide separate teams based on sex, and state guidelines prohibit discrimination based on sex and gender identity. Initiative 638 would, in its own language, prohibit “biologically male students from competing with and against female students” on teams or in events designated for female students only. The Attorney General says this would generally prevent transgender girls from participating on girls’ teams, and would cover public K-12 schools and private schools that participate in the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association or similar organizations. Students in female-only categories would need a form signed by their personal health care provider verifying “biological sex.” [1]
Official ballot question. Initiative Measure No. IL26-638 concerns participation in athletics at K-12 schools. This measure would prohibit students it defines as “biologically male” from competing in certain school athletic activities intended for female students only. It would require verification of biological sex by students’ healthcare providers. Should this measure be enacted into law? [1]
If you vote yes
A yes vote would prohibit students defined as biologically male from competing in school sports intended for female students only, and would require healthcare provider verification of biological sex for those students. [1]
If you vote no
A no vote would leave current Washington law and state guidelines in place, which prohibit discrimination in school sports based on sex and gender identity while allowing separate teams based on sex. [1]
What it would cost
The Office of Financial Management’s fiscal impact statement says the initiative would not affect state or local revenue. It estimates the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction would incur a one-time cost of approximately $21,000 to update guidelines, and that local school districts would likely incur costs to revise policies and procedures, but that this impact is indeterminate. [2]
Both sides
Strongest case for
The official argument for says “Female athletes deserve fair opportunities to build confidence, develop skills, and pursue goals,” and that the measure would affirm Title IX’s recognition of “the necessity of the female category.” The rebuttal says “A female athlete should not lose a starting position, medal, championship, or college recruiting opportunity because the category created for her was not protected.” [4]
It says the verification would be modest: “during a private, consented visit, a licensed medical professional would verify sex based on the student’s birth records, medical history and/or a standard, non-invasive physical examination.” The rebuttal says “IL26-638 doesn’t require invasive or expensive exams.” [4]
It says the measure would align Washington with other bodies: “Federal law, the Women’s Tennis Association, World Athletics, and the International Olympic Committee have all adopted policies to protect eligibility for the female category.” The rebuttal cites “at least 269 placements by male athletes competing in girls’ interscholastic categories, including 74 firsts and 156 top-three finishes.” [4]
Strongest case against
The official argument against says the measure “would require girls as young as 8 to undergo intrusive medical sex certification as a new part of sports physicals” and “bans parents from using birth certificates.” It says “These requirements apply to girls only, boys are exempt.” [4]
It says the Washington State Nurses Association, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates and doctors warn the measure would subject girls to “medically unnecessary, embarrassing, and potentially harmful genital exams.” It says “Today, students remain fully clothed during sports physicals,” and that many girls without a regular family doctor would be examined by “total strangers.” [4]
It says “This statewide blanket ban to kick 5 - 10 trans girls off school teams will negatively impact all girls, leaving no room for case by case decisions,” and that coaches and athletes say “invasive genital exam requirements” would discourage girls from playing sports. [4]
What neither side is saying
Context that bears on what this measure does or who it affects but that the arguments above do not address. These are sourced facts, not arguments for or against the measure.
- What the verification would require, according to the Attorney General. The explanatory statement says verification “would have to be based on the student’s reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels,” and concludes: “Students would thus have to undergo some type of medical evaluation of their sex to participate in interschool sports designated for female students only.” The pamphlet arguments disagree about how invasive that evaluation would be. [1]
Editorial context, not the opinion of We Elect. Each point is a fact we found in a source we opened and read; where sources disagree or data are missing, we say so. How we choose these.
Follow the money
Contributions reported by committees registered to support or oppose Initiative 638. Major donors are those who gave $100,000 or more; where fewer than three did, up to five of the largest listed donors giving $5,000 or more are shown.
Supporting (Yes)
Total raised $8,258,316
Committee
- Let's Go Washington $8,258,316
At least one of these committees also campaigns on Washington Initiative 1, Washington Initiative 645, so its money cannot be split by measure.
Major donors
| Heywood Brian | $2,580,049 |
| Gordon Steve | $902,000 |
| Kelley DevCom LLC | $450,000 |
| Washington Rising Inc | $300,000 |
| Kemper Holdings LLC | $250,000 |
| Hughes Lawrence | $250,000 |
| Crow Robert | $245,000 |
| TDM Strategies | $189,532 |
| Gordon Virginia | $125,000 |
| Gordon Larry | $125,000 |
Opposing (No)
Total raised $5,290,000
Committees
- No Hate in WA State $4,702,769
- Defend Washington $578,791
- Permanent Defense PAC (Wrong for Washington) $8,440
At least one of these committees also campaigns on Washington Initiative 1, Washington Initiative 645, so its money cannot be split by measure.
Major donors
| Inatai Foundation | $1,000,000 |
| SEIU 775 Ballot Fund | $750,500 |
| Washington Education Association | $629,092 |
| ACLU of Washington | $333,776 |
| National Education Association | $250,000 |
| No on 645 | $207,000 |
| SEIU Initiative Fund | $150,000 |
| Gender Justice League | $125,341 |
Reported contributions through Oct. 30, 2026, from itemized contributions filed with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission. Itemized contributions reported to each committee for the 2025 and 2026 election years. Each donor’s amount adds up their reported contributions to the committees above; names appear as filed. Figures may be updated as new reports are filed. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Official filings: Washington Public Disclosure Commission.
Sources
- Ballot title and explanatory statement, Initiative IL26-638 — Washington Attorney General’s Office (Official ballot title and explanatory statement, 2026-07-14)
- Fiscal Impact Statement for Initiative Measure No. IL26-638 — Washington Office of Financial Management (Official fiscal analysis, 2026-07)
- Washington Initiative 638, Sex Verification Requirements for Female School Sports Initiative (2026) — Ballotpedia (Reference (quotes supporters and opponents), accessed 2026-10-28)
- Voters’ pamphlet arguments for and against, with rebuttals, Initiative IL26-638 — Washington Secretary of State (voters’ pamphlet) (Official voters’ pamphlet statements (written by committees named in the pamphlet), 2026-08)
Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Last reviewed 2026-10-28. How we write both sides.
We Elect is a Brunner Creative site. Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Each side is written to be the strongest case its supporters would recognize, and every claim is tied to a source we opened and read.