Inside I-638: Biological Sex, Gender Identity and Girls’ Sports

I-638, titled “Protecting Girls in Sports,” would bar trans-identifying males from girls-only interschool competition and require medical sex verification for every student seeking to participate. Here’s what supporters, opponents and the initiative itself say about it.

Washington voters will decide Initiative I-638, “Protecting Girls in Sports,” on Nov. 3, one of three statewide initiatives appearing on this year’s ballot.

The main disagreements involve fairness and safety in girls’ sports, the rights of trans-identifying males, and what healthcare providers would have to do before verifying eligibility.

At its core, the dispute is over who qualifies for girls-only competition and whether eligibility should be based on biological sex or gender identity.

At a Glance: What the Measure Says

I-638 would do two main things:

• Prohibit students the measure defines as biologically male from competing in girls-only interschool athletic competitions.
• Require every student seeking to compete in girls-only sports to submit healthcare-provider verification of biological sex.

The verification must be based on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal naturally produced testosterone levels. The initiative does not specify which examination or test must be used.

What Are the Rules Now?

The 2026–27 Washington Interscholastic Activities Association handbook says students may participate in athletics and activities consistent with their gender identity or the gender they most consistently express. School personnel work with the student to determine eligibility. Once granted, that eligibility continues throughout the student’s participation and does not have to be renewed each season or school year.

Students already must complete a physical examination before participating in interschool sports. The current WIAA rule requires a review of the student’s medical history, a cardiopulmonary examination, a sport-specific orthopedic screening, and a provider’s statement that the student is fit to participate. The rule’s listed requirements do not include verification of biological sex.

Physical examinations are generally valid for 24 months unless a school district or medical provider sets a shorter period.

Where Sides Disagree

Both sides say they are protecting girls. They sharply disagree over whether the initiative would preserve a fair athletic category or create a new and unnecessary medical barrier for female athletes.

What Does “Medical Verification” Actually Require?

The initiative does not expressly require a genital examination, genetic test or hormone test. It requires a healthcare provider to verify sex based only on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.

The Attorney General’s official explanatory statement says students would have to undergo “some type of medical evaluation of their sex.”

It does not explain whether existing medical records would be enough, when additional examination or testing would be necessary, what “normal” testosterone levels mean, who would pay or how schools would resolve disputed or inconclusive results.

Supporters, including Let’s Go Washington and the authors of the official voters’ pamphlet argument, say a provider could use existing medical history and a routine, non-invasive examination.

Opponents say the initiative language could lead to examinations or testing not required under today’s sports-physical rules.

Athletes, Coaches and Medical Professionals Take Sides

The official voters’ pamphlet includes arguments from athletes, coaches, parents and healthcare professionals on both sides.

In Support:

• Ahnaleigh Wilson, a Washington student athlete supporting I-638, has said girls need adults to “stand up and protect fairness in girls’ sports.”
• Dori Whitford, a high school track and cross-country coach, Carol Brown, an Olympic rowing bronze medalist, and Dr. Erica Li, a board-certified pediatrician, joined the official argument supporting the measure. They say female athletes should not lose positions, medals or opportunities because the female category is not protected.
• The official supporting argument says routine primary care can verify sex privately and without invasive or expensive examinations.

Opposed:

• Justin Gill, president of the Washington State Nurses Association, Dr. Grace Shih, a family physician, and Katie Johnson, a retired school nurse, joined the official argument opposing I-638. They say the verification language could subject girls to medically unnecessary and potentially harmful examinations.
• Paul Charbonneau, a high school girls’ wrestling coach, also joined the opposition argument, which says the added requirement could discourage girls from playing sports.
• The opposition campaign, No Hate in WA State, argues that the measure targets LGBTQIA+ students, particularly "trans girls," and that participation in school sports is also a transgender-rights issue. It says decisions should remain with families, schools and athletic associations rather than be governed by a statewide ban.

The Bottom Line

I-638, “Protecting Girls in Sports,” is not simply a yes-or-no question about whether girls’ sports should be fair. Both sides say they support fairness and opportunity for girls.

The question is whether Washington should replace its current gender-identity participation policy with a statewide sex-based rule that excludes trans-identifying males from girls-only competition and requires medical verification for every student seeking to participate in that category.

Voters are also deciding whether the initiative gives healthcare providers and schools enough direction about how that verification would work.

Read It Yourself

• Official initiative text: I-638
• Official ballot title and explanatory statement
• Official voters’ pamphlet arguments and rebuttals
• Official fiscal-impact statement
• Current WIAA handbook
• Supporters: Let’s Go Washington
• Opponents: No Hate in WA State

LOOKING FOR CLARITY? SAVE THE DATE

Community Conversations: Ballot Issues
Tuesday, October 6 | 6:15–7:30 p.m.

RSVP for location: highlinegoodneighbors@gmail.com

Highline Good Neighbors will host a community discussion about state initiatives and the Highline School District bond and levy, featuring local elected officials and community leaders and an opportunity for the public to ask questions.

This is part of a five-story Highline Journal series examining the three statewide initiatives and the Highline School District bond and technology levy. Each story will explain what the measure does, what YES and NO mean, and the principal arguments from supporters and opponents.