Initiative Measure IL26-638: Participation in Athletics at K-12 Schools

The law today

Attorney General's explanatory statement: school districts may offer extracurricular sports, which must be offered to all public school students without regard to sex, though public schools may provide separate teams based on sex. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction's regulations and guidelines prohibit discrimination in sports based on sex and gender identity. School districts may delegate regulation of interschool athletics to a nonprofit such as the WIAA, which may not discriminate on the basis of sex and must have written rules on student participation.[1]

Official fiscal estimate

Office of Financial Management fiscal impact statement: no effect on state or local revenue; the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction would incur a one-time cost of approximately $21,000 to update guidelines, and local school districts would likely incur indeterminate costs to revise policies and procedures.[1]

Arguments made for

• Argument for (written by parent and education advocate Alesha Perkins, a high school coach, an Olympic medalist, a pediatrician and others): “Female athletes deserve fair opportunities to build confidence, develop skills, and pursue goals. Let’s protect those opportunities and affirm the hard-fought rights established through Title IX in 1972, which expanded athletic access for women by recognizing the necessity of the female category.”[1]
• Argument for: “Students would compete in the category that aligns with their sex, verified during routine, medically necessary primary care recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. 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.”[1]
• Rebuttal of the argument against (same authors): “IL26-638 doesn’t require invasive or expensive exams. Standard primary pediatric care already verifies sex; transferring that record to sports is sufficient.”[1]

Arguments made against

• Argument against (written by the Washington State Nurses Association president, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, the League of Women Voters of Washington, a family physician, a retired school nurse and a girls' wrestling coach): this “poorly written measure would require girls as young as 8 to undergo intrusive medical sex certification as a new part of sports physicals. It bans parents from using birth certificates.”[1]
• Argument against: “The WA State Nurses Association, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, and doctors warn this measure would subject girls to medically unnecessary, embarrassing, and potentially harmful genital exams.”[1]
• Argument against: “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.”[1]

On record in support

• Let's Go Washington (political committee led by Brian Heywood), the initiative's sponsor, which is registered in favor with the Public Disclosure Commission.[3][5]
• Authors of the voters' pamphlet statement for: Alesha Perkins, Dori Whitford (high school coach), Carol Brown (Olympic bronze medalist), Erica Li, MD, Ahnaleigh Wilson (student athlete) and Jess Grant (Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender).[1]
• 47th District Republicans (registered in favor with the Public Disclosure Commission).[5]

On record in opposition

• No Hate in WA State (political committee registered against; contact listed on the pamphlet statement against).[1][5]
• Authors of the voters' pamphlet statement against: Washington State Nurses Association, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, League of Women Voters of Washington, a family physician, a retired school nurse and a girls' wrestling coach.[1]
• Defend Washington (political committee registered against with the Public Disclosure Commission).[5]