Washington parents should vote yes on I-638 to protect girls’ teams

Washington parents should vote yes on Initiative 638 to protect girls’ teams: Moms for Liberty reported that The Washington Post’s Oct. 27 subheadline said, “Washington state could require genital exams for girls in school athletics.”

The state's own description says the form must be signed by the student's personal health care provider.

A provider verifies sex during the sports physical

In his July 14 explanatory statement, Brown sets out what the measure would require. Deputy Solicitor General Karl D. Smith signed the statement¹.

The statement says students seeking girls' interschool teams must submit the form. The provider verifies sex based on the student's "reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels." The rule reaches public K-12 schools and private schools that play under the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association or a similar nonprofit¹.

Moms for Liberty read the same page and put it plainly: "That's three options, chosen by the family's own doctor, not a school official²."

Girls deserve teams protected by sex

The point of that signature is the girls' team itself. In the statement's words, I-638 would prohibit "biologically male students from competing with and against female students" on teams or in events designated for girls only¹.

Washington needs that line written down because the state's current rules point the other way. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction writes sports regulations that, the statement says, "prohibit discrimination based on sex and gender identity¹." The statement says public schools may provide separate athletic teams based on sex.

A November 2024 Napolitan News/RMG poll, cited in American Principles Project's report Defeating They/Them, found 75% of voters opposed letting biological males who identify as women compete in women's sports events, with 13% in favor³.

The text does not require a genital exam

The other side's best argument rests on one sentence in the statement: students would "have to undergo some type of medical evaluation of their sex" to play girls' interschool sports¹. Writer Benjamin Ryan argued on Oct. 28 that the wording is "open ended" and that a doctor "needs to determine the child's sex⁴."

Ryan's own post goes on to undercut the scare. He wrote that the check "could also be done via cheek swab" or by "a genital exam that they were going to do routinely anyway," and noted that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends genital exams in routine physicals for tweens⁴. So a new exam forced on girls by the state turns out, on Ryan's own reading, to be an exam pediatricians already recommend, or a swab, or a lab value.

Washington parents should vote yes by Nov. 3

The ballot asks one question: "Should this measure be enacted into law¹?" Moms for Liberty told parents to do the obvious thing first: "Washington parents, read it yourself before Nov. 3²."

Read it, and the choice is a signature from your daughter's own doctor against a sports regime that lets boys onto her team.

Sources

1. IL26-638 Explanatory Statement
2. @Moms4Liberty on X, 2026-10-28: The Washington Post told its readers that Washington's I-638 "could require genital exams for girls in school athletics." So we read what the state Attorney General's office actually wrote about it. The AG's official explanatory statement says a student play, 2026-10-28
3. Defeating They/Them (American Principles Project, 2024)
4. @benryanwriter on X, 2026-10-28: Per the American Academy of Pediatrics, genital exams are recommended for routine physicals for tweens. Where the Washington state ballot initiative is concerned, the wording is open ended. A doctor needs to determine the child's sex. This could also be don, 2026-10-28