By Caitlin Rothermel
In our August 2026 issue, The Loop published an opinion article, “Should We Talk About Trans Issues? Yes, and Here’s Why …” that referenced Initiative 638 (I-638), being voted on in Washington state this November. This article was controversial. Online discussions were very critical. The Loop also received private input that was both constructive and supportive.
This month, we return to this topic with “pro” / “con” perspectives on I-638 from two advocacy groups: No Hate in WA State, a statewide coalition opposing initiatives 638 and 001, Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender (DIAG), a volunteer-run non-profit advocating for evidence-based approaches to gender-related policy. As is The Loop’s practice, any fact-based statements in these articles are linked to source documents in the online version.
The summary below reviews what I-638 does and does not say, including quoted language for key points. The goal was to provide a foundation for considering the two perspectives that follow.
I-638, formally titled the “Defending Equity in Interscholastic Sports Act,” would establish new requirements governing participation in female interscholastic athletic competition in Washington public schools.
Its central provision would prohibit students the Initiative defines as “biologically male” from competing with or against female students in certain athletic activities designated for female students. It would also require students participating in these competitions to have their biological sex verified by a health care provider as part of the existing sports physical process.
I-638 begins with a series of findings explaining its purpose. It states that Washington law and school district policies already require students to undergo routine physical examinations before participating in interscholastic sports, and that these examinations include documentation of the student’s “sex assigned at birth.”* According to I-638, this existing process provides “a reliable and medically verified basis to determine a student’s biological sex.” I-638 further states that protecting “the integrity and fairness of women’s interscholastic sports” requires students to compete in athletic activities consistent with “the gender assigned at birth.”*
Section 3 of I-638 directs school districts and organizations with delegated authority over interscholastic athletics, such as the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA), to adopt policies that “prohibit biologically male students from competing with and against female students” when an athletic activity has separate male and female classifications and is both “intended for female students only” and an individual or team competition.
Section 3 also establishes the initiative’s medical verification requirement. A student choosing to participate in an individual or team competition intended for female students would be required to provide, “as part of the required routine sports physical examination, a health examination and consent form or other statement signed by the student’s personal health care provider that verifies the student’s biological sex.”
I-638 specifies the information on which the health care provider may rely for this verification. It must be based “only on one or more of the following: The student’s reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.”
I-638 does not further define “reproductive anatomy” or “genetic makeup,” nor does it specify particular examinations or laboratory tests to perform. It does not state that a genital examination might be required; the word “genital” does not appear in the I-638 language. The verification requirement is specifically tied to participation in individual or team competitions by female students; I-638 does not establish a similar requirement for male athletic competition.
Additionally, I-638 would require school districts and voluntary nonprofit organizations that govern interschool activities to make their “policies, procedures, rules, and other requirements” conform to the new eligibility provisions.
I-638 also amends Washington’s existing public-school sex-discrimination law. This generally requires that recreational and athletic activities be offered without regard to sex and permits schools to provide separate teams for each sex. I-638 would retain those provisions but add an exception referring to its new female-sports eligibility requirements. Existing requirements for equal treatment in areas like equipment and supplies, medical care, insurance, transportation, coaching, competition opportunities, publicity, awards, and scheduling would remain in place.
I-638 indicates that other provisions concerning sexual-harassment policies, counseling and guidance services, course offerings, instructional materials, and surveys of student interest would largely retain existing state law. Likewise, I-638 does not change existing requirements for athletic facilities. Current law requires that schools provide comparable showers, toilets, or athletic training rooms for both sexes; these may be separate facilities or facilities scheduled for separate use by each sex.
* I-638 language uses both the terms “sex” and “gender” in this context; it is not clear if this was an oversight.
