Washington passed a ballot measure that may subject children who want to play in girls’ sports to genital inspections.
The measure, which may face legal challenges, requires girls who want to play in girls’ sports to produce documentation from a healthcare provider who has verified “the student’s biological sex” relying on the student’s reproductive anatomy — in other words, a genital exam — genetic makeup or their natural testosterone levels. Due to how expensive genetic and testosterone testing can be, the genital exams are the most accessible option.
The rumor spread on X, Threads and Bluesky. Some posts shared additional alleged context, claiming that the ballot measure would subject children who want to play in girls’ sports to genital inspections. Others dismissed these claims as a “fantasy.”
Washington voters did, in fact, pass a measure called Initiative 26-638 aimed at banning trans girls from playing in girls’ sports. The act requires medical providers to “verify” a student’s biological sex using reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup or naturally produced testosterone levels.
In theory, the law does not explicitly require genital exams for anyone because it provides three options for sex verification. In practice, due to how expensive genetic and testosterone testing can be, the genital exams are the most accessible option, according to child advocacy groups and medical providers who oppose the provision.
It is worth noting these tests cannot necessarily definitively determine a person’s biological sex, which scientists say is a complex category.
The measure subjects every girl who wishes to play in girls’ school sports to sex verification, but does not subject students who wish to participate in boys’ sports to the same scrutiny. The Washington Interscholastic Activities Association reportedly said earlier this year that it was aware of 10 trans student athletes total in the state; it’s unclear how many of these athletes are trans boys, as opposed to
While the Washington secretary of state website indicates that there are still ballots left to count, as of this writing, support for the measure has a 13-point lead over opposition. Furthermore, The Associated Press called the race, stating that the “Yes” vote won.
Snopes, like many credible media publications, relies on AP calls for elections. As such, we have rated this claim as true.
(Some posts stated that the measure was “winning” or had won before AP called the race; ultimately, those posts turned out to be true, even if they called the race early.)
It’s worth noting that the act may face legal challenges.
“Many have said that I-638 is likely unconstitutional and we understand there are legal groups and organizations considering litigation,” said No Hate in WA State, the main coalition opposing the measure. The American Civil Liberties Union-Washington said in its own statement that it was “exploring all potential next steps to uphold the rights of transgender girls and their access to school sports.”
I-638’s text, examined
The complete text for I-638 is available on the Washington secretary of state’s website. Here’s the relevant section (emphasis ours):
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 28A.600 RCW to read as follows:
(1) Policies, procedures, rules, and other requirements adopted in accordance with RCW 28A.600.200 by a school district board of directors or a voluntary nonprofit entity must prohibit biologically male students from competing with and against female students in athletic activities with separate classifications for male and female students if the athletic activity is:
(a) Intended for female students only; and
(b) An individual or team competition activity.
(2) A student who elects to participate in individual or team competition activities intended for female students only governed under subsection (1) of this section shall 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, relying only on one or more of the following: The student’s reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.
As opponents to I-638 have noted, a birth certificate would not be an acceptable form of sex verification under I-638. About 28% of K-12 school-age girls in Washington do not have a personal doctor or nurse, meaning that it’s likely many families would not be able to rely on an established medical history with a health care provider.
The nonpartisan Washington State Parent Teacher Association, the largest volunteer and child advocacy organization in the state, opposed I-638 on the grounds that it would likely require many girls to either undergo an intimate, embarrassing and medically unnecessary genital examination or forgo playing in girls’ sports. Here’s what the organization said (emphasis ours):
Two of the three permitted methods, genetic testing and testosterone measurement, are expensive and unlikely to be covered by insurance for this purpose, since neither is clinically indicated. That makes an examination of reproductive anatomy the most accessible pathway for most families.
The burden falls hardest on rural, uninsured, and lower-income families, and on families without an established relationship with a healthcare provider — who face the added problem that the measure never says what qualifies someone as a student’s “personal health care provider.”
Doctors and medical professionals opposing the initiative shared similar warnings and noted that major medical organizations advise against pelvic exams for adolescent girls, with some citing psychological harms and potential future avoidance of medical care. The Washington Academy of Family Physicians and the Washington State Nurses Association opposed the measure.
The Seattle Times reported that doctors may interpret the measure differently, given that it’s vague and, in some views, “poorly written.”
