As a Black woman, I have concerns about this. Just like I want the will of the voters honored in Mississippi for the first Black senator from that state, I want it honored here too. What if every time people believed something supporting or advancing progress, other, more well-funded people had the ability to oppose it and overturn it
What is happening in Washington State raises an important question about the relationship between voters, the courts, and the rights of girls who participate in school sports.
Washington voters approved Initiative 638 on November 3, 2026, with approximately 56% supporting restrictions that reserve certain girls’ school athletic competitions for female students. Yet within a week, opponents filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the initiative from taking effect.
The lawsuit was filed November 9, and the measure is scheduled to take effect December 3 unless a court intervenes.
I can understand why this sequence would frustrate voters who believed the election had settled the question. They participated in the democratic process, considered the competing arguments, and voted.
The dispute has three important dimensions.
1. The voters’ decision deserves to be represented accurately. The measure was approved by a majority. Opponents can challenge its constitutionality, but the lawsuit should not be confused with a reversal of the election result.
2. The plaintiffs are challenging specific legal requirements. They argue that the sex-verification process violates privacy and equal-rights protections, and that the exclusion of transgender students conflicts with state antidiscrimination laws. Supporters dispute the characterization of the verification process as invasive.
3. Girls’ athletic opportunities remain a substantive issue. The lawsuit raises questions about how eligibility is verified.
As a mother of a man who was once a child athlete, in my state, full physicals were required at the start of the school year. It became a normal occurrence at the start of every school year.
Parents were given a form by the school. You had to take it and your child to the doctor for a thorough examination. And yes, they check males for hernias, among other things. It was explained to me that without physical health exams, too many illnesses and conditions were unknown. Then children would go out and end up hurt or worse. The whole time, parents and children were unaware that there was a problem.
In fact, because my child has had other complications, we had to get tests and exams that were more investigative, including an MRI. Not every child is the same; some children require additional information from specialists, and his doctor assisted with that process too.
It was all for his health and safety. Short-term and long-term. As his parent, I WANTED to know about and prevent potential exacerbation of injuries or conditions he and I may not be aware of. I wanted his doctors to know. The collective goal was to keep him healthy and safe.
Washington’s official legislative summary says the required provider statement is to be incorporated into the routine sports physical. It also specifies that verification must be based on reproductive anatomy, genetics, or endogenous testosterone levels. Doctors are supposed to know these things. You are supposed to take your child to the doctor for thorough exams. That is part of parenting. It is what is best for the child’s health and safety.
As a mom of a child born with special needs, this is so bizarre to me. Doctors are supposed to be a part of children’s lives. And if they are an athlete, even more so.
My child played lacrosse. As I came to find out, that’s a contact sport. (I thought it was like golf? Not. Even. I was tricked. I didn’t figure it out until I went to the game. See? You can love your child and be actively engaged, and some things still get by you. You just hope that that isn’t a medical condition you need to be aware of.)
Listen, I grew up in a time when we were outside riding bikes and roller skating with no thought of helmets. We rode in the back of pickup trucks and rode in cars when seatbelts were recommended but not required. Our parents knew that we were outside playing but didn’t know exactly where we were, only that we better be home when they said. Cupcakes and cookies were baked for the entire class with no thought about vegan options or allergies.
This is a different day. Nowadays parents can track your location. If your child goes on a trampoline jumping class field trip, you might be required to get clearance from a physician first. Liability questions, better understanding of youth health and safety, and lawsuits have changed the game.
Megan Murphy on TikTok
So whose rights are being considered, and whose interests are being treated as negotiable?
Girls have interests in fair competition, athletic opportunities, privacy, and equal treatment. Those interests deserve serious legal consideration, not dismissal as inconvenient whenever another group brings a rights claim.
A lawsuit is an allegation. It is not a finding. And an allegation of unconstitutional treatment does not automatically establish that the treatment is unconstitutional.
There’s also a question I’d put directly to the people challenging the initiative: How does your proposed alternative preserve meaningful, fair athletic opportunities for female students?
Because that question cannot be left unanswered simply because the litigation focuses on someone else’s rights.
A lot of things change, but there will NEVER be a day when the healthcare, safety, opportunities, and girls do not matter. That’s not progress.
