OLYMPIA – The question of competitive advantage within girls sports and the ability to adjudicate the fairness of that athletic competition will be determined in the Nov. 3 general election in Washington. Voters will decide the future of trans-athletes competing with and against biological girls in scholastic sports. The statewide initiative, I-638, will give voters the decision to restrict girls sports to biological girls or allow trans-athletes—boys who now identify as girls—to continue competing with and against biological girls.
The current provisions for Washington public and private school sports teams allows players to participate based on their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
In 2025, the state law in Revised Code of Washington 28A.642.010, enacted Washington public schools are explicitly prohibited from discriminating against students based on sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender identity. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction enforces these rules by requiring Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to provide equal athletic opportunities to transgender and nonbinary students matching their identified gender.
I-638, sponsored by Let’s Go Washington, collected voter signatures that were validated by the Washington Secretary of State’s office in 2026 to place the future scholastic sports eligibility on the Nov. 3 ballot for voters across the state to decide. If approved by voters, I-638 will prohibit transgender females and biologically male students from participating in separate female sports competitions within Washington state public K-12 schools.
To help voters understand more about the ballot measure, I-638, the EverettPost.com reached out to campaigns on both sides of the issue. The EverettPost.com extended several invitations over several weeks to two groups seeking their opposition. Those groups included the No Hate Washington State campaign and Defend Washington. Those requests to take part in a one-on-one interview to oppose I-638 were acknowledged by No Hate Washington State but never returned and therefore, never conducted. In the case of Defend Washington, no response to multiple interview requests was made. In the absence of those requests to oppose I-638, the EverettPost.com has decided to proceed with reporting the interview involving the Let’s Go Washington campaign that did respond to an interview request. That interview article follows.
“We always contend that one lost opportunity for girls is too many,” Hallie Herzberg, Communications Director for Let’s Go Washington reasons for the purpose of I-638. “Girls matter and their rights matter. We believe these girls deserve better.”
The issue of what constitutes fairness in girls scholastic sports will be the conceptual half of the debate for voters to decide I-638 and Herzberg illustrates that fairness question with this scenario, “We have heard from the girls that have been knocked out of contention in the course of competition–a lot of cross-country athletes either coming in second and third, or missing the podium all together–and then subsequently missing out on opportunities to further their athletic achievements going on to additional tournaments where only the top two or three players or competitors can go.”
Examples of this scenario would include individual or team sports that involve winning at districts, which leads to competing at regionals which leads to competing at state, given the high school level of sports. But similar playoff opportunities also exist for middle school and junior high school athletes—on a smaller, localized scale–that would be determined by the election outcome of I-638.
Herzberg says actual examples of those scenarios are why I-638 ended up on the ballot. “We had some girls who had been forced to compete against boys come to us back in 2025. And (they) just tell us their stories and talk to us about how difficult it is for them to be forced to compete against boys, when you get to the starting line of a race or be on the court before the game starts–and see that there is a biological male on the team against you,” Herzberg describes, saying those student-athletes, “talk to us about how invalidating it is as a girl. And how difficult it was for them to show up and even want to compete in their sports.”
That competitive balance question has resulted in the NCAA, the U.S. Olympic Committee, and the International Olympic Committee to prohibit trans-athletes (i.e. biological males identifying as female) from competing against biological females.
The IOC’s Policy on the Protection of the Female Category dictates that only biological females are eligible to compete in women’s events. This replaces the previous framework that allowed individual sports federations to set their own testosterone-based limits. Led by IOC President, Kirsty Coventry, the committee cited evidence showing that male puberty creates a retained performance advantage of 10% to over 100% in power and endurance, making restrictions necessary to maintain the competitive integrity of the female category. Preceding the international directive, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee updated its Athlete Safety Policy to prohibit biological males from competing in women’s sports categories. This domestic policy closely aligns with the parallel updates implemented by the NCAA in 2025 and the eventual 2026 IOC global standards.
The operational half of what I-638 poses to voters involves the verification of the student’s sex in conjunction with a sports physical which students are required to receive per state and school district regulations in order to be eligible for a given sport. Political ads opposing I-638 have focused on a claim of prospective student-athletes having to under-go descriptions of invasive genital exams to prove an individual’s sex to be recorded on the required physical.
Let’s Go Washington’s response to that claim, Herzberg says, “There is no mention of genital exams in I-638. Exams are not required, nor are they authorized by the initiative. We see that on its face as fear-mongering tactic. Since we introduced the initiative, we’ve been hearing that invasive general exam term and our flat refutation is the initiative does not contain an exam requirement or authorization. It will be as simple as my doctor looking at a student ‘s existing physical history. Or even just knowledge of knowing the patient.”
Herzberg asserts, “Your doctor knowing you and treating you for years or using existing medical history forms, because there are internal records that exist with just about every healthcare provider in the state. So, there’s a number of ways to confirm a child’s sex, and none of them are genital exams as the opposition likes to say.“
Herzberg also responds to the implication the invasive exam claim attaches to pediatricians conducting the sports physical on the student. “The other part of it is, they make this broad assumption that healthcare professionals are dangerous or in some capacity would be harmful to healthy students (undergoing the physical).”
“If kids are in danger from doctors and some health care providers,” Herzberg emphasizes, “that’s a whole other story that we need to be tackling in a whole other initiative that we need to run next year, apparently. And so, they’re kind of using those terms again as fear-mongering and scare tactics for people that might be inclined to support girls rights in 638, but don’t want to be labeled as a bigot or a racist or any of those aggressive terms. So we just would wholeheartedly disagree with that and say if there are health care concerns that students in Washington state are facing, then let’s address those and fix them and also, let’s protect girls’ rights in the meantime.”
As the debate about trans-athletes in girls’ sports has emerged in Washington over the last few years, questions have revolved around how prevalent the scholastic sports participation rate has been for trans-athletes.
Herzberg says state officials and some school districts have tried to downplay or obscure the numbers. “There is that random 10 to 12 (trans athletes statewide) metric that’s been passed around from the WIAA (Washington Interscholastic Activities Association), which they have already confirmed, and it’s on our website, they’ve confirmed that that number is arbitrary. They just passed that around to people without any substantial information or evidence to support the figure. And because they’re not required by law to count how many biological males compete in girls’ sports, they just have a random number based on what they imagine the number would be,” Herzberg advises.
“That is not a reliable figure to start with. In terms of OSPI conducting a count, they’re welcome to do so. And if there’s a certain number that they think girls’ rights start to matter at, then I guess that’s up to them to determine,” Herzberg remarks, adding, “It’s just unbelievable that Washington state girls are losing out opportunities to biological males and not one Democrat lawmaker is willing to stand up and say that enough is enough. Girls’ rights matter. Title IX exists for a reason. Sex-based athletics exists for a reason. The IOC acknowledges that there’s differences in males and females. Scientific research confirms it. Public opinion confirms it. And yet, Democrat lawmakers refused to confirm that.”
Herzberg says she’s optimistic about I-638’s chances for passage, “We’ve seen some polling come back and just been talking to voters hearing about their support on 638 because they don’t come out and say it loud and proud on social media or stand on a rooftop and shout that they support 638. People have been really quick to support us when we talk to them about it one-on-one.”
Another component I-638 would address is the usage of school locker rooms for student athletes, with Herzberg saying, “When I-638 passes and girls have their sports protected, we anticipate that impact will be felt in the locker rooms as well. Since boys would no longer be allowed on girls’ teams, there’s no reason they should be in girls’ locker rooms. We’ve already heard cases from around the state of girls being told to change somewhere else while boys are given access to the girls’ spaces. Girls should have fair sports and safe spaces to change at their school.”
Trans-athletes would still be allowed to play scholastic sports if I-638 passes, according to Let’s Go Washington. I-638 only requires that the athletes must play on teams that alighn with their sex at birth.
I-638 is a statewide initiative on the Nov. 3 general election ballot. Ballots must be postmarked by Nov. 3 or be submitted to a county ballot box by 8 p.m. on Nov. 3 to be eligible for tabulation. A ‘yes’ vote make girls sports for biological girls only. A ‘no’ vote would allow student-athletes to play with the team based on their gender identity.
Let’s Go Washington and its founder, Brian Heywood, filed with the Washington Secretary of State’s office to conduct a statewide initiative on who is eligible to participate in girls sports. On May 4, 2026, that initiative was given a serial number (IP26-638) and was cleared to gather signatures. On July 2, 2026, Let’s Go Washington submitted the signatures it gathered for SoS review. In July 2026, Initiative 638 was certified for the ballot by Secretary of State, Steve Hobbs.