Initiative 638 would limit girls-only school competition in Washington to students the measure defines as biologically female, verified by each girl's health care provider. This briefing lays out what the measure does, every checkable claim each campaign made in the voters' pamphlet, and FactHub's fact checks of them.
Washington's school sports rules let students compete on teams that match their gender identity. Initiative 638, sponsored by Let's Go Washington, asks voters whether to limit girls-only competition to students the measure defines as biologically female.
Yes on I-638
Limit girls' events to biological females
Bars students the measure defines as biologically male from girls-only school competition, and requires girls entering it to submit a health care provider's statement verifying biological sex.
No on I-638
Keep current rules
Keeps Washington's current rules, which let students compete on teams that match their gender identity, with no sex verification.
What each side told voters
Every checkable claim in the two campaigns' official voters' pamphlet statements, quoted exactly and in the order printed. Each rating comes from the FactHub fact check named beside it. A prediction is rated only where evidence available now can test it.
Yes on I-638
Argument for
“Washington currently allows males to compete against girls, undermining opportunities generations before them fought to secure.”
True
WIAA Rule 18.16.0 and OSPI rules let students compete by gender identity, including transgender girls in girls' events.
Evidence: Washington's rules let transgender girls compete in girls' school sports. →Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Vote yes to protect fairness in girls' sports." ·
Context: The Yes argument's statement of the problem the measure addresses: current Washington rules on who may enter girls' events.
“Federal law, the Women's Tennis Association, World Athletics, and the International Olympic Committee have all adopted policies to protect eligibility for the female category.”
Mostly true
The WTA, World Athletics and IOC limit the female category; federal policy does too, but no statute requires it.
Evidence: The IOC, World Athletics, the WTA and federal policy now restrict the female category. →Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Approving IL26-638 would align Washington with world sports policies." ·
Context: Offered to show that sex-based eligibility rules are already common at the national and international level.
“In March 2026, the IOC president stated, "It is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category."”
True
Accurate. In the IOC's March 26, 2026 announcement, President Kirsty Coventry said: 'At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat. So, it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category.' The pamphlet omits the opening 'So,' and the sentence before it, which does not change the meaning. She added that in some sports it would not be safe.
Evidence: The IOC, World Athletics, the WTA and federal policy now restrict the female category. →Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Approving IL26-638 would align Washington with world sports policies." ·
Context: A quotation the Yes argument attributes to the president of the International Olympic Committee.
“Medical clearance is already required to participate safely.”
True
WIAA Rule 18.4.0 requires every student to have a thorough medical examination and be approved for competition by a licensed provider before the first practice, renewed every 24 months under Rule 18.4.7. It is an association rule that member schools must follow rather than a statute, but the sentence is accurate. It does not show that the clearance covers sex, which today it does not.
Evidence: A doctor's checkbox could satisfy I-638 for most girls; the box is new. →Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Voting yes gives all students the opportunity to participate in interscholastic sports." ·
Context: Refers to the sports physical Washington students already need before playing interscholastic sports.
“Students would compete in the category that aligns with their sex, verified during routine, medically necessary primary care recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.”
Mostly true
The AAP does recommend routine checkups, and its Bright Futures guidelines include a visual genital inspection of girls through age 17, as Let's Go Washington pointed out; a provider who follows them has observed the anatomy the measure lets a provider rely on. What the sentence leaves out is that the AAP does not endorse using that care for sex verification: its Washington chapter asked to be removed from the pamphlet, and its director said there is no medical indication for sex verification for sports. The measure itself puts the signed statement in the sports physical, not the checkup.
Evidence: Pediatric checkups already document sex, though many Washington girls lack a regular provider. →Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Voting yes gives all students the opportunity to participate in interscholastic sports." ·
Context: Describes how the Yes side says verification would work; the American Academy of Pediatrics objected to being cited.
“During a private, consented visit, a licensed medical professional would verify sex based on the student's birth records, medical history and/or a standard, non-invasive physical examination.”
Mixed
Significant parts hold: the text calls for a provider's statement with a 'health examination and consent form'; a child's medical history is in effect a record of her anatomy, one of the three bases; and an anatomy check can be visual and non-invasive. But 'birth records' is not a listed basis, the text says the provider relies 'only' on anatomy, genetics or testosterone, and in Washington a birth certificate's sex designation can be changed at a parent's request with a provider's attestation of the child's identity. KUOW noted the initiative does not mention birth records even as a Yes co-author suggested using them.
Evidence: Under I-638, a birth certificate alone can't prove a girl's sex for sports. →Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Voting yes gives all students the opportunity to participate in interscholastic sports." ·
Context: The Yes side's account of what a provider would rely on; compare the three bases the measure's Section 3(2) lists.
“IL26-638 doesn't require invasive or expensive exams.”
Mostly true
The text requires no particular procedure. A provider may rely on anatomy, genetics or testosterone, and the anatomy route can use existing records or an exam at a covered well-child checkup that costs insured and Apple Health families nothing. Our companion fact check finds the measure does not require a genital exam. But the sentence leaves out what the alternatives cost: a family that does not use an anatomy-based check faces a testosterone test (about $21 to $25 at public-payer rates, about $148 billed) that cannot verify sex before puberty, or a chromosome test priced at $214 to $1,310, probably out of pocket. 'Doesn't require' is accurate; the implication that no family would pay much is not true for every family.
Evidence: Most girls could meet I-638's sex verification rule at a no-cost checkup. →Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Rebuttal of argument against" ·
Context: The Yes reply to the No argument that the measure requires genital examinations.
Performance gaps between males and females open at puberty and reach roughly 10-50% depending on the sport, according to a peer-reviewed review; FactHub's own check finds about 7-15% in running and swimming and 18-28% in jumping. The same review finds that a year of testosterone suppression removes only about 5% of muscle mass and strength. The limit worth knowing: before puberty the gap is small, and the measure covers all grades.
Evidence: A doctor's checkbox could satisfy I-638 for most girls; the box is new. →Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Rebuttal of argument against" ·
Context: The Yes rebuttal's case for separate female categories.
“Washington competition results document at least 269 placements by male athletes competing in girls' interscholastic categories, including 74 firsts and 156 top-three finishes.”
Mostly true
A public tally reproduces 269, 74 and 156 exactly; the entries come from ten athletes, mostly at regular-season meets.
Evidence: The Yes campaign's 269 girls'-event placements check out, from ten athletes. →Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Rebuttal of argument against" ·
Context: The Yes rebuttal's count of how often male athletes have placed in Washington girls' events; compare the No side's 5 - 10 athletes.
“The initiative doesn't ban anyone from sports. It simply requires participation consistent with one's sex.”
Mostly true
The text bars 'biologically male students' only from competition intended for female students. Boys' and open teams are untouched, so no student is barred from school sports altogether, and the No pamphlet's 'kick 5 - 10 trans girls off school teams' overstates it. But the Attorney General's statement says the measure 'would generally prevent transgender girls from participating on girls' sports teams', which WIAA Rule 18.16.0 lets them join today. For those few students it ends play on the teams they are on now, and any girl who does not provide the provider's statement cannot enter girls' events. 'Requires participation consistent with one's sex' is a fair summary; 'doesn't ban anyone' understates the change for them.
Evidence: A doctor's checkbox could satisfy I-638 for most girls; the box is new. →Committee for the argument for Initiative IL26-638 (Alesha Perkins and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument for: "Rebuttal of argument against" ·
Context: The Yes answer to the No description of the measure as a ban.
“We all want fairness and safety in sports, but this poorly written measure would require girls as young as 8 to undergo intrusive medical sex certification as a new part of sports physicals.”
Misleading
Verification would be a new part of sports physicals, and the text sets no grade floor. But Washington's sanctioned interschool sports run from grade 7, or grade 6 where a district opts in, where students are typically 11 or older, and the sources we reviewed show no girls-only interschool competition for 8-year-olds. 'Intrusive' also assumes an anatomy check, when a provider may rely on genetics or testosterone instead.
Evidence: Initiative 638 requires a doctor's sex verification, not a genital exam. →Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No To Protect All Girls" ·
Context: Opens the No argument with who would have to be verified and at what age.
The text never mentions birth certificates; it requires a provider's verification, which an original birth record might arguably support.
Evidence: Under I-638, a birth certificate alone can't prove a girl's sex for sports. →Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No To Protect All Girls" ·
Context: Refers to the measure's list of the only bases a provider may rely on; birth certificates are not on it.
“Section 2 says doctors must subject girls to invasive examinations of their "reproductive organs," or expensive genetic or hormone tests.”
Misleading
The verification does have to rest on anatomy, genetics or hormones, so the sentence has a real basis. But the rule is in Section 3(2), not Section 2; the text says 'reproductive anatomy', not 'reproductive organs'; and it lists bases a provider may rely on rather than saying doctors 'must subject' girls to anything. A visual check can be done without touching the child, but families may still find it intrusive, and the measure does not require one: a girl's regular doctor usually already has a record of her anatomy from routine checkups, and a provider may instead rely on genetics, or on testosterone after puberty. On cost, FactHub's companion cost check finds the genetic route is priced in the hundreds of dollars or more and is unlikely to be covered by insurance for this purpose, so 'expensive' is fair for the lab tests; neither test is required.
Evidence: Initiative 638 requires a doctor's sex verification, not a genital exam. →Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No To Protect All Girls" ·
Context: The No argument's reading of the verification rule, which appears in Section 3(2) of the measure.
“These requirements apply to girls only, boys are exempt.”
True
Accurate. Section 3(2) applies to a student who elects to compete in activities intended for female students only; boys' and open teams need no verification. Nebraska's law, by contrast, requires a doctor-signed document from every athlete on a boys' or girls' team.
“Vote No Because It's the Most Extreme Proposal of Its Kind In The U.S”
Misleading
Most state laws go further on scope and enforcement; I-638 is strictest only in medically verifying every girl.
Evidence: Most state girls'-sports laws reach further than I-638, except in verifying every girl. →Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No Because It's the Most Extreme Proposal of Its Kind In The U.S" ·
Context: A heading of the No argument comparing the measure with similar laws in other states.
“This initiative is bankrolled by an ultra-conservative mega-donor to distract from rising costs, foster hate, and divide our communities.”
Misleading
The checkable part, that one donor bankrolls the measure, leaves a wrong impression. Brian Heywood sponsors the Yes committee and is its largest donor, but he gave $2.28 million, 29% of its 2025-26 money and 16% in 2026. Individuals gave about 81% of the committee's $7.82 million ($6.32 million), from 1,121 named individuals plus 395 unitemized small-gift entries, so most of the money came from people other than Heywood. The measure also qualified with 444,434 signatures submitted, about 381,000 valid by our estimate against 308,911 required, though most were collected by paid circulators and signatures show support for a ballot vote, not for the measure. By contrast, organizations gave 82% of the No committee's money, and its five largest donors gave 62%. 'Ultra-conservative' is a characterization, not a checkable fact, and the pamphlet gives no basis for it; we do not rate it. The rest of the sentence, that the measure exists 'to distract from rising costs, foster hate, and divide our communities,' is a claim about motive that campaign filings cannot test.
Evidence: Individuals fund most of I-638's Yes side; a foundation and unions fund No. →Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No Because It's the Most Extreme Proposal of Its Kind In The U.S" ·
Context: Refers to the Yes campaign's funding by Let's Go Washington and its founder; the stated motives are the No campaign's characterization.
“Vote No Because Doctors and Nurses Warn It Requires Invasive Genital Exams On Girls”
False
Doctors and nurses did warn about exams, but the measure does not require them. A provider may verify sex from genetic makeup or testosterone levels, any one basis suffices, and the Attorney General's statement names no genital exam. FactHub's companion check rates the claim that I-638 will require genital exams False.
Evidence: Initiative 638 requires sex verification for girls, not an invasive exam. →Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No Because Doctors and Nurses Warn It Requires Invasive Genital Exams On Girls" ·
Context: A heading of the No argument on what verification would involve.
“The WA State Nurses Association, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, and doctors warn this measure would subject girls to medically unnecessary, embarrassing, and potentially harmful genital exams.”
False
We rate what the sentence asserts, that the measure would subject girls to genital exams, and the text contradicts it: a provider may verify sex from genetic makeup or testosterone levels, any one basis suffices, and the Attorney General's statement names no genital exam. The attribution is accurate: the nurses' association president and Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates' state director co-signed the No argument, and more than 100 providers signed a statement. Sex verification serves no medical purpose, so 'medically unnecessary' is fair. But who warned does not change what the text requires, so we rate the sentence False, like the pamphlet heading that the measure requires invasive genital exams. Whether many girls end up with an anatomy check depends on cost, insurance and guidance not yet written.
Evidence: Initiative 638 requires sex verification for girls, not an invasive exam. →Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No Because Doctors and Nurses Warn It Requires Invasive Genital Exams On Girls" ·
Context: Names the organizations warning about genital exams.
“Today, students remain fully clothed during sports physicals.”
Misleading
True today, but the measure doesn't require undressing. The standard sports-physical exam form has no genital item, and the WIAA says the checkup focuses on heart health, vision and breathing ('fully clothed' is a retired school nurse's description of group physicals; the form also asks clinicians to check femoral pulses and the abdomen, and practice varies). But the sentence's point, beside the No argument's heading that the measure requires invasive genital exams, is that I-638 would make girls undress. That is not so: a provider may verify sex from genetic makeup or testosterone levels, and the text does not rule out a girl's own provider relying on what they already know from past care, so a girl need not undress at all.
Evidence: Initiative 638 requires a doctor's sex verification, not a genital exam. →Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No Because Doctors and Nurses Warn It Requires Invasive Genital Exams On Girls" ·
Context: Describes current sports physicals, to contrast them with verification under the measure.
“Many of Washington's 147,500 girls without a regular family doctor would be subject to genital examinations by total strangers.”
Misleading
The campaign has not published its method, and its website says 'an estimated 150,000 school age girls'. The figure is in a defensible range: 147,500 is 18.4% of Washington's 800,668 girls under 18 (Census 2024), close to the 18% of children The Seattle Times reported lack consistent access to care, and NSCH rates applied to the roughly 600,000 girls aged 5 to 17 give about 120,000 to 150,000. But the count includes every girl, not the far smaller number entering girls' sports in a given year, and the measure lets a girl's provider rely on a genetic or testosterone test instead of anatomy. Girls without a regular doctor would face a provider who does not know them, and some may choose an anatomy check as the cheapest route, but 'would be subject to genital examinations' overstates what the text requires.
Evidence: Pediatric checkups already document sex, though many Washington girls lack a regular provider. →Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No Because Doctors and Nurses Warn It Requires Invasive Genital Exams On Girls" ·
Context: A count of Washington girls without a regular doctor, used to argue many would be examined by unfamiliar providers.
“Vote No Because It Discourages Girls From Playing Sports”
Misleading
In the 24 states with the same rule limiting girls' teams to female students, girls' participation rose in 20, and from 2018-19 it grew 46 per 1,000 more than in states without such laws (95% CI 8 to 84). Part of that may be catch-up from a lower start: controlling for each state's starting rate, the gap is +39.5 per 1,000, with an interval that just reaches zero (-0.5 to 79.5). Under Washington's current rules, the documented cases are girls who forfeited rather than compete against a male-born athlete: about a dozen Camas High School cross-country runners at an October 2026 dual meet, two Skyview High School runners on September 15, and a Washington girls' wrestler whose school district told her family that the only remedy it could offer was forfeiting matches against transgender opponents. In college volleyball in 2024, five schools forfeited matches against San Jose State, mostly without saying why. The one piece no state has tested is I-638's verification of every girl through her own provider. It is a real new requirement and its effect is unknown, but an untested step cannot support the heading's flat statement that the measure discourages girls from playing sports. We rate the heading Misleading, with moderate confidence.
Evidence: Girls' sports participation rose in states that passed laws like I-638. →Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No Because It Discourages Girls From Playing Sports" ·
Context: A heading of the No argument predicting the measure's effect on girls' participation.
“This statewide blanket ban to kick 5 - 10 trans girls off school teams will negatively impact all girls, leaving no room for case by case decisions.”
Misleading
We rate the sentence as a whole. The count is about right: 5 to 10 matches the only official estimates, from the state superintendent and WIAA, and the Yes side's own source lists three to seven athletes in any one year, though no agency keeps a count. 'No room for case by case decisions' is accurate: the measure sets one statewide rule. But 'kick ... off school teams' overstates it: the measure bars male-born students only from girls' competition, so they could still play on boys' or open teams. And 'will negatively impact all girls' is an unsupported forecast. In the 24 states with similar team rules, girls' participation per 1,000 rose from 2018-19 to 2025-26, by FactHub's separate count, and under Washington's current rules some girls have forfeited rather than compete against a transgender athlete, so the effects on girls run both ways. Accurate parts joined to an overstatement and a one-sided forecast leave a wrong impression, so we rate it Misleading. The 5 to 10 athletes and the 269 entries describe the same small group from different angles.
Evidence: The Yes campaign's 269 girls'-event placements check out, from ten athletes. →Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Vote No Because It Discourages Girls From Playing Sports" ·
Context: The No side's estimate of how many transgender girls the measure would affect; compare the Yes side's 269 placements.
“IL26-638 is opposed by pediatricians, nurses, parents, and sexual assault prevention groups because it discriminates against girls and puts them at risk of harm.”
Misleading
Some named groups do oppose it: the Washington State Nurses Association, the Washington State PTA, the Washington Academy of Family Physicians and the state's domestic and sexual violence coalition, and pediatricians are among the 100-plus signers of the providers' statement. But 'pediatricians' overstates: the state and national pediatric academies took no position, and a board-certified pediatrician co-wrote the Yes argument. 'Parents' are on both sides: the PTA opposes the measure, and a parent advocate co-wrote the Yes argument. And we found no evidence that verification by a girl's own provider 'puts them at risk of harm'; the coalition warns of possible invasive evaluations, which the text does not require. Accurate names joined to an overstated list and an unsupported claim of harm leave a wrong impression.
Evidence: Initiative 638 requires sex verification for girls, not an invasive exam. →Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Rebuttal of argument for" ·
Context: The No rebuttal's list of opponents, answering the Yes argument's citation of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
“Today girls in elementary, middle, and high school remain fully clothed during sports physicals.”
Misleading
True today, but the measure doesn't require undressing. The standard sports-physical exam has no genital item, and a retired school nurse who co-signed the No argument says students stay fully clothed in group physicals (the form does ask clinicians to check femoral pulses and the abdomen, and practice varies). But the sentence's point, in a rebuttal arguing the measure would subject girls to genital exams, is that I-638 would make girls undress, and that is not so: a provider may verify sex from genetic makeup or testosterone levels, and the text does not rule out a girl's own provider relying on what they already know from past care. Elementary students are not in WIAA interschool sports, which start at grade 7, or 6 where a district opts in.
Evidence: Initiative 638 requires sex verification for girls, not an invasive exam. →Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Rebuttal of argument for" ·
Context: Repeats the fully-clothed point and extends it to elementary school.
“Doctors say this poorly written measure will subject girls to new invasive genital examinations.”
False
We rate what the sentence asserts, not whether some doctors said it. Some doctors do say this, and verification would be new, since today's exam form has no genital item. But the measure would not subject girls to genital examinations: a provider may rely on genetic or hormone results instead, and the text does not rule out earlier records. The text contradicts the claim, as it contradicts the pamphlet heading that the measure requires invasive genital exams (False).
Evidence: Initiative 638 requires sex verification for girls, not an invasive exam. →Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Rebuttal of argument for" ·
Context: Repeats the genital-examination warning in the No rebuttal.
“This measure - the most extreme in the nation - exempts boys, and bans parents from using birth certificates.”
Misleading
One part is accurate: verification applies only to students entering female-only competition, so boys are exempt. The other two mislead. Most of the 27-plus state laws reach further in scope and enforcement, and I-638 is strictest only in verifying every girl (FactHub rates 'most extreme' Misleading). The text never mentions birth certificates; it lists three bases a provider relies on, so a certificate alone cannot verify sex, but nothing bans parents from showing one (FactHub rates that claim Misleading). The comparison with other states' birth-certificate rules is also not like for like. The 11 state laws that rely on a birth certificate use the original certificate issued at birth. In Washington, the sex on a birth certificate can be changed: since January 27, 2018, WAC 246-490-075 has allowed a change to M, F or X, and for a minor the application needs a provider's statement that the change is consistent with the minor's identity. So a Washington certificate need not show the sex recorded at birth.
Evidence: Initiative 638 requires sex verification for girls, not an invasive exam. →Committee for the argument against Initiative IL26-638 (Justin Gill, APRN, and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against IL26-638 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IL26-638, p. 22, argument against: "Rebuttal of argument for" ·
Context: Repeats three claims from the No argument in one sentence.
Today, Washington school sports must be open to all students regardless of sex, and WIAA rules let students compete on teams that match their gender identity.
Washington Secretary of State (Attorney General and OFM statements)Those sports must be offered to all public school students without regard to sex, but public schools may provide separate athletic teams based on sex.(Explanatory statement, The Law as It Presently Exists, p. 21)
I-638 would require school and WIAA rules to bar students the measure calls biologically male from girls-only individual and team competition. The Attorney General says this would generally keep transgender girls off girls' teams; boys' and open teams are unchanged.
Washington Secretary of Statemust prohibit biologically male students from competing with and against female students in athletic activities with separate classifications for male and female students(Sec. 3(1))
A girl entering girls-only competition would give a statement from her own health care provider verifying her sex, based only on one or more of anatomy, genetics or testosterone levels, as part of the sports physical.
Washington Secretary of Staterelying only on one or more of the following: The student's reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels(Sec. 3(2))
Birth certificates are not a listed basis. Since January 2018, the sex on a Washington birth certificate can be changed to male, female or X; for a minor, with a provider's statement that the change is consistent with the child's identity.
Each side's main points, summarized by FactHub from its statements and campaign, each paired with the other side's best reply. Ratings come from the linked fact checks.
Yes on I-638
Boys have a lasting physical advantage
True
After puberty, boys outrun, outjump and outswim girls by roughly 10 to 30 percent, so a separate girls' category needs a sex-based line.
After puberty, males outperform females by about 7-15% in running and swimming, 18-28% in jumping, and more in strength.
Those sports bodies govern elite competition with one-time screening, and no other state requires a provider's verification for every girl.
Girls who object have been punished
True
In several documented cases, including a Vermont settlement and a federal finding in Virginia, schools disciplined or investigated students who objected to transgender athletes or locker-room policies.
Settlements, court filings and federal findings document at least four cases since 2022; schools called some speech harassment.
About a quarter of Washington children have no personal doctor or nurse, and the measure does not say whether earlier records count.
No on I-638
Every girl would need a new medical sex check
Today no sports form has a provider verify sex. Under I-638 every girl entering girls' sports would need one, and about a quarter of Washington children have no regular doctor to sign it; genetic and hormone tests may not be covered by insurance.
Best reply from the other side
A girl's regular doctor usually already has a record of her development, and a covered checkup costs insured families nothing; the measure also lets genetics or testosterone alone suffice, with no exam required.
Mostly true
Regular checkups document anatomy and sex, but a quarter of Washington children lack a personal provider to sign.
Of the 28 other state measures, none requires a provider's verification of sex for every girl who plays girls' sports.
Best reply from the other side
On scope and enforcement I-638 does less than most of them: it leaves out college sports and creates no right to sue.
Few transgender girls compete
Misleading
State school officials put the number of transgender girls competing at roughly five to ten a year, and ten athletes account for every entry in the Yes campaign's count.
We rate the sentence as a whole. The count is about right: 5 to 10 matches the only official estimates, from the state superintendent and WIAA, and the Yes side's own source lists three to seven athletes in any one year, though no agency keeps a count. 'No room for case by case decisions' is accurate: the measure sets one statewide rule. But 'kick ... off school teams' overstates it: the measure bars male-born students only from girls' competition, so they could still play on boys' or open teams. And 'will negatively impact all girls' is an unsupported forecast. In the 24 states with similar team rules, girls' participation per 1,000 rose from 2018-19 to 2025-26, by FactHub's separate count, and under Washington's current rules some girls have forfeited rather than compete against a transgender athlete, so the effects on girls run both ways. Accurate parts joined to an overstatement and a one-sided forecast leave a wrong impression, so we rate it Misleading. The 5 to 10 athletes and the 269 entries describe the same small group from different angles.
Each of those athletes competes against many girls. The 269 entries were 269 events in which girls competed against a male-born athlete, and each of the 156 top-three finishes took a podium place a girl would otherwise have had, including two girls' state titles. Moving these athletes off girls' teams would also change who shares a girls' team locker room, though the measure does not regulate facilities directly.
Mostly true
A public tally reproduces 269, 74 and 156 exactly; the entries come from ten athletes, mostly at regular-season meets.
Let's Go Washington, founded by Brian Heywood, supplies nearly all of the Yes campaign's money, and Heywood is its largest donor.
Best reply from the other side
Individuals other than Heywood gave most of that committee's money, and about 381,000 valid signatures put the measure on the ballot; the No side's money comes mostly from a foundation and unions.
True
Individuals other than Heywood gave 52% of Yes committee money; Inatai and unions gave 63% of No's.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2026 that states may limit girls' teams by sex, but a challenge under Washington's own Equal Rights Amendment has not been tested. A court ruling after the election would settle it.
The measure leaves the details to school and WIAA rules that don't exist yet: whether earlier records count, and whether insurers cover genetic or hormone tests. The implementing guidance would settle it.
Washington Secretary of Staterelying only on one or more of the following: The student's reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels(Sec. 3(2))
Other states' data show participation rising under similar team rules, but none verifies every girl. Washington's participation counts in the years after it takes effect would settle it.
Where the Yes campaign's count of 269 placements comes from, and what it includes.
Mostly trueFactHub rated the claim Washington competition results document at least 269 placements by male athletes competing in girls' interscholastic categories, including 74 firsts and 156 top-three finishes
What the governor, senators and the No campaign said the measure would require, checked against its text.
MisleadingFactHub rated the claim I-638 won’t create opportunities for girls but it will force them into invasive sex verification exams in order to participate in sports
What each verification route would cost a family, and what insurance covers.
Mostly trueFactHub rated the claim Verifying a girl's sex under I-638 would cost most families little or nothing beyond the sports physical they already need
What federal law, the IOC, World Athletics and the WTA require for the female category.
Mostly trueFactHub rated the claim Federal law, the Women's Tennis Association, World Athletics, and the International Olympic Committee have all adopted policies to protect eligibility for the female category
Who funds each side, from state campaign-finance filings.
TrueFactHub rated the claim Individual donors other than Brian Heywood supply most of the money backing I-638, while a foundation and unions supply most of the money opposing it
What an opposing group says its unreleased polling shows about the genital-exam claim, and how that claim leads the No case.
TrueFactHub rated the claim The No campaign's lead argument against I-638 is that it requires genital exams, and an allied group says its polling shows that argument turns voters against the measure
Documented cases of students disciplined or investigated after objecting, here and in other states.
TrueFactHub rated the claim Students who objected to transgender athletes in girls' sports or locker rooms have faced school discipline or investigation in several documented cases, some ending in settlements or federal findings
How often key facts appeared, mainstream vs conservative news.
Disclosure
Funding
No external funding for this piece.
Ownership
Published by the FactHub Research Team.
Conflicts
None known.
Update history
: First version.
: Updated to the final version of every fact check. After review, six pamphlet ratings changed: the 5-10 sentence, the opposed-by sentence, both fully-clothed sentences, and the two genital-exam warnings. Campaign-finance figures refreshed through October 23. FactHub sources are labeled with their fact check titles.
: Rated the No heading "It Discourages Girls From Playing Sports" (Misleading), from the participation fact check, which compares other states' data and documented forfeits.
: Added a link to FactHub's new fact check of the genital-exam claim's role in the No campaign, including what an opposing group says its unreleased polling shows. No ratings changed.
