Opponents say [Washington state] voters were persuaded at least partly because the initiative and its boosters exploited deep-seated prejudices and misunderstandings about transgender people to erode their rights.
Opponents say [Washington state] voters were persuaded at least partly because the initiative and its boosters exploited deep-seated prejudices and misunderstandings about transgender people to erode their rights.
Its required, and is in the initiative.
“the student’s biological sex [based on]… reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.”
https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_638,_Sex_Verification_Requirements_for_Female_School_Sports_Initiative_(2026)
It requires either a hormone test, visual inspection, or blood test, and guess which of those is the cheapest to get?
“signed by the student’s personal health care provider”
Inspected by a doctor. Who will be ‘visually inspecting’ their genitals for normal health reasons anyways.
Why did you choose to edit that out?
I edited nothing, I copied what was there straight from ballotpedia.
Women dont generally get their first pap smear until 21. Unless there is an issue that needs inspection girls dont generally have to go through genital inspections.
I guess you didn’t play in sports as a kid? Or maybe somewhere other than the US. Or, frankly, maybe it varies from practitioner to practitioner, I don’t really know.
Growing up I was required to get annual physicals in order to play. That included a very brief genital inspection. My point is these are not some barbaric molestation of kids. It’s routine in many hospitals around the world.
Cutting out a very relevant piece of near by context in an otherwise well formatted quote is in fact editing something out. It wasn’t 3 pages over or irrelevant, it was in the same paragraph you edited.
I had to go back to the article to see what you are on about. Of course its being done by medical providers. I didnt leave that out on purpose, I’ll concede that some people might find that relevant, and it wasnt my intention to “hide” it.
I did in fact play sports as a kid. I was assigned female at birth and never had genital inspections. The only time a doctor got anywhere near my vagina was when i was old enough to start seeing a gyno a and get a pap smear when i was in college.
reproductive anatomy - (ovaries or testes), can be checked via ultrasound.
genetic makeup - (chromosomes, presence of the SR-Y gene), can be checked via cheek swab. (easiest, least invasive, and the cheapest- so the most likely to be used.)
or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels - can be checked via blood draw.
where are you getting genital inspection from? likely the whole girls team will be lined up and cheek swabbed (like a covid test) and then they will recieve the results later privately. this doesn’t require a doctor’s appointment for each player, and is the easiest option.
so genital inspections are not required and they are not mentioned in the initiative.
I’m kind of with you but I think it’s bad faith to claim “reproductive anatomy” in that bill was in reference to getting an ultrasound of their ovaries. It is clearly in reference to them checking their exterior genitals.
“reproductive anatomy” refers to the whole system: internal (ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, vagina), and external (vulva)… though the internal anatomy is what is strictly required for reproduction. and for that reason, the gametes produced by either ovaries or testes are what determines what sex someone is. so if they’re trying to categorize sports based on sex and not gender, then an ultrasound to check for ovaries or testes (possibly internal testes), would make sense, as it is possible to have an external vulva but internal testes. so checking external genitals would be pretty unscientific, sometimes inaccurate, and privacy-invasive.
as I was saying above, an ultrasound would be just one possible method for testing that the initiative mentions, but more likely the testing would be a cheek swab.