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.
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.