“We are having active conversations with our partners and also evaluating what legal options are available to us. If there is an avenue, we will challenge this ballot measure in court on behalf of our members and our community and trans youth,” said Danni Askini, the group’s executive director.

She said Gender Justice League would challenge the measure, Initiative 638, based on a 2008 student privacy rights case that ruled that Washington schools requiring suspicionless urine testing of students was unconstitutional.

“We believe that the Washington constitution and the Supreme Court have been really clear that I-638 would go far beyond a random drug screening and invade all girls’ privacy,” Askini said, adding that the measure “sets a really chilling and disturbing precedent.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 7 hours ago

I need to play devil's advocate here. I need to preface with I agree with what you're saying, but from my experience as a cis male, every year I was in sports starting in 7th grade, I had to get a physical where a doctor would touch my balls and shove their figures up where they dropped checking for hernias when I coughed.

If every athlete has to go through that same exam, it's going to be pretty obvious if someone has male genitalia. I don't think that a doctor should be required to or be legally able to speak on the makeup of someone's genitals, but I also am not sure on how this is handled if it's enforced legally.

Again, I agree that this is bad policy and anti trans, and I disagree with it.

  • source
  • parent