An effort to ban transgender girls from girls school sports in Washington was leading in election results released Tuesday night.

According to the Secretary of State’s office, 54% of voters said yes on Initiative 638, one of three ballot measures backed by conservative political committee Let’s Go Washington. More votes will be counted in the coming days.

Archived at https://archive.ph/2dosL

all 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 59 points 2 days ago (20 children)

I-638 only applies to transgender girls and not transgender boys, and requires all students on K-12 girls sports teams to provide medical documentation that confirms their “biological sex,” according to the initiative’s language.

If the initiative passes, it could throw the blue state’s status as a haven for transgender people into question. If the final vote count indicates the initiative has passed, it will also likely face a legal challenge if approved by voters, several legal experts told The Times.

It should be challenged and I hope it is. Targeting only girls with this initiative shouldn't pass muster.

I'm deeply disappointed in my fellow Washingtonians.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 days ago (18 children)

    They only ever focus on the girls 😞 it's such a tell, honestly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    "What if the female child I'm trying to rape has a penis?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 2 days ago

    Trans kids are also more likely to have the vocabulary to articulate what they are seeing in locker rooms / practice. Can't creep as hard if someone who has been advocating for their own rights is witnessing another's get violated. That whistle gonna blow.

    Just in case anyone wants to twist what I'm saying. Cis-girls can absolutely advocate and do advocate for themselves but trans men / women come into this age already mid battle; one day we should make it so that's not the case. Just kids being kids not wondering if they are being clocked 24/7.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (15 children)

    I guess it's not the case in grade school, but in many professional sports and college, there are technically no "mens" teams. Those teams are open to any and all athletes.

    It's the women's and girl's sports where the restrictions lie, and hence the focus for transgender athletes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 days ago (13 children)

    I guess it’s not the case in grade school,

    This initiative is specifically about grade school.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (12 children)

    Right, but I think that gives some insights. Boys sports in grade schools could technically be open. For very young kids, there's probably even little difference in athletic ability.

    Girls' sports are what need some kind of sex identification and distinction. I'm not saying it should be based on genitalia or chromosomes, but that's why the focus is there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 days ago (11 children)

    Girls’ sports are what need some kind of sex identification and distinction.

    Not in grade school. We have never needed this before.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (10 children)

    We have never needed a transgender ban. As long as we've had activities specifically restricted to girls, we've needed some sort of distinction. That distinction could be "Any athlete identifying as a girl," but one is needed. Otherwise, what does it mean for a team to be restricted?

    Remember that the question I was responding to is why does it work one way - restrictions on who joins a girls' team - and not the other. That's the question I'm answering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago (8 children)

    No that comment said they only focus on girls. You assumed too much about their statement. They never even asked a question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago (7 children)

    They're trying way too hard to pretend it isn't just sexual insecurity and misogynistic bigotry 🙄

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago (6 children)

    I've had sex with a minor, and it was definitely a thing. It wasn't rape, either.

    This in their history, no wonder they're in here arguing about genital exams for little girls.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    You're pulling a comment from another post completely out of context. Someone said there is no such thing as sex with a minor. It is always rape.

    That's not true, and I used my own experience as an example. That you're not creative enough to think why my having sex with a minor would not be illegal nor immoral is not my problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    Being cheeky about raping minors says a lot about you already.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Again, not rape.

    Nor did I argue for genital exams for little girls.

    You're trying to paint me as a pedophile and won't let facts get in the way. That's pretty disgusting. Maybe stick to the communities where that behavior is acceptable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

    Nor did I argue for genital exams for little girls.

    I said you're arguing about genital exams.

    We don't need anybody playing devil's advocate about this initiative.

    Again, not rape.

    The conversation was about raping minors and you thought you'd be cheeky and clever with that comment. A mod removed it for a reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 2 days ago* (2 children)

    Reminder that gay marriage failed in California back in '08.

    People will come around, but it takes time to overcome ignorance at this scale.

    For now, it's on all of us to do what we can to support the community and highlight how these injustices impact real people - hate thrives on ignorance.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    The fact that this passed by so much has me extremely concerned for my future here. I feel sick.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 14 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    I'm sorry. For what it's worth, it still hasn't passed yet there's still enough votes to count that the outcome could change.

    Also, I'm not sure if it's much consolation, but WA wasn't alone on this, a bunch of states passed measures like this last night. Between Republicans desperately looking for some kind of issue to run on and settling on trans folks existence and so many people in the Democratic party just trying to avoid the conversation entirely it was a terrible environment for this bigoted crap unfortunately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago

    For what it’s worth, it still hasn’t passed yet there’s still enough votes to count that the outcome could change.

    A lot of those votes are from King County if I remember correctly. I'm keeping my fingers crossed regardless.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    This is an unfortunate setback.

    Here in California, I'm pleasantly surprised at one thing. I really thought we were set to pass a draconian voter ID law. It appears to be going down like Lauren Boobert in an NBA locker room.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago

    I-638 only applies to transgender girls and not transgender boys, and requires all students on K-12 girls sports teams to provide medical documentation that confirms their “biological sex,” according to the initiative’s language.

    If the initiative passes, it could throw the blue state’s status as a haven for transgender people into question. If the final vote count indicates the initiative has passed, it will also likely face a legal challenge if approved by voters, several legal experts told The Times.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 days ago

    Wow, thats stupid. I wonder what other stupidity got approved.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago

    We need to finish the civil war.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    I hope we're still allowed to change a baby in the restroom of the the parent's choosing regardless of the baby's gender.

    Also if transgender people aren't allowed in the girl's restroom or the boy's restroom, maybe they get a new LGBTQ restroom where they can poop in pace while the world grows up and learns that unisex restrooms are a thing on many other countries including mexico.

    Like, the need to poop in pace is way more important than filtering what gender goes where.

  • source