Washington initiative 001 deals with school communication with parents and the "Parents' Bill of Rights" approved by the legislature in 2024. Initiative 638 deals with participation in school athletics by transgender students.
The ballot measures were the focus of an October 15 forum sponsored by Braver Angels of Washington and the WSU Foley Institute. You can hear the pro-con arguments in this program.
(The forum also discussed Initiative 645, which seeks to repeal the income tax for wealthy residents that the legislature approved this year. That part of the debate is not included here because of time constraints. But you can see/listen to it here. )
Today’s debate chair is Sam Rechek from Braver Angels. Also included is Braver Angels member Sue Lani Madsen.
Sam Rechek: Before we start, my job is to take just a few minutes to explain the format for tonight's event, because unlike other debates that you might have heard of, Braver Angels debates don't have winners and losers. They're not about spectacle. We're not all coming to watch a bloodbath take place in the Colosseum.
This is all about understanding. This is about a chance for all of us to hear different perspectives argued compellingly on complex, important issues, so that we can understand and disagree more accurately and more productively as citizens. To orient ourselves to this task, we begin every debate by reading something that we call the Braver Angels Way. So I'm going to actually turn back to Sue Lani to ask her to read this for us.
Sue Lani Madsen: In the Braver Angels Way, we all pledge as participants to state our views freely and fully without fear. We treat people who disagree with us with honesty, dignity, and respect. We welcome opportunities to engage those with whom we disagree. We believe all of us have blind spots and none of us are not worth talking to. We seek to disagree accurately, avoiding exaggeration and stereotypes. We look for common ground where it exists and, if possible, find ways to work together. We believe that in disagreements, both sides share and learn.
In Braver Angels, neither side is teaching the other or giving feedback on how to think or say things differently.
SR: Thanks, Sue Lani. The main rule, the master rule, in a Braver Angels debate is always address the chair.
The format is to help us focus on the ideas being expressed rather than the people who are expressing them. If one of our panelists, when speeches begin, would like to refer to someone else, they won't say you or name the person directly. Instead, they'll refer to their fellow panelists with names of decorum.
First, I'll invite panelists up to present arguments on initiative 001. Then, I'll invite a different set of panelists up to present arguments on initiative 638.
All of our panelists have been invited because they contributed to the voter briefing pamphlet prepared for Washington voters on each of these initiatives ahead of the November election.
During each segment, panelists will each have three minutes to introduce themselves and share their perspective. Then, we'll alternate between affirmative speeches and negative speeches.
After everyone has spoken, both the affirmative and the negative will have a chance to deliver one one-minute closing statement.
Throughout the evening, all of you will have the opportunity to submit questions for our panelists with the Google form that our team is going to share in the chat.
So, I'd now like to call the first segment of our debate to order with my trusty gavel.
Unresolved, initiative measure IL-26-001 concerning parental rights relating to their children in public should be passed.
For our first argument in the affirmative, I'd like to turn to Travis Reap.
Travis Reep: Thank you, Chairman and Braver Angels and fellow panelists. I'm Travis Reep. I'm a fifth grade teacher and a father of four. I'm a union representative who helps educators navigate state law and district policy. My master's work focused on parent engagement and involvement. So, this issue is something I've looked at from several perspectives.
One of the challenges we face as teachers is helping a student who is struggling. Rules about what information schools can share make it difficult to fully partner with parents. And it puts teachers in an ethical dilemma of being honest or following a rule. This complicates our ability to work together to help a child and hurt trust. That's why I believe the details of I-001 matter.
In 2024, lawmakers enacted the Parental Bill of Rights that was brought forth by the people. Just one year later, they removed major aspects of the law. They took away parent opt-out protections, prior notification for non-emergent medical care, and the ability to access records in a timely manner. They did this while falsely claiming to add more rights.
But Washington's own Senate analysis acknowledges all the rights they supposedly added were already established elsewhere in state law. Parents already had rights involving bullying complaints, language access, and special education programs. Adding existing rights to a list isn't the same as creating them, and it's misleading to say it does.
I-001 does not take away from any of those existing rights or student safety. It doesn't remove or diminish Washington's mandatory child abuse reporting, federal FERPA protections, or our state's medical confidentiality laws, including provisions allowing adolescents 13 and older to seek certain medical health treatment without parental consent.
In addition to those protections, the initiative itself contains an explicit exception to protect children. Section 1, subsection 4 states that schools shall not be required to release certain medical or mental health counseling records during an abuse or neglect investigation where the parent is the target of the investigation unless the parent obtains a court order. Student safety is of critical importance.
There has been a misplaced concern that I-001 would require schools to ‘out’ LGBTQ students. That simply is not true.
We need to distinguish between a conversation, a record, and a notification. I-001 doesn't establish an automatic notification requirement simply because students share their identity or pronouns. And even when that information becomes part of a school record, it isn't automatically sent home under the records access provision. Parents must submit a written request. Records are then released subject to applicable legal protections. Those distinctions matter.
I believe we should examine the protections that already exist, the requirements that actually change, and the questions that remain because teachers and parents were ultimately working together for the same goal, helping children succeed while keeping them safe.
SR: Thank you. Now we'll go to a couple of questions that have come in. So would the speaker explain how- what led him to support or disagree or support, in this case, support this initiative?
TR: As a father and as a teacher, I experienced both sides of parental notification and partnership. I expect to sit down across from my children's teachers and know that they're going to provide me with the best information that I can have so that I can go forward and help my child the way that they need to be helped.
As a teacher, I sit across from parents and I ask them to trust me with their child. I ask them to trust me to teach them and guide them and to support them. I ask them to trust me with important decisions and I ask them to partner with me. I can't do that with integrity and honesty if I don't also return that same respect to them by providing them with information that they need to care for their child.
And we in a school system simply don't have the tools and resources we need in order to be able to provide some of the services that these students need. We're very lacking in some of our mental health specialists and those areas of education where we simply don't have the resources and parents do.
SR: Would the speaker note one talking point from the opposing side that they think is reasonable?
TR: I think one piece that the opposing side has brought up is the distinction between the word deemed and I forgot the word. I apologize. They're talking about a wording issue that requires notification for parents when there's been a criminal activity against the child. And I think that's a fair point to bring up and point out that I-001 changes some of that language. But I think it's also important to point out that I-001 doesn't live in isolation from other Washington state law, which requires that immediate notification. Similar to those rights that were apparently or supposedly added to the Parental Bill of Rights, but exist in other law. So restating something that's already in existence in other law isn't really adding a right.
SR: With that, let's thank our first speech in the affirmative. Travis, thank you very much. Jazz hands from everyone, please. And thank you. It's not an easy thing to kick off a Braver Angels debate. So appreciate your willingness to come in and do that.
I'm now going to transition to our first speaker on the other side in the negative of this resolution. And for that, I'd like to turn to Senator John Lovick. Thank you for joining us.
John Lovick: Thank you, Sam. Thank you, Sam. I want to thank Travis. You're very, very articulate. I really appreciate what you said. And this is a fair process. I want to also thank Braver Angels for hosting this forum.
By way of brief background, I spent almost four decades in law enforcement. I was a state trooper for 31 years. I was a county sheriff for almost seven years. And my mantra was always be safe, feel safe. I always felt we needed to be safe at home, on our streets. And our children absolutely had to be safe and feel safe in their schools.
This initiative, Initiative 001, in my opinion, the measure repeals Washington's existing parental rights law and replaces it with language from verbatim from Louisiana. And I'm from Louisiana, and I know sometimes how backwards and unfortunate that state was. It will weaken parental rights notification by requiring that a child involved in school in a crime.
It will also—today, Washington's law says parents should be notified immediately. But I-1001 changes that to a more vague standard of deemed to have been committed.
The initiative could delay parental notification that their child was a crime victim by hours, days, and even weeks. And that could actually cost our state. It could cost our schools.
Under I-001, the right to receive immediate notification when a child is alleged to be a victim, target, or recipient of physical or sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, or assault by a school employee or contractor could be removed according to analysis by the Washington State Attorney General's Office.
This measure removes common sense school records protection for victims of child abuse. Today, Washington state law protects child abuse victims from further harm by preventing the release of certain school records to their parents and to those who abuse them.
This initiative is so poorly written that it allows abusers on investigation or charged with the crime to access a victim's private social work and school counselor's record, putting children at risk of sexual abuse and violence at home.
While most parents—I believe this, and I'm sure we all believe this—while most parents are loving and supportive, the sad reality is that not all kids are safe at home. Child abuse is more widespread than most of us realize. Almost 118,000 children were reported to have been neglected in 2024. That's 118,000 people.
I would say vote no on this initiative. It's not ready for prime time, and I look forward to the questions. And thank you very, very much for allowing me to participate.
SR: Okay, so one of the questions that I see here is a question about—directed to those who oppose this policy, and the question is, given a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Mahmoud v. Taylor, that upheld certain parental rights to direct their children's upbringing, would the speaker say that passing this initiative would risk inviting more lawsuits?
JL: That's a great question, and I'm not sure how the lawsuit process would work, but I think it very possibly could. I think what you would also see is that if this initiative passes, it would remove protections for child abuse victims, and unlike what the previous speaker said, I think it would ‘out’ LGBTQ youth to abusive families, and it was so poorly written that the rights of parents to know about abuse would be severely jeopardized.
SR: Okay, next question. Would the speaker say that this initiative is unconstitutional, or is it the speaker's view that this initiative is constitutional if it is passed?
JL: You know, I don't know about—that's another great question. I don't know about the constitutionality of this or not.
I would just simply say that I think that this particular initiative would really, really weaken—terribly weaken -- the process of protecting our children, and I've said this a thousand times. If we can't be safe and feel safe—if we can't have our children be safe and feel safe, nothing else we do in this world is going to matter if children can't be safe and feel safe.
SR: With that, let's thank our first speaker in the negative.
So with that, I'm going to move on to our next panelist here, and for that, I'd like to turn to Vicki Murray. Got three minutes, Vicki.
Vicki Murray: Well, thank you, and good evening.
I'm Vicki Murray. I'm the Paul W. Locke Education Policy Chair at the Washington Policy Center, and I came to Seattle—I've been here almost two years, and I moved here from Arizona. I've spent my career in education policy studying what keeps children safe at school.
Mr. Reep just showed you what this looks like in the classroom, and the law and the research back him up. Children are safer when parents are informed and involved.
In 2024, after garnering one of the highest recorded number of signatures in Washington state history, the legislature passed the Parents' Bill of Rights by an overwhelming majority in the House and unanimously in the Senate. That rarely, if ever, happens.
A year later, House Bill 1296 kept that law's core finding word for word—namely, that access to student information encourages greater parental involvement. But despite that acknowledgement, it then took parental access away. Namely, the wait-to-see-your- 45-days. Health and counseling records came right off the list, medical notices were struck, and parents got no way to enforce what's left.
Initiative 001 amends exactly one statute.
Every protection Mr. Reep describes stays enforced, and it also addresses the senator's concerns about protections for children.
Now, the opposition has three main claims. First, the initiative hands an abusive parent a child's counseling record. That is false. Mr. Reep read to you the protection. During an abuse investigation, an accused parent cannot get access to those records without a court order. And protection for at-risk children works fast. Staff must report a suspected abuse case within 48 hours, which opens up the investigation that protects children at risk.
Second, the initiative conflicts with federal health privacy law.
It doesn't. Federal health privacy rules do not exclude core records.
But in conclusion, I would say that the initiative deserves your support because children are safest when the people who love them most aren't the last to know. And there's an extensive body of scientifically rigorous research that shows keeping parents informed and involved is the way to keep parents safe. And in the 26 states with parental bills of rights not one scientifically credible study has ever been found to show that children are less safe. Thank you very much.
SR: Thank you, Vicki. All right. Two questions.
The questions are starting to come in through the forum, so please keep using this.
Would the speaker say this initiative relates to whether the social transition of a school child may be kept from his or her parents?
VM: That's a great question, and it's one of probably the most frequently asked questions we hear. The initiative does not talk about disclosing any of that in particular.
SR: What does the speaker think is the proper role of the legislature in regulating parent-child relations?
VM: I think that we have a more than 100-year history from the U.S. Supreme Court saying that the rights of parents are fundamental and schools do not have the right to infringe upon those fundamental rights of parents.
So the role of the legislature, I think, is to support the rights of parents, because parents know and love their children best and I think one of the most telling Supreme Court cases held that children are not creatures of the state. So the legislature's role is always to support the parent, and it's pretty clear.
SR: There are more questions coming in, but I'm going to save them for other panelists. Vicki, thank you for your speech.
We're going move on to our last speaker here, Jamie, for another speech in the negative. You got three minutes.
Jaime Fineman-McKinney: Thank you for having me. Good evening, you guys. My name is Jaime Fineman-McKinney. I am a school counselor in the Tacoma area. I've been in public education for 25 years, working in Washington State as a teacher and then a school counselor.
Whether it's an elementary student having a difficult day or a teenager navigating the transition to adulthood, my job is to build a safe, stable foundation for students. As school counselors, we offer a confidential space where students can find support, work through personal and academic challenges, and build the life skills they need to become contributing citizens.
We know that the vast majority of parents love their children. Washington parents already have strong, explicit rights under current law to inspect academic records, review instructional materials, and guide their children's education. When questions arise about parental access to classroom learning, the default answer is yes. It should always be yes. I stand with the Washington State PTA on that one.
However, as the PTA points out, there's one critical exception that must override that default, a real undeniable risk to a student's safety.
Washington law has long protected confidential counseling and support. That privacy gives young people a trusted space to talk through challenges before a crisis turns tragic. Initiative 001 destroys that protection. It expands official school records to include private counseling notes and sensitive disclosures. In practice, 001 forces schools to act as an involuntary reporting system. If a student confides in a counselor about their sexual orientation, gender identity, severe conflict at home, private counseling notes become part of the record.
For vulnerable students, especially LGBTQ+, youth, children in abusive environment situations, forced outings and loss of privacy carry devastating risk, heightened physical abuse, severe emotional trauma, homelessness. The tragic reality is that not every home is a safe space. In 2024 alone, we had all of those student reports of parental child abuse or neglect.
If vulnerable children learn that seeking help at school means putting sensitive information into the hands of abusers, they're not going to come talk to me. It strips away existing privacy safeguards and places our most vulnerable students in direct catastrophic harm's way. Please vote no.
SR: Thank you for your speech, Jaime.
Okay, questions are really pouring in now, so I might try and sneak some questions in to those of you who give closing statements here, so we can see what we can get to.
Does the speaker think that schools have an independent obligation to protect kids other than the old idea of in loco parentis, in place of the parent?
JFM: No, I think that our job is to protect students alongside parents, and sometimes instead of, and only instead of when we have to protect them from their parents.
I think there's a misconception that schools want to step in instead of parents, but I think the real goal is to partner with parents to make sure we're raising healthy, happy, successful kids.
SR: Thank you. What does the speaker think is the educator's best response for a child's well-being if they reveal mental health distress?
JFM: I believe that an educator, that's a greater ask than a classroom teacher, and they should be referred to a school counselor who is a highly trained individual and knows how to maneuver something so delicate, and the school counselor can do outside referrals and get that student into the hands of someone who could make sure they're safe, and most of the time that includes the parent and includes collaborating with the family to make sure that student is well taken care of.
SR: Now, each perspective in this segment of the debate is going to have one minute to deliver closing statements, and I'll reread the resolution here. Resolved initiative measure IL-26-001 concerning parental rights related to their children in public should be passed. For a one-minute closing statement in the affirmative, I'm going to turn back to Travis.
TR: Thank you. I'd like to address some of the concerns that were brought up through some of our speakers who are speaking against, and one of the most compelling ones that I think resonates with people are the records requests and the information regarding mental health.
What we have to understand is that school records fall under federal protection of FERPA, and under FERPA, the sole possession records exception ensures that records that are maintained for the sole possession of the counselor, personal memory aid, are not shared with others, do not become accessible under this mandate. Those conversations can still remain confidential, and furthermore, we need to recognize that it does not prevent the reporting to something such as child protective services. If a counselor is receiving information about abuse or neglect from a home, we cannot say that we're not disclosing those records.
By law, not only do they have to disclose them, they have to report them to Child Protective Services so an investigation may happen so that those children are protected.
Additionally, abuse reported by students is protected and protects the student from having those records disclosed to abusive parents. The initiative is very explicit, and again, we don't look at this initiative in isolation from other law. Other laws still exist on the books, and this does not repeal those other existing laws.
SR: Thank you, Travis, and thanks for bearing with the time frame. The question that I'll ask really quickly here I think might allow you to expand a little bit. Does the speaker say that voting yes returns the state of the law to previous law or amend it somehow?
TR: So voting yes on I-001 returns it to the language that was used under initiative 2081, which was brought forward by the people by a very successful, I believe the most successful initiative campaign run in Washington history with the most signatures. It was then enacted into law by senators. Several senators, including senators that are here, voted yes to approve that, and it was a unanimous decision in the Senate, an overwhelming majority in the House, so it brings back that same language that was in 2081.
When they changed it in 2025, they simply listed rights that were already existent in other statute of Washington law while eliminating some of the key reasons that 2081 was brought forward in the first place. So through misdirection, they were able to show, well, we're adding these laws, and this is still a very good thing, not being forthcoming in the fact that the things that they are supposedly adding are actually existent in other Washington law. They didn't add anything. They simply removed the key aspects, and I-001 restores those key aspects, and some of those things, such as our time limit for days, 10 days, the argument that I've heard against that is that's difficult for schools, and we're not talking then about what's best for kids. We're talking about what's best for adults. We can't do 10 days because it's difficult for schools.
That's after you're asked to wrap it up. And so we need to look at what's best for kids and what's best for families and understand that this I-001 does not live in isolation from other Washington state law that maintains protections for children and maintains rights. Thank you.
SR: Thank you, Travis, for your closing statement. For a closing statement in the negative, I'm going to turn back to Jaime. Jaime, you've got a minute.
JFM: Thank you. I-001 is not written well. It's a poorly written initiative.
If we want to have a real conversation about parental rights, what's best for kids, and how our schools function, then let's have that conversation. But rushing through an initiative that came from Louisiana is not what's best for our students.
I also believe that most people are wonderful parents and want what's best for their kids and do what's best for their kids. But we are one community. And what's best for every kid is what's best for all our kids. So we need to protect our most vulnerable students and look out for them. My notes do go into the hands of people if they're asked for. That is truth.
SR: Thank you for your succinct remarks here. And a quick question now. How does the speaker define the term safety for K-12 students? Thank you.
JFM: Safety. You come to school, and what matters at school is that you're free to learn, free to be social, and you're free to eat and be safe and focus on your learning. That is what safety means at school.
And then when you leave school at the end of the day, you're going somewhere where you have shelter, you have food, and you have someone who loves you and cares about you, and you're taking care of that safety for a student K-12.
SR: Thank you for kicking us off. This has been a fantastic segment. I hope it's been as informative for everyone in the audience as it has been for me.
DN: This is Spokane Public Radio and you’re listening to a virtual debate about two of the initiatives on Washington’s general election ballot. We just heard pro-and-con arguments about 001. Now we turn to Initiative 638.
This event was sponsored by Braver Angels of Washington and Washington State University’s Foley Institute for Public Policy and Public Service. This is the moderator, Sam Rechek.
SR: Our next set of panelists, Amy, Eloi, Elizabeth, and Kelsey, have joined us to share arguments for and against resolved Initiative Measure IL-26-638 concerning participation in athletics at K-12 schools which should be passed.
For our first speech affirmative, I'd like to go to Amy Sousa. And Amy, I hope I said your last name correctly. You have three minutes.
Amy Sousa: Hi, my name is Amy Sousa. I am a women's rights advocate with a master's in depth psychology and I absolutely agree with No Hate Washington State about one thing. All kids belong in sports. Every student of every identity belongs in sports on the basis of sex.
So, while every student should be able to express their unique identity, identity is irrelevant to sports participation, and this is ultimately an issue of category classification.
So, why do we have categories in sports? Categories in sports exist to allow the greatest number of athletes to participate meaningfully while preserving fairness as well as safety. This is about equity.
Washington State has already determined that sex is a meaningful category for athletic competition. So, if sex matters enough to justify creating the category, then sex must matter when determining eligibility for that category. Otherwise, we are simultaneously saying that sex is important enough to justify female sports but somehow irrelevant when determining who qualifies for female sports.
So, a category cannot protect the population it was created for if the defining characteristic of that population cannot determine eligibility. This is a boundary we have for the purpose of both athletic fairness and athletic safety. A boundary is not discrimination merely because someone falls outside of it.
The question is whether the boundary serves a legitimate purpose. The female sporting boundary exists because sex has consequences for athletic competition.
No Hate Washington State says that this is the most extreme MAGA measure of its kind and that 638 would require tens of thousands of high school students and elementary and middle school to undergo intrusive possibly harmful medical sex inspections.
So, that certainly sounds scary, but here are the two realities.
First, this initiative is not extremist MAGA. It's endorsed by leftist, liberal, feminist organizations, nonpartisan organizations such as Democrats for an informed approach to gender, LGB Courage Coalition, Gays Against Rumors, Save Women's Sports, Women Are Real, Women's Liberation Front, and Independent Council on Women's Sports.
And in reality, for the female category, participating students would simply need to provide a statement from their personal health care provider verifying sex. More than 200,000 kids in Washington State get sports physicals every year. We've been doing these physicals for over 50 years.
If you care about preserving fairness, equity, and athletic safety for girls, you should vote yes on 638.
SR: Thank you for your timely speech. So, is the speaker's perspective that the measure says that student birth records and medical history for sex identification absolutely will be used as opposed to intrusive exams?
AS: There's never an intrusive exam. This will not require any new test. So, this won't require, it will be the same sports physical that it has always been. There's no new test. There's no new billing code or insurance code that will be necessary. It is just the existing WIAA form that verifies sex. You verify your sex with your existing provider and that is all that is necessary.
SR: There are a number of questions that submitted in advance that are along the same lines of this. What's changing if this initiative passes to our speaker?
AS: What is changing is that sex will be determining eligibility for participation in girls’ sports.
So, right now, girls’ sports has kind of been a double standard dumping ground where female students with diverse identities are in female sports and male students with diverse identities are in female sports. So, right now, the girls’ sports category has, one, mixed identities and mixed sex. So, we are simply saying that these males should be encouraged to participate in the sports that align with their sex.
The female sports category is not a mental health treatment clinic for boys who are struggling with identity issues and that the female category exists for fairness and equity and safety. And in the words of Title IX, it exists on the basis of sex. So, this will simply say that that female category will be sex based.
SR: With that, let's thank our first speaker. Amy, I appreciate your comments and responses to the curious questions. We're going to shift to a first speech in the negative. And for that, I'd like to turn to Eloy. Eloy, you have three minutes.
Eloi Hoopman: My name is Eloi Hoopman, and I've been a full spectrum family physician working for over 19 years serving all ages of patients, including children, from delivery and newborn care straight through adulthood.
I do not support Initiative 638, and I'm joined by over 100 providers in the state of Washington, as well as the Washington chapter of the American Academy of Family Practice, who all do not support this initiative.
The initiative is poorly written. It's difficult to comply with and is a barrier for thousands of K through 12 school-aged girls to play sports.
I want to take some time to look at the enforcement mechanisms of this initiative and why there are real life consequences that will have unintended impacts. There are three ways to confirm biologic sex in this initiative. The examination of reproductive anatomy, a cheek or blood test for genetic karyotyping, or blood testing for endogenous testosterone.
Issues with this examination. No national organization has ever asked for a genital exam of girls in sports physicals. There is no provision for birth certificate data to be used.
Sports physicals are different than routine well-child checks. Most well-child checks do not include a genital exam unless there are concerns from the child or the parent. And for over 150,000 girls in the state of Washington who do not have a primary care doctor, this sensitive exam would be done by a stranger.
Issues with laboratory testing. If you want to protect your daughter from a reproductive examination and you ought to do testing, these labs would need to be ordered and interpreted by a provider. They're not routinely done and so they would not be paid for by insurance. This could cost hundreds of dollars out of pocket depending on which laboratory you tested with. There are no tests to check only endogenous testosterone. Real impacts of these barriers.
So, I've spent my career working really hard to encourage people to develop healthy habits. Everyone. I've spent hours volunteering with other doctors, doing free sports physicals for thousands of children who do not have access to a doctor, by doing group physicals in sports like school gymnasiums, genital examinations for a couple decades have not been included in sports physicals.
This is why we've been able for boys and girls. This is why we've been able to do these large sports physical events. I've spent countless hours working one-on-one with children to find joy and confidence using their bodies to build strength and move through the world.
This feels especially important for girls. Practical and functional support of girls in sports decreases barriers to play, while this initiative increases barriers for thousands of girls at all grade levels. Even if you have concerns about trans girls playing school sports, this poorly written initiative is not the way to regulate this and will have a negative impact on all girls who want to play school sports.
To protect girls from unneeded sensitive and expensive examinations, that would be a barrier to playing sports at all ages. Please vote no on initiative 638.
SR: Thank you for your speech, Eloi.
I know you touched on this in your speech, but it comes up in a number of questions here. Could the speaker share whether students can present a birth certificate to qualify or show that they were born biological women under this initiative?
EH: No. The reproductive examination that is required by the wording of the initiative does not allow for me to use birth certificate data.
If you had the records from the delivery of your hospitalized delivery that you had records of from the hospital, I could use that. But actually getting those records can be a royal pain for any family member who's tried to get records before. It's actually very, very narrowly worded in the way that it's very hard to comply with this initiative.
It's confusing for me with medical language. When you say reproductive examination, we don't reproduce with external parts. We reproduce with internal parts for patients who have uteruses.
I don't even really know how to medicalize the words of this initiative, including stuff like endogenous testosterone that's worded. There's not a test that only looks at endogenous testosterone. It's hard for me to feel confident that I could comply with this initiative if it is voted yes by the voters.
SR: Thanks for your answer. We had one question come in for opposing speakers. Why does the speaker think we have separate categories for boys’ and girls’ sports?
EH: Yeah, I think that it's really hard to categorize human beings.
It's hard enough for large bodies like the Olympics Committee when they try to categorize men and women. I think that gets messy and challenging. I think this initiative, what we really want to focus on, this is about allowing children to play sports with their school teams as grade schoolers, middle schoolers, and high schoolers.
I think there's probably lots of reasons why we have categorized boys’ and girls’ sports. That's not the question that is most at play with this initiative. This initiative would become a functional barrier for all girls who would wish to play sports in the state. It has a high cost if we were to choose to vote this in.
SR: With that, there are lots of questions coming in. This is generating a lot of interest, of course, but I want to make sure we make safe time. Thank you for your speech.
I'm going to turn to another speech in the affirmative. For that, I will go to Elizabeth Wilson. You've got three minutes.
Elizabeth Wilson: Yes. Hi. My name is Elizabeth Wilson. I'm from Wenatchee, Washington. I'm here today as a mother to talk about my daughter, Annalee, and other female athletes being affected by boys’ and girls’ sports.
My daughter was 14 years old when she competed against a biological boy at the Cashmere Junior Olympics and since that race, has competed against three more boys in cross-country. Girls right now are being told that our discomfort, privacy, and opportunities simply do not matter because inclusion and invalidating trans girls' feelings are more important.
Superintendent Chris Reykdal just last night tried to gaslight girls, stating their brains were not developed enough to even make this an issue. Title IX was created on the basis of sex to ensure equal opportunities for girls in sports and in their workplace. It was built on the premise of fairness and gave them a protected category to compete in.
Today, we are being told that true inclusion requires to push these girls aside and allow boys to enter into their spaces. Girls like my daughter are being told they must accept situations they are uncomfortable with, such as sharing locker rooms and competing against biological boys. And when they finally find the courage to speak up, they are bullied.
So my daughter has been threatened and her character attacked, all for wanting exactly what Title IX was created for, a safe, protected category. And people preaching tolerance seem to have no tolerance for the girls that simply want a category protected for them. What scares me the most is the mental toll that this is having on our girls. It's very damaging.
Research already shows that girls face immense pressure and vulnerability in sports. Data indicates that nearly half of the girls, about 45% of them, drop out of sports by age 14, due to issues like body confidence, fear, and judgment, and feeling that they don't belong.
So allowing boys into girls' sports and spaces only adds to their stress and further undermines their confidence.
My daughter has felt that weight so heavily before that she has experienced disassociation, where her brain shut down to protect her. One day she was found at school wandering the halls by a teacher and she didn't know who she was or where she was because of taking on all that overwhelming hate that she had been receiving just for simply doing that for fairness. Her brain eventually shut down.
We teach our daughters that they need to trust their instincts and that if the situation makes them feel uncomfortable, it's okay to walk away and speak up. But when they do this now, adults tell them to stay silent because they need to be inclusive.
We are failing our girls and asking them to sacrifice their opportunities, privacy, and mental well-being to appease a movement that fails to put their interests first. So why is it acceptable to discriminate against girls and silence their voices?
So I say vote yes to 638, because it protects a sex-based category for girls so they can thrive and have opportunities to compete fairly, safely, like the original intent of Title IX. Thank you.
SR: Thank you, Elizabeth, for your speech.
Could the speaker answer what documentation is necessary to prove the sex of the student under this initiative?
EW: Well, like I have said before, speaking about my daughter, is that my doctor knows my child. They have known my child since they were little and through pediatric examinations have verified that my daughter is a girl. And so you can use, there's medical history available. Medical history can follow child to child.
I was a foster child from abusive homes and my medical records went with me everywhere I went and things are documented. Doctors know if kids are on hormones. Doctors know these things about their kids. We act like doctors don't know their patients.
SR: Could the speaker answer why this initiative applies to girls but not to boys?
EW: I think it's more because girls are the ones that are speaking up, asking for fairness. And as science shows, girls, and I'm not saying that girls are not stronger or bad, it's just boys have a biological advantage, right? And so girls are asking adults to stand up and to protect them and so this is why this is being focused on the girls. Yes, there are some girls that play with boys and stuff, but we don't see them taking opportunities away from boys.
SR: I'd love to ask one more because, okay. To our speaker, is the test required of every girl under this scheme?
EW: Again, there is no test. And in looking at the initiative, not one place does it say that they have to have invasive genital exams.
If you actually read it, it says that there's documentation that has to be provided to show that they are female. Nowhere has it ever said that they have to have invasive genital exam by coaches and athletic directors and doctors to verify that they're girls. It's documentation. Again, like I said, doctors know who you are. Stop acting like our doctors don't know our kids.
SR: Let's go to our next speaker. Kelsey, turning to you next for a speech. Three minutes.
Kelsey Gellner: Hi, thank you so much. My name is Kelsey Gellner. I am a pediatric nurse who knows her patients.
I'm a mom of two and I am a former athlete here in Washington state. I actually am young enough to have competed under the current guidelines that exist in WIAA as an athlete. I care for many, many children, both in my professional and personal life. And when I introduce myself to a child and let them know why I'm there, I let them know that it is my number one job to keep them safe. And I would not be keeping that promise if I wasn't speaking against Initiative 638.
So first, I just wanted to address, it is in Initiative 638, section three, subsection two, that it says, the healthcare provider verifies the student's biological sex, relying only on one or more of the following. The student's reproductive anatomy, the genetic makeup, or the normal endogenously produced testosterone levels. So that is where we are getting levels from.
But more importantly, I wanna call out that there are 1.2 million students in Washington state through K through 12.
But WIAA says that there are five to 10 transgender children participating in school sports. So we are spending all of this time to talk about five to 10 children who just want a place to belong in a safe space where they can be with their friends.
I believe so strongly, both as a former athlete and as a pediatric nurse, that there are so many benefits to sports. That's why we pay our taxpayer dollars for afterschool sports, to provide this place where kids can belong, where they can strive, where they can grow, where they can push themselves physically, but also create a team experience and leadership skills. And there are so many benefits to sports that I don't think, I don't think the way that sports are currently being run inhibit. And I instead think that these genital exams, which again, as I and Dr., or as my other speaker has talked about, regardless of what the intent is, the impact is what is written in the initiative.
There are 150,000 girls in Washington State who do not have access to a pediatrician. They get these sports physicals through a minute clinic, through urgent care, through these free sports physicals that I have assisted in. And so it would be strangers performing these exams, which the AAP, ACOG, all medical associations say that this is dangerous and harmful for our children. And so that is why I am pleading that I care so much about protecting our girls. I think everyone here cares so much about protecting our girls, but it is clear that healthcare workers do not support this bill that would be dictating what we do in our exam rooms.
And it's clear that no one supported this because it would be written better if healthcare workers were writing it.
SR: Thank you, Kelsey, for your speech. A couple of questions here.
If the initiative doesn't pass, what will be the result for K-12 women's athletics?
KG: If it does not pass?
SR: Correct.
KG: Well, if it does not pass, then everything would maintain the way that it is. Do you mean to ask me what happens if the initiative passes?
SR: No, I think the question was clear. There are a number of questions that have come in that are what would change, what would stay the same if it doesn't, that kind of question.
KG: If the initiative does not pass and it fails, then nothing changes. If the initiative were to pass, then only our girl students who are trying to participate in sports would have to undergo these examinations.
The forms are currently available on WIAA as to what currently happens, and currently no examination requires removal of clothing, if that's what's being asked.
SR: Thank you. Would the speaker think that a separate sports category for trans athletes could be a viable option?
KG: You know, again, this goes back to the fact that there are five athletes, five to 10 athletes, both boys and girls in Washington state who participate in sports K-12. So that would not be a very fun competition if there were five people across all sports in Washington state.
SR: Thank you to the audience for some fantastic questions coming in. I'm gonna now turn to Elizabeth, back to Elizabeth for a one-minute closing statement.
EW: Yeah, so I wanted to touch on a few different things. First, Title IX was put into play to protect our girls for fair competition and we want to honor the original 10 Title IX. As far as there only being, you know, she's saying five to 10 males competing, there's actually, I think, 11 plus right now. And out of those boys, there's been 75 first place finishes that they have taken, 158 top three finishes that they have taken.
And she also mentioned that there is 150 doctors that support this initiative. There's over, I think, 500,000 doctors practicing here in Washington State, I believe. So that's not a very big number of supporting that initiative.
So we need to stand up for our girls, for future generations and future, our athletes. And we need to honor the original 10 of Title IX and preserve this category that was meant for them. We need to vote yes on 638 to protect generations.
SR: Thank you, Elizabeth. Would the speaker explain why she thinks sports should be identities designated?
EW: I don't think that sports should be identities, like they should be competing with how they identify. I think that sports should be sex-based categories and that boys should play with boys and girls should play with boys. Identities, like that's, I mean, that sounds ridiculous. Like bodies play sports, not identities.
SR: Thanks for the response. All right, let's turn back to the negative or a speech in the night, not a negative speech. It's an important clarification, a speech in the negative here.And for that, I'll go back to you, Kelsey. Got one minute.
KG: Thank you so much. I suppose I didn't specifically call out, but I'm also a board of director for the Washington State Nurses Association. And I represent 23,000 nurses across Washington State who we all very strongly support a no vote against this initiative. I also just wanna call out that this is imposing barriers for our students to participate in sports.
High school, middle school, elementary age boys are not the villain here. There are so many things that I would like to protect our children from. This is just not a priority of what protects our children.
I think our kids need a place to belong. And I think that place of belonging frequently is in school sports. And I think this initiative was just so poorly written.
I understand what they were trying to do. However, the way that it was written is harmful to our children. And especially in a way where I am trying to teach girls consent and bodily autonomy.
Also, I want to point out that there is current language in WIAA where the schools and the athletic directors and coaches can take on cases one-on-one on whether or not a child can play in sports. And this initiative is actually taking away that right from the schools and making it a blanket statewide level.
SR: Thank you, Kelsey. Okay, last question here to our speaker. What do those who oppose this initiative tend to think about Title IX?
KG: I am a big advocate for Title IX. I think it is incredible. I think it is something that has made it so that I am able to play sports. I think it has created a way where vulnerable populations, such as our girls, have a safe space. And I think also our transgender girls also need a safe space to belong.
SR: All right. With that, I want to thank everyone here for what is truly, I want to just note, on this issue, on the previous issue, this is probably something you'll hear me say again. But one of the things that I think is so powerful about Braver Angels Debate is it allows really passionately competing perspectives to exist alongside each other. And I appreciate the effort that all of you have taken to offer your perspectives, to answer curious questions, and to disagree accurately.
DN: You’ve been listening to a debate about Washington Initiatives 001 and 638, sponsored by Braver Angels of Washington State and the WSU Foley Institute for Public Policy and Public Service.
