The Seattle Public Schools Board of Directors, which oversees roughly 50,000 students, is actively moving to block a voter-approved state initiative designed to protect K-12 girls from biological males competing on their sports teams and entering their private spaces.
Washington’s Initiative 638, titled the “Defending Equity in Interscholastic Sports Act,” passed last week with 56% of the vote in the November general election. It reverses a two-decades-old policy that has allowed students to select sports teams based on their so-called gender identity, not on biological sex. The new law requires school boards to establish rules ensuring any student competing on a girls’ K-12 team verifies biological sex.
The verification process involves a doctor’s confirmation of one or more of three criteria: reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup or naturally produced testosterone levels. Male athletes would not face this requirement because the measure applies only to girls’ sports.
In response during a special Monday meeting this week, the SPS board unanimously voted to adopt Resolution No. 2026/27-11. The vote authorizes the district to hire legal counsel and act to stop the initiative from taking effect in order to allegedly “protect the interests of the District and prevent harm to District students that implementing Initiative Measure No. IL26-638 would cause.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington has filed suit on behalf of the nonprofit TransFamilies and the Washington Education Association, a union representing more than 90,000 educators.
Critics such as Jeremiah Chin, an assistant law professor at the University of Washington School of Law, argued that challengers have “a bunch of different grounds for the unconstitutionality of the law. One of them is the sex discrimination … it only applies to girls’ sports and it doesn’t apply to boys’ sports.”
SPS board President Gina Topp chimed in to defend the move, saying, “Our responsibility as a School Board is to uphold the law and protect the students and families we serve. When a new law raises serious questions about how it interacts with existing laws and constitutional protections, we have a responsibility to seek clarity from the courts. This resolution gives the district the ability to seek appropriate legal action so we can meet our obligations to our students.”
Parents who backed the initiative see the board’s resistance differently.
“It should never have come to this,” said one mother, Amy Sousa. “It should never have come to a situation where any males were allowed to participate in the female category. It’s very frustrating. We fought very hard to stand up for fairness for our girls, this is really about protecting and preserving the promise of Title IX.”
During Monday’s meeting, the backlash came immediately following the unanimous approval. As the board members fled the room, concerned parents and observers who attended stated things like: “King County does not get to veto the rest of the 35 counties”; “you’re against girls and for males”; “why do you hate girls so much?”; “this is about fairness”; “the voters have spoken. Why do you fight the voters on this?”; and “girls are crying out for justice!”
SPS is currently acting alone, though board members indicated other districts might join later. No timeline has been set for deciding what form of legal action the district will pursue.
