I-638 supporters defend sex verification for girls' sports; physicians warn of invasive testing
I-638 supporters describe a simple addition to girls' sports physicals. Opposing physicians argue that the specified verification methods would require invasive exams or expensive tests. The dispute turns on the measure's text and implementation.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
Washington's IL26-638 would require a health-care provider to verify sex for girls' sports participation. Supporter Hallie Herzberg describes a checkbox on a routine physical form. Physicians Libby Loft and Luis Manriquez argue that the text would require invasive or costly testing.
Read the full background
The voters pamphlet (opens in a new tab) prints the measure's text. Section 3(2) requires a provider-signed form or statement, as part of the routine sports physical, verifying biological sex by relying only on one or more specified criteria: reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.
Herzberg's interview (opens in a new tab) describes a checkbox on an existing sports-physical form. Loft and Manriquez's signed opinion (opens in a new tab) argues that the specified methods would require inappropriate exams or costly testing.
The dispute concerns what providers would need to do to satisfy the requirement and its consequences for students. The election remains upcoming as of October 26.
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
2 responses. Newest first.
Libby LoftFamily physician and co-author of the signed opinionDirectly involved Before this statement
The physicians criticize the initiative's premise and explain why genital exams are not routine sports-physical care.
"a medically unnecessary invasive genital exam or costly genetic testing"
CondemnedCase context: I-638 supporters defend sex verification for girls' sports; physicians warn of invasive testing
Full statement and sources
Loft and Manriquez argue that I-638 would require invasive or expensive verification and discourage girls' participation. They urge a no vote.
After the statement
They argue that alternative genetic and hormone tests also raise cost and clinical concerns.
Libby Loft and Luis Manriquez oppose I-638's verification requirementOpening paragraphs and discussion of medical examinationsWhy this label?
The reference is the initiative's verification requirement. The physicians expressly reject it as medically unnecessary and harmful.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Hallie HerzbergSpokesperson, Let's Go WashingtonDirectly involved Before this statement
The interview addresses how I-638 would change participation rules for girls' sports.
"It would just add a checkbox back onto that sports physical form"
Defended or excusedCase context: I-638 supporters defend sex verification for girls' sports; physicians warn of invasive testing
Full statement and sources
Herzberg argues that the initiative can use the sports-physical process to identify the league in which a student may participate.
After the statement
Herzberg says the verification would determine league participation. Opponents dispute whether the text permits such a simple process.
Hallie Herzberg explains I-638's proposed sports-physical verificationHerzberg interview; checkbox explanationWhy this label?
The reference is the proposed medical-verification requirement. Herzberg defends it as a simple addition to an existing form.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(3)
Original text
Washington 2026 voters pamphlet: Initiative IL26-638
Relevant passage: Printed pages 20-22 and 68-69; IL26-638 Section 3(2)
About this source
The pamphlet includes the measure's summary, opposing campaign arguments and full text. Section 3(2) specifies the basis for a provider's verification.
- Author
- Washington Secretary of State
- Accessed
Analysis
Libby Loft and Luis Manriquez oppose I-638's verification requirement
Relevant passage: Opening paragraphs and discussion of medical examinations
About this source
Two family physicians argue that the initiative would require invasive or costly verification. This is their signed opinion.
- Author
- Libby Loft and Luis Manriquez
- Published
- Accessed
Interview
Hallie Herzberg explains I-638's proposed sports-physical verification
Relevant passage: Herzberg interview; checkbox explanation
About this source
The Spokesman-Review interviews a Let's Go Washington spokesperson about how the requirement would operate.
- Author
- The Spokesman-Review
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- I-638 supporters defend sex verification for girls' sports; physicians warn of invasive testing
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/washington-i638-girls-sports-medical-sex-verification
The Dispute Index. "I-638 supporters defend sex verification for girls' sports; physicians warn of invasive testing". First published: 2026-10-26. Last updated: 2026-10-26. https://disputeindex.com/cases/washington-i638-girls-sports-medical-sex-verification