A pair of proposals seeking to keep biological males out of girls’ sports failed to move forward in the Washington Interscholastic Activities Assembly.
The failed proposals were high school-level amendments but did not advance past advisory-only votes, according to a Monday release from the WIAA.
Recommended Stories
- WATCH LIVE: White House holds briefing as details emerge on Hegseth's use of second Signal chat
- David Hogg says Democrats are 'failing to meet the moment' in challenging Trump
- JD Vance commits to partnership with India as trade negotiations progress
Amendment ML/HS #7 would have limited girls’ sports participation in the state to “biological females,” and ML/HS #8 would have seen athletic programs “be offered separately for boys, girls, and an open division for all students interested,” the release read.
“This policy encourages a culture in which all student-athletes can compete in a safe and supportive
environment, free of discrimination,” amendment ML/HS #7 read. “There are two categories of sports – ‘Boys/Open’ and ‘Girls.’ All student-athletes regardless of sex, gender identity, or gender expression who meet eligibility criteria are allowed to participate in the ‘Boys/Open Category.’ However, to maintain fair and equitable competition, participation in the ‘Girls Category’ is limited to students whose biological sex is female.”
A vote of 60% approval from voting members was required for either amendment to advance.
The proposal limiting girls’ sports to biological females saw a 21-22 vote against passing, and amendment ML/HS #8 failed with a 40-13 vote, WIAA reported.
Given that the two failed proposals were advisory-only votes, neither amendment would have been enacted, as they would violate current Washington state law.
“Despite the failure of ML/HS #7 and ML/HS #8, the Association’s message remains clear: The WIAA remains committed to following Washington state law and will continue to do so moving forward,” WIAA’s Monday release read. “If state law changes in the future, the WIAA Executive Board holds the authority to revise policies accordingly—and now has input from the membership on how to proceed in that event, while remaining in compliance with state law.”