Girls Sports

Washington State Citizens Fight for Parents’ Rights, Girls Sports

Supporters of parents’ rights and girls sports submitted two citizen initiatives to the Washington State Legislature. 

Restoring the Parents’ Bill of Rights, IL26-001, repeals sections of legislation passed in 2025 that stripped parents of their rights in education. 

The measure guarantees parents have access to their children’s instructional materials and school records; requires parental notification when schools provide medical services; allows parents to opt children out of surveys, questionnaires and sexual education; and assures families their religious beliefs will be respected. 

Initiative Measure IL26-638, Protecting Fairness in Girls Sports, prohibits “male students from competing with and against female students in athletic activities with separate classifications for male and female students.” 

Brian Noble, CEO of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, explained to the Daily Citizen, “Both initiatives are a demonstration of how citizens in Washington can impact policy despite conservatives being significantly outnumbered in both the Washington House and Senate.” 

He added: 

God has given us a scriptural mandate to be engaged actively on the battlefield of the public square. Scripture calls Christians to steward all that God has created, including the governmental sphere.

Let’s Go Washington collected more than 416,000 signatures for the parents’ rights initiative and more than 445,000 signatures for the girls sports measure. Valid signatures from 308,911 voters are needed to send the measure to the legislature. 

Brian Heywood, leader of Let’s Go Washington, commented on the two measures to the Washington State Standard, bluntly stating, “This is not a partisan issue, this is a common sense issue.” 

The measures have “broad support,” he added, with more than half of the signatures coming from liberals and independents. 

Both proposals are “indirect initiated state statutes,” citizen-initiated ballot measures that are first presented to the Washington Legislature. According to Ballotpedia, the Legislature then has three options:  

  1. Adopt the initiative into law without sending it to the voters.
  2. Reject or not act on the initiative, in which case it is placed on the ballot for voters to decide.
  3. Approve an alternative version, in which case both the original proposal and the legislative alternative are placed on the ballot at the next state general election.

Current reports suggest the legislature will let the measures go the voters in November. 

The Parents’ Bill of Rights has a convoluted history. In 2024, Let’s Go Washington submitted enough signatures to send Initiative 2081, the first version of A Parents’ Bill of Rights, to the state legislature. The initiative passed and was signed into law. 

But then the legislature engaged in some tricksy behavior by passing HB 1296, a law which undermined local control of schools, supposedly “balanced” student rights with parents rights and actually eliminated some parents rights. Among other things, the legislation: 

  • Increased the time for schools to share records with parents from 10 business days to 45. 
  • Removed a parent’s right to access certain public school records, including medical or health records, and records of any mental health counseling.
  • Eliminated a parent’s right to be notified by public schools prior to medical services or medications being offered or referred to his or her child (even when it will cost parents).
  • Stripped the parental right to be notified and opt a child out of personally invasive surveys, assignments, role-playing activities, recordings or other student engagements. 
  • Removed a parent’s right to be notified if his/her child is taken or removed from a public school campus to stay at a youth shelter or “host home.” 

The new measure restores the original Parents’ Bill of Rights, rolling back the damaging effects of HB 1296. 

The Protecting Fairness in Girls Sports measure is also very much needed in Washington State. In December, Washington’s alternative weekly newspaper The Stranger reported, “In Washington, trans girls and boys have played with, and against, cis girls and boys for nearly two decades.” 

“Cis” is a term made up by transgender activists to designate real boys and girls, rather than those who mimic the opposite sex with clothes, makeup, drugs, hormones and surgeries. 

Washington’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) requires all local educational agencies “to allow all students, including transgender and nonbinary students, the opportunity to participate on the interscholastic sports team that most closely aligns with their gender identity.” 

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education are currently investigating OSPI for allowing “males to participate in female sports and occupy female-only intimate facilities, thereby raising substantial Title IX concerns.” 

Family Policy Institute of Washington, a Focus on the Family-allied organization, supports both initiatives. Noble told us: 

FPIW has proudly supported these initiatives, and we will continue to advocate for parental rights and the safety of our children as these initiatives move through the legislative process. 

Focus on the Family also supports parental rights in education and protecting girls and women’s sports. We trust Washington Christians and conservatives will engage with the initiative process and support these to important measures. 

Related articles and resources: 

Family Policy Institute of Washington

Let’s Go Washington : Rally to Support The Initiatives

Athletes Rally at Supreme Court to Keep Boys Out of Girls Sports

Department of Justice Launches Title IX Task Force to Protect Women’s Sports

Focus on the Family Transgender Resources

How to Get In Touch With Your State Policy Group

Meet Three Heroes Working to Protect Colorado Children

President Trump: ‘There are Only Two Genders: Male and Female’

Supreme Court to Hear Title IX Girls Sports Case

Top 5 Moments From Supreme Court Arguments Over Girls Sports

Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Women’s Sports and Spaces

Yes, Girls Care When Boys Take Their Trophies

Athletes Rally at Supreme Court to Keep Boys Out of Girls Sports

Dozens of athletes, business owners, lawmakers and activists rallied to protect women’s sports yesterday while the Supreme Court heard arguments in State of West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox — two cases which will determine whether states can enforce laws keeping boys out of girls sports.

The rally, hosted by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the law firm helping litigate BPJ and Little, boasted a roster of powerful speakers — including eight women forced to compete against or alongside men.

“I was pleased and honored to be at the Supreme Court rally,” Tim Goeglein, Focus on the Family’s vice president of External and Government Relations, told the Daily Citizen, describing the lively, tight-packed crowd.

“Focus on the Family believes girls should compete against girls, and that boys should compete against boys,” Goeglein continued. “That makes sports competition fair for everyone.”

He concluded:

We believe fairness will be upheld [in BPJ and Little], affirming foundational justice in one of the most high profile sets of cases in this Supreme Court term.

Riley Gaines, Brooke Slusser, Kaylie Ray, Kaitlynn Wheeler, Stephanie Turner, Selina Soule, Sara Casebolt and Alexa Anderson each experienced firsthand the damage men cause by invading women’s sports.

Gaines and Wheeler, who swam together at the University of Kentucky, were forced to compete against and change in front of Lia Thomas — a man.

Slusser practiced and lived with Blaire Fleming, a teammate on San Jose State University’s women’s volleyball team. The university never told Slusser that Fleming was a man.

Slusser and Fleming played in the same conference as Ray, the captain of Utah State’s women’s volleyball team. Ray and her team chose to forfeit games against Fleming.

“The leaders whose responsibility it was to protect student athletes chose silence,” Ray recalled at the rally.

“Instead, they placed the burden on us — individual players — to forfeit in order to preserve our dignity.”

Turner took a knee at a USA Fencing competition rather than compete against a man.

“That act was not defiance,” she told rally-goers. “It was desperation. It was a cry for help.”

Soule, Anderson and Casebolt each lost high school track and field races to boys. Anderson received hate mail for refusing to share the podium with a male competitor.

All eight athletes addressed the rally, not with bitterness, but with earnest desire to protect their fellow athletes — including family members — from enduring the same hardship.  

Turner felt alone after she took a knee. But she did it so other girls would never have to. Meaningful change begins when a few people make the choice to do good, she reflected, even when it’s costly and uncomfortable.

Wheeler spoke on behalf of her younger sister, who was “made to feel like the problem” after objecting to undressing in front a man.

“[My sister] didn’t consent to this ideology,” Wheeler emphasized, speaking loudly to drown out disruptive counter protesters:

She didn’t consent to the exploitation happening in the locker rooms. She should never have had to sacrifice her privacy for someone else’s identity. And she shouldn’t have to sacrifice her privacy so adults can avoid telling the truth.

Gaines brought her three-month old daughter along to the rally, protected by a tiny bullet-proof vest.

“My world was flipped upside down three months ago when my husband and I welcomed our little baby girl into this world,” Gaines recalled fondly.

She concluded:

I hope one day, when she’s old enough, she will look back on the fight … that we have been fighting … and recognize that we’re fighting for her. We’re fighting for her to be able to call her champion. We are fighting for a fair and safe and just and righteous country and world that she will inherit.

The Daily Citizen praises these athletes for their courage and selflessness in advocating to keep men out of women’s sports.

Additional Articles and Resources

Top 5 Moments From Supreme Court Arguments Over Girls Sports

Supreme Court to Hear Title IX Girls Sports Case

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Cases on Boys in Girls Sports

UPenn Will Strip ‘Lia’ Thomas of Medals, Apologize to Female Athletes

SJSU Hired Same Law Firm to Simultaneously Defend and Investigate Male Athlete on Women’s Team

NCAA and San Jose State ‘Transgender’ Volley Player Usurp Women’s Rights

Four Women’s Volleyball Teams Forfeit — Won’t Play Team with a Man

USA Fencing Explicitly Prioritizes Men’s Feelings Over Women’s Safety and Athletic Achievement

Yes, Girls Care When Boys Take Their Trophies

Appeals Court Revives Case Disputing Men’s Participation in Girls High School Sports

Riley Gaines Announces and Celebrates New Baby

Top 5 Moments From Supreme Court Arguments Over Girls Sports

On January 13, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases concerning Idaho and West Virginia laws prohibiting male athletes from competing in girls sports.

This morning, the Daily Citizen listened to the Court’s oral arguments – so you don’t have to.

The two cases, Little v. Hecox and State of West Virginia v. BPJ, could have massive implications for the future of girls sports and determine whether states can recognize biological reality and reserve girls and women’s sports for females. You can read the Daily Citizen’s summary of the cases.

Following oral arguments, it seemed likely a majority of the Court would uphold Idaho’s and West Virginia’s laws protecting female athletes.

Here are the top five moments you might have missed.

1. Justice Samuel Alito Defends Reality of Biological Sex

Justice Samuel Alito asked Kathleen R. Hartnett, attorney for the male Idaho student who filed the lawsuit over the state’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, for a definition of what it means to be a “boy or a girl or a man or a woman.”

“We do not have a definition for the Court,” Hartnett replied, admitting she would not define what “sex” means.

“How can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means?” Alito replied.

2. Alito Defends Female Athletes

In a back-and-forth with Hartnett, Justice Alito also defended female athletes who don’t want to be forced to compete against males.

“There are an awful lot of female athletes who are strongly opposed to participation by ‘trans’ athletes in competitions with them,” Alito said, asking, “What do you say about them? Are they bigots? Are they deluded in thinking that they’re subjected to unfair competition?”

“No, your honor,” Hartnett replied. “I would never call anyone that.”

3. Justice Kavanaugh Calls Growth of Girls Sports “Inspiring”

Posing a question to Hartnett about how permitting males into women’s and girls sports could harm female athletics, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed to the great growth in female sports in the last five decades.

“One of the great successes in America over the last 50 years has been the growth of women and girls’ sports, and it’s inspiring,” Kavanaugh said.

There “are a variety of groups who study this issue, think that allowing transgender women and girls to participate will undermine or reverse that amazing success and will, you know, create unfairness,” he added.

“For the individual girl who does not make the team or doesn’t get on the stand for the medal or doesn’t make all league [due to a male athlete], there’s a – there’s a harm there, and I think we can’t sweep that aside.”

He asked,

[There’s] a lot of people who are concerned about women’s sports and think this raises a big problem. And I just want to make sure you can explain that.

4. Alito Reiterates Reality of Biological Sex

In another back-and-forth, Justice Alito questioned Hartnett about what a woman is, and how “sex” must have a biological basis.

“Suppose … a student who has the genes and the reproductive system of a male and had those at birth and has never taken puberty blockers, never taken female hormones, never had any gender-altering or affirming surgery, says, nevertheless, I am a woman. That’s who I am. Can the school say, ‘No, you cannot participate on the girls’ team?’” Alito asked.

“Yes, they can,” Hartnett replied.

“But that person – is that person not a woman in your understanding? If the person says, I sincerely believe I am woman, I am, in fact, a woman – is that person not a woman?” Alito pressed.

“I – I would respect their self-identity,” Hartnett replied. “But in terms of the statute, I think the question is, does that person have a sex-based biological advantage.”

5. Alito Finally Gets a Definition of What “Sex” Means

Justice Alito asked Hashim M. Mooppan, Principal Deputy Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice, who argued in favor of Idaho’s law, what “sex” means under Title IX.

“We think it’s properly interpreted pursuant to its ordinary traditional definition of biological sex, and I think probably given the time it was enacted, reproductive biology is probably the best way of understanding that,” Mooppan replied.

“All right,” Justice Alito replied. “Thank you.”

Decisions in the cases are expected by the end of June.

The Daily Citizen will keep you updated about Little v. Hecox and State of West Virginia v. BPJ.

Related articles and resources:

Supreme Court to Hear Title IX Girls Sports Case

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Cases on Boys in Girls Sports

Photo from Getty Images.

Supreme Court to Hear Title IX Girls Sports Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in two cases about Idaho and West Virginia laws protecting girls sports from male athletes claiming to be female.

The landmark cases will be heard Tuesday, January 13, with the outcome determining if states can uphold biological reality and limit girls and women’s sports to those who are female.

Twenty-six states have similar laws safeguarding girls and women’s sports, all of which could be affected by the Court’s ruling.

In addition, a favorable verdict — protecting girls and women’s sports — could support lawsuits against states and sports organizations that have capitulated to “transgender” ideology and allowed males to compete as females.

The first case, Little v. Hecox, deals with Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. The state was the first in the nation to pass such legislation, signed into law March 30, 2020.

Just two weeks later, the American Civil Liberties Union, which used to support women’s rights in education, filed a lawsuit challenging the Fairness Act on behalf of Lindsay Hecox, who was born male but lives as if he were a woman.

Hecox wanted to run with the ladies on Boise State University’s cross country team. The ACLU argued that Idaho’s Fairness Act violated Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education, along with the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

The complaint stated:

Under Title IX, discrimination “on the basis of sex” encompasses discrimination against individuals because they are transgender, because they are women and girls (whether cisgender or transgender), and because they depart from stereotypes associated with sex (which can include stereotypes about sex characteristics that are or are not typically associated with being male or female).   

Basically, the suit is saying that “transgender girls” (who are male) are girls and that they should not be excluded on the basis of “stereotypes associated with sex.” According to the ACLU’s logic, these “girls” can have “stereotypical” male features such as male genes, reproductive organs, bone structure and musculature.

Idaho’s attorney general defended the measure, with attorneys for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filing a motion on behalf of two female collegiate athletes, Madison Keyon and Mary Kate Marshall, to intervene in the lawsuit.

Although a federal district court allowed the women to intervene, it halted enforcement of the Fairness Act. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that ruling.

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, along with ADF attorneys, appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the Idaho and West Virginia cases in July 2025. 

The second case is State of West Virginia v. BPJ.

In 2021, West Virginia was the fifth state to pass a law protecting female athletics. The Sports Act, HB 3293, clarified that male and female sports teams in public secondary schools and colleges must be based on biological sex.

Again, the law was challenged in court by the ACLU along with Lambda Legal, another radical LGBT activist group.  

The complaint was filed on behalf of Becky Pepper-Jackson (B.P.J.) and his mother, Heather Jackson, who is raising the boy as if he were a girl.

ADF intervened “in the lawsuit on behalf of Lainey Armistead, a former collegiate athlete who played soccer at West Virginia State University.”

ADF is co-counsel with West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. A federal district judge ruled in favor of the state law, but that sensible ruling was overturned by the U.S Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

So West Virgina appealed to the Supreme Court, which consolidated the case with Idaho’s.

Pepper-Jackson was 11 years old when the suit was filed; now he is 15. His and his mother’s complaint reads:

H.B. 3293 is based on unfounded stereotypes, false scientific claims, and baseless fear and misunderstanding of girls who are transgender, which are insufficient to justify discriminatory treatment under any level of scrutiny.

West Virgina responded to the lawsuit:

Allowing biological males to compete in female sports is unfair to biological females due to males’ inherent physical advantages. … It is thus plain that a public school may lawfully prohibit, consistent with the Constitution, males from participating in women’s sports in order to protect equal opportunity concerns that arise from the physiological differences between the two sexes.

Every time a male-bodied athlete competes in a female sport, girls lose out. Thousands of female athletes have been bumped off winner’s podiums by males masquerading as women. The website shewon.org lists 3,257 female athletes around the world who have lost 4,627 medals, sports records, scholarships or other opportunities to male-bodied athletes.

In addition, girls and women are unwillingly exposed to male bodies in locker rooms and showers; are forced to change in front of male athletes; lose the opportunity for female-only camaraderie; and have their safety threatened.

Please pray for the justices as they consider these cases.

The Daily Citizen will keep you updated about Little v. Hecox and State of West Virginia v. BPJ.

Related articles and resources:

ACLU Lawsuit Challenges Idaho Law Protecting Girl’s and Women’s Sports

Biologically Male Collegiate Athlete Wins Female Runner of the Week Award

Biologically Male Runner Decides to Compete as a Woman in College Cross Country

Collegiate Women Athletes File Motion to Keep Biological Males Out of Women’s Sports in Idaho

Idaho Governor Signs Laws Protecting Women’s Sports and Keeping Birth Certificates Based on Biology – Activists and Media Call this ‘Discriminatory’

Meet Three Heroes Working to Protect Colorado Children

Middle School Girls Who Protested ‘Trans’ Athlete Are Banned From Future Competition

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Cases on Boys in Girls Sports

West Virginia Passes ‘Save Girls Sports’ Act

Yes, Girls Care When Boys Take Their Trophies

Photo: West Virginia State University soccer player Lainey Armistead, courtesy of Alliance Defending Freedom.

Olympics Set to Keep Men Out of Women’s Sports

The International Olympic Committee finally moved to protect women’s sports with a new policy that will prohibit males from competing in women’s events in the Olympic Games.

The Times of London first reported the news, following an IOC meeting in Lausanne, Switzerland.

“The International Olympic Committee is set to announce a ban on transgender women in female competition early next year after a science-based review of evidence about permanent physical advantages of being born male.”

The Times, of course, is mistaken in its terminology.

There are no “transgender women,” only sexually-confused males who use drugs, hormones and surgeries in a misguided attempt to appear like women.

IOC President Kirsty Coventry led the charge to safeguard Olympic female athletes, announcing after her election in March 2025 “that a task force of scientists and international federations would be set up within weeks to come up with a new [transgender and intersex] policy,” The Guardian reported.

Coventry explained that new scientifically-based IOC guidelines are needed to protect women’s sports.

“It was very clear from the members that we have to protect the female category, first and foremost. We have to do that to ensure fairness. And we have to do it with a scientific approach.”

Last week, task force member Dr. Jane Thornton, IOC health, medicine and science department director, gave an initial report to IOC members about male athlete’s physical advantages.

“Sources said the presentation by Thornton, a Canadian former Olympic rower, stated that scientific evidence showed there were physical advantages to being born male that remained with athletes, including those who had taken treatment to reduce testosterone levels,” as the Times reported.

The IOC first adopted guidelines paving the way for men to compete in women’s sports in 2015.

That guidance, from the “IOC Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment and Hyperandrogenism,” stated that a man must have declared his identity as a woman for at least four years and demonstrate testosterone levels below 10 nanomoles per liter for at least 12 months before their first competition.

But simply lowering testosterone doesn’t transform a man into a woman, and lower testosterone doesn’t change male advantages in sports: greater lung capacity and heart size; larger, heavier bones and muscles; and different hip and leg structures. 

New guidelines, released in 2021, passed the buck to international governing bodies that oversee various sports, allowing them to set their own policies on “transgender” athletes.

This led to the debacle in the 2024 Paris Olympics where two males, Algeria’s Imane Khelif and Taiwan’s Lin Yu-Ting won gold medals in women’s boxing. Both were born with rare disorders of sexual development that made them appear female at birth.

But Khelif and Yu-Ting  have XY chromosomes that triggered male puberty, giving them distinct physical advantages over the women they pummeled.

Despite lies from transgender activists and their allies, everyone knows that males and females are physiologically different, with testosterone giving males competitive advantages in sports.

Men’s bodies are different from women’s. This means that men, in general, can out-compete women. That’s why we’ve always had separate sports categories for men and women.

Even if a man believes he’s a woman, he competes in sports with his male body. Women have been injured by men playing their sport, and men who do so steal opportunities, titles, records and victories from women.

The Daily Citizen is glad that the IOC is finally choosing reality over propaganda and false ideology and is moving to protect women’s sports.

It’s about time.

Related Articles and Resources

International Olympic Committee: Men Can Compete as Women, As Long as It’s Fair?

International Olympic Committee’s Revised ‘Transgender Guidelines’ Delayed Until After 2022 Winter Games

IOC President Reaffirms Biological Male Can Compete Against Women at Olympics

Male and Female Biology Matters

Male Boxer Khelif Barred from Female Category After Rule Change

New Visa Policy Blocks Male Athletes from Entering U.S. to Compete in Women’s Sports

Olympic Track and Field Protects Women. Why Won’t Other Sports Do the Same?

Olympic Women’s Boxing Champ is Officially a Man

Transgender Ideology is Inherently Destructive

Transgender Ideology is Inherently Destructive, Part 2

Transgender Resources

Two Men Win Olympic Gold for Battering Women

World Athletics Announces Testing Protocols to Keep Men Out of Women’s Athletics

Image from Shutterstock.