Full Breakdown
Transgender Sports Bans Head to the Ballot in Colorado and Washington
By Drooid · · How we work
Background & Context
Across the United States, 27 states have enacted bans that prevent transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams. Historically, Democratic-led states such as Colorado and Washington have rejected similar measures, but activists are now seeking to place bans directly on the 2026 ballot, the first time voters will decide the issue. The initiatives are promoted as a way to “protect women and girls” and to keep “separate spaces” for female athletes.
Core Measures
- Colorado: The ballot proposal would bar transgender girls from all school-sport competitions, including college athletics, and would require verification of a student’s “biological sex” based on reproductive anatomy, genetics, or endogenous testosterone levels.
- Washington (Initiative 638): Mirrors Colorado’s language, also mandating health-provider verification of sex using the same criteria. The measure would apply to public and private school teams.
Supporters describe the verification process as a simple administrative step; opponents warn it could force invasive medical examinations.
Data & Statistics
- A Quinnipiac University poll finds roughly seven-in-ten registered voters believe transgender women and girls should not be allowed on female teams; about one-quarter think they should.
- A Let’s Go Washington poll reports 56 % support for the Washington initiative, though methodology and margin of error were not disclosed.
- The Washington Interscholastic Activities Association counts about 101,000 girls in its sports programs and has identified 16 transgender athletes in the state.
- Campaign fundraising shows a stark disparity: Colorado opponents have raised nearly $4 million, more than 20 times the amount raised by proponents; in Washington, proponents have raised over $7.8 million, roughly twice the opposition’s total.
Official Statements & Responses
Let’s Go Washington frames the verification step as “as simple as a checkbox,” arguing that existing medical histories are sufficient. Hallie Herzberg says providers can rely on long-term patient records rather than new examinations. Dr. Libby Loft argues the language would compel families to pay for “unnecessary medical tests” to identify an estimated five to ten transgender girls in Washington. Nadine Bridges contends that protecting “kids” while “discriminating against kids” is contradictory.
Criticism & Opposition
Medical professionals, including pediatric nurse Kelsey Gellner and Dr. Loft, warn the verification requirement could create barriers for cisgender girls and constitute an “unnecessary exam” that jeopardizes safety. Opponents also note the lack of reliable data on the number of transgender athletes, as both states have no official counts.
On-the-Ground Reports
Ahnaleigh Wilson recounts winning every 1,600-meter race in seventh and eighth grade until she placed second to a transgender athlete, prompting her to label the outcome “not right and not fair.”
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Athlete Counts: Washington officials estimate 16 transgender participants; Colorado has no official figure.
- Polling: The Quinnipiac poll provides a clear national split, but state-level polling for Colorado’s measure is absent.
- Funding Transparency: Let’s Go Washington’s poll methodology was not disclosed, limiting assessment of its 56 % support claim.
What’s Next
Voters will encounter the measures on the 2026 ballot, deciding whether to codify bans on transgender girls in school sports in Colorado and Washington. The outcome will shape future state-level approaches to gender-affirming policies in athletics.