Pramila Jayapal

Dave & Molly Monday - Friday 8am to 10am PT

Rep. Pramila Jayapal is taking an unusual approach in fighting an initiative on Tuesday’s Washington state ballot that would bar students who were born male from competing in girls’ sports.

In an Instagram video, Jayapal invokes Benjamin Franklin’s warning about trading liberty for safety to argue against the measure. Supporters say the ballot measure is needed to protect girls from unfair competition and possible physical harm from biological boys who identify as girls or transgender playing in girls’ sports.

But Jayapal, a former chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, says the issue is all about personal freedom from big government.

“Benjamin Franklin once famously cautioned us that those who would give up essential freedoms to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,” Jayapal states.

Franklin’s original context is quite different than the way the quote is usually used today. Franklin wasn’t defending individual rights against government power. He was defending a legislature’s authority to tax for the common defense against a family trying to buy its way out of taxation.

Still, Jayapal’s statement reflects the roundabout approach behind transgender advocates’ efforts to defeat several state ballot measures aimed at barring biological boys from girls’ sports. The messaging is that the measures are too invasive because they would require a health care provider to verify the sex of any student who wants to play on a girls’ team.

It’s an effort to turn an argument about government overreach usually made by conservatives against them.

The Washington state initiative, which would reverse a 2007 law allowing children to play on teams matching their gender identity, is “cloaked under the auspices of making school sports equitable for our girls,” Jayapal says in the video.

“But please don’t be fooled,” she warns. “It’s actually about attacking an already vulnerable and very tiny group of trans kids, and equally important, it ends up subjecting all of our kids to invasive sex inspections just to play school sports.”

Jayapal and other opponents say the measure would require doctors’ exams and costly hormone testing for all students who want to play sports.

Supporters counter that such arguments are hyperbole. Most high school sports already require a physical to show that students are able to participate, they assert. They say doctors would simply check a box for a student’s biological sex, without performing any additional exam or testing hormones.

“They’re going to have the standardized form, and when you look at those forms, as the student’s physician is collection information — height, weight, and sex are among the things they are already collecting,” Matt Sharp, vice president of public policy for Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative civil rights group, told RealClearPolitics. “So, it is a very simple, straightforward way that’s building on the process already in place to clear students to participate in sports.”

Jayapal is no stranger to the debate. She has reintroduced a federal Transgender Bill of Rights three times. Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson and Sen. Patty Murray have joined Jayapal in calling the measure “invasive.” And fellow Washington Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, co-chair of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition who represents a swing district, is using the same talking points even though she has backed Republican bills restricting gender-affirming care for minors.

Gluesenkamp Perez recently told Oregon Public Broadcasting that while she believes “it isn’t fair for boys to compete in girls’ sports,” she cannot support “a rule that forces girls to prove their sex to the state every year just to play sports.”

Despite strong Democratic opposition to the ballot measures in blue states, it’s difficult to predict how the measures will fare on Tuesday. While Democrats have successfully blocked GOP efforts to pass the bans in blue states, it may be more difficult when the public directly weigh in on Tuesday.

A Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics poll published Oct. 6. found that 63% of Americans support laws requiring athletes to compete on teams matching their sex assigned at birth rather than their current gender identity. Support crossed party lines to some degree: Just under half of Democrats in the poll favored such bans, while almost a third opposed them.

Still, a Sept. 19 YouGov poll showed more mixed results. The survey asked how the issue affects voting, with 78% of Republicans saying they’d be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports banning trans athletes from girls’ and women’s sports, compared with 46% of independents and 19% of Democrats saying the same. On the other side, 37% of Democrats said they’d be more likely to back a candidate who opposes such bans.

The Trump campaign’s 2024 ad “Kamala Harris is for they/them, President Trump is for you” was incredibly effective, and top Trump strategists credit it with winning over persuadable voters they badly needed. Republicans are again spending millions on such ads this fall, and Democrats have often been divided over how to respond.

Conservative groups for years have tried in vain to push bans on transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sport through blue-state legislatures. Now they are taking the issue directly to the voters. Measures on transgender athletes are on the ballot for the first time in Washington, Colorado, Arizona, and Nebraska.

Democratic strategists are hoping a well-worn argument similar to the one they’ve made for decades about abortion rights will resonate with independent voters, not just those supporting the LGBTQ+ community.

“What this is about fundamentally is ‘Who do you want to make decisions around health care for your family? Do you want politicians or the government to make those decisions, or do you think families and doctors should be the ones who are making those calls?’” Adrienne Kimmell, a strategist who advises on messaging about transgender issues, told MS NOW.

No Hate in Washington State, the leading group opposing the measure, cut an ad focused on the girls who play sports and how the sex-verification requirement could impact them. The ad makes only a passing reference to transgender children, instead showing several nervous girls standing in a line on a basketball court.

“It’s terrifying,” the ad argues. “Girls are required to undergo invasive sex verification just to play sports, but that’s what Initiative 638 would mean to enforce a blanket ban on a few transgender girls.”

“Invasive sex inspections for girls at any level, even elementary school, and with 638, birth certificates won’t count,” it continues. “There’s no clear appeal process for parents to protect their daughters.”

The Vote No on 638 effort is backed by Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, the Washington State Nurses Association, and the Seattle Times, according to a disclaimer at the end of the ad.

Democrats in other states have made similar arguments about government intervention in what they consider a hyper-local issue. In Arizona, voters will consider a ballot measure requiring schools and athletic associations to bar transgender people from sports teams and locker rooms that match their gender identity. Democratic House candidate JoAnna Mendoza has countered that parents, coaches, and athletic organizations should decide eligibility in youth sports.

“As a mom, I know that parents just want to protect their kids – on the playing fields and across Arizona,” Mendoza told the American Journal News. “Rules about keeping sports fair and safe for young people should be made by the people who know the most – parents, coaches, and sports associations – not politicians.”

Colorado’s Proposition 134 would set a single statewide rule for school sports teams from kindergarten through college, changing current law that currently allows all schools to set their own policies. A group of