🚨#BreakingNews Lynnwood City council unanimously approves resolution opposing ballot initiatives on parents’ rights and biological boys in female sports The Lynnwood City Council unanimously approved a resolution Monday, Oct. 26, opposing two statewide ballot initiatives set for the November 2026 election, stating concerns over student safety, LGBTQIA2+ protections and equity in public education. The measure, presented by Councilmember Isabel Mata, who publicly identifies as queer, formally opposes Initiative IL26-001, which concerns parental rights in education, and Initiative IL26-638, which addresses eligibility for girls’ sports. The resolution argues that IL26-001 could weaken safeguards for students facing abuse, domestic violence or bullying by discouraging confidential outreach to school staff and potentially exposing LGBTQ+ youth to unsafe home environments. 🟦IL26-001, if passed in November, would re-enact the original 2024 Parents’ Bill of Rights (Initiative 2081), which passed the Legislature with strong bipartisan support—unanimously in the Senate (49-0) and 82-15 in the House—before being substantially altered by 2025 legislation. The measure would “reestablish parents’ right to be notified before their child receives medical or mental health services, restore faster access to textbooks, classroom materials, and school records, and reinforce parents’ ability to stay informed about their child’s education and well-being.” It would return the records-request deadline to 10 business days (from the current 45), restore notification requirements, and provide opt-out options for certain instruction. 🟦 The Lynnwood City Council's resolution also opposed IL26-638, which would exclude biological boys and young men from competing in female sports. The resolution took issue with the requirement of verification of biological sex from a healthcare provider to compete in designated girls’ sports. Under current state law and Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) rules, students typically need a routine sports physical or clearance to participate in interscholastic athletics. That process does not include a required healthcare-provider verification of “biological sex” based on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or endogenous testosterone levels. The council also said the requirement conflicts with the city’s DEI values of being a welcoming city for all. Supporters of IL26-638 describe the measure as a way to “protect fairness in girls’ sports” and “preserve fair competition, safety, and equal athletic opportunity for girls.” They argue that biological sex differences create performance advantages that undermine the purpose of female-only categories established under Title IX. Major international sports governing bodies, including the International Olympic Committee (ICC), have adopted policies that exclude biological males from the female category on grounds of fairness and safety. In March 2026, the IOC approved a new Policy on the Protection of the Female (Women’s) Category in Olympic Sport. It limits eligibility for any female-category event at the Olympic Games or other IOC events (effective for the LA28 Games onward) to biological females, determined by a one-time SRY gene screening. Athletes with an SRY-positive result—including most transgender women and many athletes with differences of sex development—are ineligible for the female category (with rare exceptions such as complete androgen insensitivity syndrome). Other associations taking similar steps excluding biological males from female sporting competitions are World Athletics, World Aquatics, NCAA, and World Rugby. Major sports governing bodies, overall, have not imposed similar bans on transgender men (people assigned female at birth who identify as male) competing in male/men’s categories. The policy focus has been almost entirely on the female category stating that the performance and safety concerns that drive female-category restrictions do not apply symmetrically when biological females (even those on testosterone) compete in open or male categories.

Washington Democrats used to be reasonable like former governor Gary Locke, especially with spending. Now, they are completely out of control. Let’s strike down their unconstitutional income tax by rejecting Bob’s hand-picked judges and voting YES on I-645.

Voters in Colorado and Washington will decide whether to ban transgender women and girls from competing in female sports, marking the first time such restrictions have been put directly on state ballots. fox13seattle.com/news/transg…

A “F*** Trump” scarf gets a pass. An @xx_xyathletics shirt gets you shown the door. These are your standards, @ThornsFC?

What the Actual??? WA STATE CORRUPTION WARNING TLDR Who do you think seems more corrupt? 1) The public unions trying to buy Washington's Supreme Court races? Or 2) The PDC, which suddenly changed the rules 12 days before the election so those unions can spend even more? What happened: Oct 13: the 21-day late-money cap kicked in. Max $7,500 per donor to PACs. Oct 22: the PDC suspended it. By "interpretive statement." No lawsuit. No ruling. What it means: In this final stretch, when voters are filling out ballots, the PDC changed the donation rules so there's no limit on what one donor can give a PAC. Checks of any size, right up to Election Day. Who benefits: The unions. SEIU, WEA and WFSE have already given $450K directly to the "Beware the Attack on Our Courts" PAC. In addition SEIU, WEA and WFSE are also the largest donors to New Direction PAC, which has donated an additional $298K to the supreme court judicial “Beware” PAC Until Oct 22, each of them could only give the court PAC up to $7,500 more before the election. Now they can give $500K. Or $5M. No Limits Where does their money come from? $165M+ a year flowing into SEIU, WEA and WFSE. Tax-exempt- taken from their members—each year. 5 Supreme Court seats on the ballot. A majority of the court. How much of the Supreme Court does $165M buy? The PDC just gave the public unions the green light to find out. Want judges not bankrolled by the public unions? Vote. Pos 1: Scott Edwards Pos 3: David Stevens Pos 4: Sean O'Donnell Pos 5: Dave Larson Pos 7: Todd Bloom