US voters approve bans on transgender athletes across four states

Despite the electoral success of Democrats last week, ballot measures barring transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams were approved in four US states.

The measures passed in Arizona, Nebraska, Washington, and Colorado demonstrated that transgender rights face significant obstacles even in traditionally Democratic strongholds.

Following these ballot defeats, civil society organisations advocating for transgender athletes are preparing the ground for future campaigns by planning fresh public information initiatives.

Speaking to The Hill newspaper, Shelby Chestnut, executive director of the Transgender Law Center, said: “I certainly do not think the fight for trans kids in sports is over, but I do believe this election clearly showed that people still have a long way to go to understand what it means to support trans rights, including the right to participate in sports.”

The four statewide approved measures introduced new restrictions or expanded existing curbs on transgender athletes at primary, secondary, and collegiate levels.

Opinion polls also show that the public continues to broadly support such bans.

According to April data from the Siena College Research Institute, 59% of respondents opposed transgender athletes competing on high school teams that align with their gender identity.

In the same poll, 58% of respondents opposed transgender athletes competing on women’s teams at the collegiate level.

In Siena College’s 2025 data, the share of respondents opposing transgender athletes competing on their preferred teams stood at 65% across both high school and collegiate levels.

The narrow margins of victory for the measures in certain states provided a source of hope for transgender rights advocates.

The ballot measure in Colorado passed with 52% support.

Advocates emphasised that although the outcome was disappointing, the close result demonstrated meaningful progress in shifting public opinion.

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, said: “Under the pressure of these measures being put to a public vote in the states, we managed to transform public opinion quite significantly in a relatively short period of time.”

Placing the issue directly before voters represented a new tactic for groups seeking to restrict transgender athletes.

Previously, 27 US states had passed laws against transgender athletes, while two states had taken similar steps through administrative regulations.

The strategy of taking the issue directly to the ballot proved successful for proponents of the restrictions.

Beth Parlato, legal counsel for the Independent Women’s Forum, said: “I think this is ingenious, and a brilliant way to protect girls’ sports.”

Noting her hope that the strategy will be used in more states, Parlato stated that their ultimate goal is the passage of federal legislation on the matter.

Activists defending transgender athletes believe they can win this fight over time.

While less than 1% of athletes in the US are estimated to be transgender, advocates argue that the issue should be addressed at the local level.

Minter noted that the matter is not an irreconcilable dilemma, stating:

“When the public gets the opportunity to understand that this is not an all-or-nothing issue, that reasonable rules can be established depending on the child’s age, the sport, and the level of competition, they are supportive; because people generally do not want to exclude anyone. Another factor people are beginning to realize, and which led to such close votes, is seeing that the real impact of these policies is subjecting all girls to scrutiny, potentially including invasive examinations or testing that many would find objectionable.”

Brian K. Bond, chief executive of the LGBTQ rights organisation PFLAG, said engaging with communities and addressing challenging topics is essential to defending transgender people.

“That means moving beyond our familiar circles and stepping outside the echo chambers created by our algorithms,” Bond said.

Rights advocates plan to challenge the restrictions in court and increase pressure on elected officials.

Outlining their strategy, Chestnut said:

“I know some groups are pointing to litigation, and there are administrative avenues being pursued as well. What is clear for us is holding newly elected members of Congress accountable, whether at the federal or local level, to ensure their policies are inclusive of transgender people.”

The ballot results reminded advocates of the measures enacted in the early 2000s to restrict same-sex marriage.

Pointing to those historical parallels, Bond said: “In the 1990s and 2000s, ballot measures were one of the primary tools used to divide communities over the rights of LGBTQ+ people. But ballot outcomes, including losses, only capture a snapshot in time; they are not a final verdict on the future of rights or what can be achieved. We believe that people ultimately value fairness and respect the diversity that strengthens our communities.”