According to a comparison reported by OutKick, the same finishing time would have placed the runner last among 159 participants in the boys’ elite event, approximately 30 seconds behind the next competitor.
For parents already concerned about Washington’s athletic eligibility rules, the results added fuel to an increasingly heated dispute.
And with a proposed statewide ballot measure approaching, the controversy could soon extend far beyond the cross-country course.
Parents Challenge Washington’s Transgender Athlete Policy
Washington has permitted transgender students to participate in school athletics consistent with their gender identity for years.
The Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) maintains policies intended to ensure transgender students can participate in school sports without discrimination.
However, critics argue that allowing athletes who experienced male puberty to compete in female divisions can create competitive disadvantages for girls.
That disagreement was on full display at Saturday’s competition.
Several parents expressed frustration over the Camas athlete’s participation, arguing that every roster position and competitive opportunity matters, regardless of where an athlete finishes.
“We have daughters, and it’s robbing them of an opportunity to compete,” said one mother who requested anonymity.
Another parent emphasized that the controversy was not limited to athletes competing for championships.
“Whether they finish first, 40th, or 90th, they’re still taking the spot of a girl,” said another parent.
The parents’ concerns reflect a broader argument among opponents of Washington’s current policy: Female athletic categories exist to preserve meaningful competitive opportunities, not simply to recognize individual identity.
Supporters of transgender inclusion, meanwhile, maintain that students should be able to participate in athletics consistent with their gender identity and that eligibility rules should avoid unnecessary exclusion.
Camas Coaches Decline to Address Growing Controversy
As questions mounted at the competition, Camas coaching staff reportedly declined to discuss the athlete’s participation with reporters.
OutKick journalist Matt Calkins approached school personnel seeking comment.
One assistant coach reportedly responded with a pointed message.
“Nobody wants to talk to you. I’m trying to be nice.”
The exchange did little to satisfy parents seeking an explanation of the school’s approach.
One father displayed an XX-XY shirt beneath his hoodie, while another criticized the situation as “stupid” and invoked the federal law historically associated with expanding athletic opportunities for female students.
“Title IX was designed to protect women,” the father said.
Even some parents who identified as politically liberal expressed reservations about the policy.
A parent from Lake Stevens described himself as “about as liberal as it gets,” but said athletic competition required consistent standards.
“In competitions? It’s like stock car racing,” he said. “It’s gotta be even, and it’s gotta be fair.”
Those comments suggest that disagreements over transgender participation in school athletics do not necessarily follow traditional partisan divisions.
Student Athletes Take Their Protest to the Starting Line
The dispute has also prompted students themselves to speak publicly.
Skyview High School runners Charlie Garrett and Sierra Retzlaff attended Saturday’s meet with “Keep women in women’s sports” written on their bodies.
Their demonstration followed an earlier protest in which the two athletes reportedly stepped away from a race immediately after the starting signal.
The action was intended to draw attention to eligibility rules they believe undermine fairness in girls’ competitions.
Retzlaff explained why she considered public opposition necessary.
“If we don’t speak out, no one else will,” Retzlaff told OutKick. “If we start something, maybe others will have the courage to join.”
According to the report, the Camas athlete’s mother recorded Garrett during the earlier demonstration.
The dispute highlights the increasingly personal nature of a policy disagreement involving student athletes, their families, school administrators, and statewide officials.
Washington Education Officials Face Questions Over Existing Rules
Washington’s athletic policies have remained controversial despite efforts to revise them.
The WIAA has reportedly failed on two occasions to secure sufficient membership support for proposed eligibility changes.
Association officials have also raised concerns about whether restrictions based on biological sex would conflict with Washington state law.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal has previously rejected simplified descriptions of biological sex.
“It is quite simply inaccurate to say, biologically, that there are only boys and there are only girls.”
His comments have attracted criticism from conservatives who argue that distinctions based on biological sex remain essential in competitive athletics.
The broader legal debate has intensified as states across the country pursue different approaches to transgender participation in school sports.
Supporters of sex-based eligibility restrictions say their objective is to preserve female athletic opportunities. Opponents contend that broad exclusions can discriminate against transgender students and overlook individual circumstances.
November Ballot Measure Could Reshape Girls’ Athletics
Washington voters are now approaching a potentially consequential decision.
Initiative 638, described by supporters as a measure to restrict participation in girls’ K–12 sports based on biological sex, is scheduled for the November 3 ballot.
The proposal would also establish sex-verification requirements through the standard school sports physical process.
Supporters argue that the measure would create consistent eligibility standards across Washington schools.
Polling attributed to the political organization Let’s Go Washington indicates 56% support for the initiative, although that figure represents the organization’s reported survey results rather than an independently established election outcome.
For families who oppose the current WIAA rules, the proposal offers an opportunity to seek changes through the ballot box.
For those who favor transgender inclusion, the initiative raises concerns about student privacy, discrimination, and access to extracurricular activities.
The debate is particularly significant in a state that supported Kamala Harris by a substantial margin in the 2024 presidential election.
Yet the parents interviewed at Saturday’s cross-country meet demonstrated that objections to transgender participation in girls’ athletics can extend beyond reliably Republican constituencies.
The Camas athlete’s performance has become another flashpoint in a dispute that shows little sign of disappearing.
And as Washington approaches Election Day, the central question facing voters is whether the state’s existing approach strikes the right balance between inclusion and competitive fairness.
For the parents and student athletes demanding change, that question has moved from school board meetings and athletic association debates directly onto the November ballot.
