Editor’s note: The phrase “taxpayers are be on the hook” and the spelling of “requireing” are as Protect Kids Colorado’s website reads.
On Nov. 3, Colorado voters will decide on two ballot measures that would impact transgender youth’s ability to participate on sports teams that align with their gender identity or access gender-affirming care. Propositions 134 and 135 are both citizen-initiated ballot measures that would require a simple majority vote to pass.
Protect Kids Colorado, a coalition whose mission is to “protect kids from becoming victims of a dangerous and false ideology,” according to its website, brought both measures to the ballot. PKC also brought forward Proposition 133, which focuses on prison sentences for individuals convicted of human trafficking a minor.
As of the time of publishing, PKC has not responded to The Collegian’s request for comment on the measures.
Proposition 134
If passed, this measure would mandate all school-affiliated sports teams on both the K-12 and collegiate levels be specifically designated as male, female or coeducational. The text of the measure defines “male” and “female” in terms of which type of sex cell — sperm or ova — an individual’s reproductive system is organized around producing at the time of birth.
Prop 134 would require schools to implement policies that prevent individuals assigned male at birth from playing on female-designated teams, while individuals assigned female at birth would be permitted to play on male-designated teams only when there is no female-designated team available. The measure also explicitly prohibits a “government entity, licensing or accrediting organization or athletic association” from initiating investigations against schools for complying with the law and requires the commissioner of education to take remedial action against noncompliant schools.
PKC argues individuals assigned male at birth playing on female-designated sports teams are a threat to the safety of other players and the fairness of sports and that the measure would promote greater equality in athletic success and scholarships.
“Bigger, stronger biological males are invading girls’ sports in Colorado, taking away our girls’ dignity, safety and opportunity,” the organization’s website reads. “Our ballot measure ensures girls’ sports are protected, requiring sports leagues and teams be specifically designated male, female or coed.”
Opponents of the bill have said the measure targets a small group of at-risk individuals, preventing transgender athletes from participating in sports on a team that aligns with their gender identity, which could exclude transgender children from sports altogether — an activity that has been proven to have a positive effect on self-esteem and happiness.
They also argue that since the measure doesn’t specify how schools should verify a student’s assigned sex at birth, the burden of the decision falls to individual schools.
Michal Duffy is the director of advocacy and engagement at Rocky Mountain Equality, an LGBTQIA+ nonprofit behind the Hands Off Colorado campaign. They said the ambiguity around the verification process could put students in physical and psychological danger.
“It could be a letter from a doctor, (or) it could be more invasive,” Duffy said. “And we know that putting youth through that is going to be a very difficult experience for them and also potentially opens them up to misconduct.”
Proposition 135
If passed, Prop 135 would prohibit surgeries that are deemed to have the goal of “altering biological sex characteristics” from being performed on those under the age of 18. It would also bar private health insurance companies, Medicaid or other programs that receive state or federal funding from paying for the prohibited procedures.
While the measure primarily prohibits gender-affirming surgeries, the measure may also limit healthcare providers’ ability to perform surgeries on “nontransgender minors, if the treatment is interpreted as being in response to the minor’s sex or gender perception,” according to the legislative council draft.
Prop 135 excludes male circumcision and “treatment for persons born with a medically verifiable disorder of sex development” or for acquired abnormalities, according to the text of the measure. Since a procedure’s intent determines whether or not it’s permitted under the measure, any surgery may be denied if it’s perceived as a response to a child’s gender identity.
PKC argues in the measure’s legislative declaration that minors lack the maturity to make decisions about these procedures. The coalition also argues taxpayers are being impacted by current guidelines.
“Taxpayers are be on the hook for these treatments,” PKC’s website reads. “Colorado Medicaid has published coverage criteria for sex-change procedures for all ages, while HB25-1309 codified requireing plans to cover all sex-change procedures for all ages in all state-regulated health plans.”
Opponents of the proposition argue the government should not be involved in personal and vulnerable healthcare decisions and that while the measure only explicitly prohibits gender-affirming surgeries, its vague language could cause other types of healthcare to be restricted as well.
Duffy said Prop 135 is an overreach of the government’s power that implies decisions about gender-affirming surgeries are made impulsively and at a large scale. A Harvard study published in 2024 that analyzed insurance data found that in 2019, 2.1 per 100,000 minors aged 15-17 with a gender-dysphoria diagnosis received a gender-affirming surgery; for minors aged 13-14, the rate reduced to 0.1 per 100,000. The study found zero surgeries were performed on minors aged 12 and younger in the sample.
“It’s very thoughtful … and slow,” Duffy said. “There’s no rushing into any decisions. And so I think that this proposition is fear mongering in a way that is just not in line with reality and not appropriate (to) how healthcare decisions are made for anything else.”
Reach Chloe Bjork at news@collegian.com or on social media @RMCollegian.
