Gender Justice League Action is advancing three priority bills for the 2027 Washington State legislative session. Together, these proposals represent the next generation of civil rights infrastructure for Two-Spirit, transgender, nonbinary, and gender-diverse communities — and for all Washingtonians who believe that civil rights must be defended, not just preserved.
Civil Rights Protection Order Act
New Chapter in Title 7 RCW · Civil Remedy
The Problem
Washington State has experienced a significant increase in reported hate crimes and bias incidents. FBI data show Washington reported 623 hate crime incidents in 2023 — including 303 targeting race/ethnicity/ancestry, 168 targeting sexual orientation, 93 targeting religion, and 36 targeting gender identity. Crimes against persons comprised 64.6% of cases.
Communities and service providers — including healthcare facilities, domestic violence shelters, and advocacy organizations — have been targeted with threats, intimidation, doxxing, and interference. Existing criminal law addresses some of these harms after the fact, but there is no swift civil remedy available to individuals and organizations to stop ongoing bias-motivated threats and interference before they escalate to violence.
What the Bill Does
The Civil Rights Protection Order Act creates a new Civil Rights Protection Order (CRPO) process modeled on Washington's existing protection order framework (RCW 7.105) and informed by Maine's Civil Rights Act. The CRPO provides a fast, enforceable civil remedy against bias-motivated threats, intimidation, and interference with civil rights.
Who can file: The Attorney General, county prosecutors, city attorneys, individuals whose civil rights have been interfered with, and organizations whose staff, clients, or services have been targeted.
Who is protected:
- Individuals in protected classes under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (RCW 49.60)
- Providers and patients seeking protected healthcare services under the Shield Law (RCW 7.115.010)
- Providers and clients of domestic violence, sexual assault, mental health, and crime victim services
What "civil rights interference" covers: Any act intended to interfere — by threats, harassment, stalking, cyberstalking, intimidation, coercion, or violence — with the exercise of rights secured by federal or state law by any person in a protected class, or with the provision of or access to protected healthcare or social services.
Relief Available
- No-contact and stay-away orders for people, facilities, events, and service sites, with buffer/safety zones for clinics, shelters, and houses of worship
- Anti-doxxing provisions — takedown and non-republishing orders for personal identifying information published with intent to threaten, intimidate, or harass
- Online harassment restraints and removal of materials used to intimidate
- Civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation in AG/prosecutor actions
- Damages and fees — costs and reasonable attorney's fees to prevailing petitioners, plus up to $1,000 for property loss or damage
- Address confidentiality — petitioners granted a CRPO are eligible for the state's Address Confidentiality Program (RCW 40.24)
How It Works
The CRPO uses the same procedures as existing civil protection orders under RCW 7.105: standardized petition, temporary ex parte orders available for immediate protection, service of process, and a full hearing within 14 days unless continued for good cause. Cases are filed in Superior or District Court.
Willful violation of a CRPO by a person 18 or older is a gross misdemeanor. Violations are also punishable as contempt of court.
Alignment with Other States
The CRPO draws on best practices from multiple state models:
- Maine — AG-led civil rights injunctions with civil penalties and coordinated law enforcement referrals
- Massachusetts & California — Strong private/AG standing and broad injunction authority against threats, intimidation, or coercion
- Illinois & New York — AG authority to seek injunctions in bias-motivated cases; robust private actions
- Oregon — Private civil injunctions and damages for bias intimidation
The Act preserves all constitutional protections for lawful speech and assembly, supplements rather than replaces criminal law, and maintains regulator and law enforcement access to necessary information.
WLAD Modernization Act
Amending RCW 49.60 · Anti-Discrimination
The Problem
The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) currently defines "sexual orientation" to include gender identity and gender expression. While all three characteristics deserve protection, they are distinct — and combining them under a single definition creates ambiguity in enforcement, limits the clarity of legal protections, and fails to reflect the distinct nature of the discrimination that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-diverse people face.
Additionally, Two-Spirit, transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse people continue to face persistent discrimination through intentional, repeated misgendering and deadnaming — practices that, when carried out in employment, housing, education, or public accommodations, interfere with equal access and cause tangible harm. Washington law does not currently address these specific forms of discrimination.
What the Bill Does
The WLAD Modernization Act makes two core changes:
1. Separate enumeration. The Act amends RCW 49.60.040 to define sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression as three distinct protected categories, each with its own clear definition:
- Sexual orientation — An individual's actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or asexuality
- Gender identity — An individual's internal sense of their own gender, which may be the same or different from sex assigned at birth
- Gender expression — An individual's gender-related appearance, mannerisms, speech, dress, or other characteristics
2. Prohibition on deadnaming and misgendering. The Act amends RCW 49.60.215 to make it an unfair practice for any covered person or entity to intentionally and repeatedly:
- Refuse to use a person's chosen name after being informed of it
- Engage in deadnaming — intentionally and repeatedly using a person's former legal name after being informed of the person's chosen name
- Engage in misgendering — intentionally and repeatedly using incorrect pronouns or forms of address after being informed of the correct ones
The prohibition applies when such conduct has the purpose or effect of denying the person full enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, or accommodations — in employment, housing, education, or public accommodations.
Key Definitions
The Act introduces clear definitions for terms that have not previously appeared in Washington statute:
- "Chosen name" — the first, middle, or last name by which an individual chooses to be known, regardless of whether a court order or other official process has been used to change the name
- "Deadnaming" — intentionally and repeatedly using a person's former legal name after being informed of the person's chosen name
- "Misgendering" — intentionally and repeatedly using incorrect pronouns or forms of address that are inconsistent with a person's gender identity after being informed of the correct ones
Why It Matters
The right to be addressed by one's chosen name, and to have that name respected in official and interpersonal interactions, is fundamental to the dignity and equal treatment of all people. Intentional, repeated deadnaming and misgendering in professional and public settings are not matters of personal preference — they are forms of discrimination that interfere with equal access and cause documented harm to mental health, workplace participation, and public safety.
Washington Gender Recognition Act
New Chapter · Identity Documents & Legal Recognition
The Problem
Washington State currently provides an administrative process to change the sex designation on a birth certificate, but there is no court-based process available for those who want or need one. This matters because many states require a judicial order — not an administrative change — to amend a birth certificate or other identity documents. Without such an order, Washington residents born in those states may be unable to update critical documents, leaving them with identification that does not match their gender identity.
The gap creates real consequences: difficulties at TSA checkpoints, barriers to employment, vulnerability to outing and discrimination, and inability to access services that require matching identification.
What the Bill Does
The Washington Gender Recognition Act creates a voluntary judicial process for individuals to obtain a court order affirming their gender identity. The process is designed to provide legal clarity, protect privacy, and facilitate document updates within Washington, federally, and in other states through the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Key provisions:
- Voluntary petition in superior court — available to anyone who wants or needs a judicial order affirming their gender identity
- Multiple forms of evidence accepted — self-attestation, sworn statements from healthcare providers, and sworn statements from family members or next of kin
- No medical requirements — the Act explicitly prohibits requiring medical treatment or surgery as a condition for obtaining a Gender Recognition Order
- Available to adults, minors (through a parent or guardian), and posthumous petitions by next of kin
- Privacy protections — court records are sealed by default
- Interstate recognition — orders are designed to be recognized under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, enabling document changes in states that require judicial orders
- Agency compliance — state agencies are required to honor a Gender Recognition Order for amending state-issued identification and vital records
Relationship to Existing Process
The Gender Recognition Act complements, but does not replace, Washington's existing administrative process for updating gender markers. The administrative process remains available and unchanged. The judicial process creates an additional pathway for those who need a court order — particularly for interstate document changes that cannot be accomplished through Washington's administrative process alone.
Comparative Context
California and several other states already have accessible court processes for gender recognition. California's model — which allows self-attestation and does not require medical interventions — serves as the primary reference for this Act. In contrast, some states impose restrictive or medicalized requirements for legal gender recognition, and others deny administrative changes entirely without a court order. Washington's addition of a court-based process ensures its residents have the documentation needed to navigate differing state requirements.
Take Action
These bills represent the next step in Washington's civil rights leadership. To support this legislative agenda:
- Contact your state legislators and ask them to sponsor or co-sponsor these bills
- Sign the pledge at gjlaction.org/take-action
- Attend Trans Advocacy Day at the Capitol to meet directly with legislators
- Donate to support our legislative advocacy at gjlaction.org/donate
Gender Justice League Action is a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. This legislative summary is provided for educational and advocacy purposes. For press inquiries: [email protected]