In April 2024, NHS England released the Cass Review, a comprehensive report that recommended a return to the more cautious, historically grounded “watchful waiting” approach. The report prompted the British health system — and several other countries — to begin revising their policies.

Recently, the U.K. Supreme Court ruled (5–0) that sex-based spaces are not discriminatory — a significant decision rooted in British Common Law, which forms the basis of U.S. law as well.

Then in August 2024, the United Nations released a report on violence against women and girls in sports, explicitly calling for the exclusion of biological males from women’s competition. This mirrors the stance of the World Athletics Council, the governing body for international track and field.

To be clear, the current interpretation of Title IX is not simply a “Trump-era reinterpretation.” The original law is only one page long. The word “sex” appears 19 times, gender identity zero.

The final twist: Maine’s attorney general is now invoking “states’ rights” to defend our position — ironically echoing the Democratic arguments of 1860 in defense of the South’s “peculiar institution.”

So now Maine stands in opposition to inherent biological reality, global medical reversals, clear public opinion (based on several recent polls) and a likely defeat at the U.S. Supreme Court — all while spending taxpayer dollars to defend a position that claims fairness in competition is still somehow intact.

Michael Rappaport
Kennebunk