Oh but it’s so complex, you outsiders can’t possibly understand it because of the very complex complexity of it. The BBC reports how complex it is:

A protest over the Football Association’s transgender inclusion policy took place outside Wembley before England men’s match against the Republic of Ireland.

It was sparked by the banning of a teenage girl over remarks she made to a transgender opponent in a grassroots match.

So what is the background to what the FA calls “a complex case”?

Earlier this month, a 17-year-old female footballer was banned for discrimination after she was found to have repeatedly asked a transgender opponent during a match “are you a man?”.

But what does “a transgender opponent” mean? As always, the Beeb carefully obscures the issue by saying “transgender opponent” as opposed to “male opponent.” Transgenderism carries its own defense mechanism with it this way, because the male advantage is always kept under the concealing garments.

The BBC has not seen the FA’s ruling, but it has been claimed, external that the 17-year-old – who reportedly has suspected autism – had denied being transphobic, had concerns about her safety and had sought guidance from the referee over the eligibility of her trans opponent.

Does it all over again. Why did she have concerns over her safety? Oh we can’t tell you that…all we can tell you is that she sought guidance over the eligibility of her trans opponent.

The teenager, who has not been named because of her age, was banned by the panel for six matches, four of which were suspended. The FA has said it has also received notice of an intention to appeal.

The teenage girl was punished for not wanting to compete against a boy in a girls’ match.

Kick It Out, who[m] the BBC has approached for comment, has an equality policy, external through which it aims to ensure “that fans, players, staff and others are treated fairly and with respect”.

“Kick It Out is continually committed to promoting inclusion and to confronting and eliminating discrimination,” the group’s policy states.

But of course you can’t do both of those. You have to pick one. If you’re promoting “inclusion” of men in women’s sports you can’t also ensure that fans, players, staff and others are treated fairly and with respect. Once men are in women’s sports, the women in the sports are not being treated fairly or with respect. They are being insulted, and they are being put at risk. In no way are they being treated fairly or with respect.

Finally, halfway through the long article, the Beeb manages to tell the truth at last.

The case has highlighted the FA’s policy of allowing players who are biologically male, but identify as female aged 16 or older, to play in the women’s game.

Exactly so.

The policy, of course, is idiotic and an insult to women.

In its rules, the FA says it has “undergone a review of its policy on transgender players in line with its commitment to promote Football for Everyone. It is the FA’s firm view that gender identity should not be a barrier to participation in football which is governed by the FA.”

However, it also recognises: “Football is a gender-affected sport of a competitive nature where the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex could put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in a football match.

“English law provides that because of this, separate sporting competitions can be organised for men and women. The general position is that the participation of trans people in competitive sports cannot be restricted unless it is strictly necessary to pursue a legitimate aim, namely securing fair competition and safety of other competitors.”

And who decides when it is strictly necessary to secure fair competition and safety for girls and women? Not the girls and women. What business is it of theirs?