Chris

On any objective level, this statement is completely inadequate to deal with the appalling manner in which you have treated women and girls in football and the invasion of their sport by men. It is difficult to know where to start. 1. You issued the new guidance in this area a matter of weeks ago. You did so despite the fact that you must have known that the decision in the For Women Scotland case in the UK Supreme Court was imminent. 2. This was incompetence at a level that one wouldn’t expect even from the FA. To make such a huge announcement so close to this judgment is an unfathomable decision. 3. Perhaps you were just extraordinarily ignorant. Perhaps, though, you relied upon outside advice. Was that from the same ‘legal experts’ that informed your policy? Did they tell you that the Supreme Court would not make the decision they did? Is this just an example of collective arrogance? 4. How embarrassing it is to have to backtrack so soon after pinning your colours to the ‘inclusion at all costs’ mast. 5. You should also be embarrassed at the nature of that policy in any event. Whilst recognising the unfairness and safety risk to women, you went ahead and continued to allow men to colonise their sport. 6. Your policy claimed to work hand in hand with the Sports Council’s 2021 guidance. However, that guidance made it plain that eligibility criteria based on testosterone suppression would not adequately remove male competitive advantage, yet this is exactly what your criteria was based on. 7. Moreover the limit you imposed of 5 nMol/l is significantly higher than typical female testosterone levels. It is perfectly obvious that you allowed your policy to be influenced by ideological activists promoting male inclusion at the expense of women. 8. The reason you have given for your spectacular U-turn is that there has been a change in the law engendered by the Supreme Court. This is not true and you know it is not true. It has always been the law that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex and your transgender inclusion policy has always been unlawful. 9. Perhaps you have been told that the law has ‘changed’ by those same ‘legal experts’ that advised you in the first place. You should probably treat any advice they give with the utmost caution. Perhaps you should consider taking advice from someone else? 10. Your statement contains not one word of apology to the women you have impacted by this policy and, in particular, not to the two (at least) young women who were disciplined by you merely for asking whether their opponent’s unlawfully had a man on their team. What an astounding omission this is. Where is your contrition? Where is your humility? 11. Instead, you continue to prioritise the feelings of the men who have unlawfully infiltrated the women’s game. What a disgraceful spectacle. Instead of being on your knees grovelling to them, you should be on your knees begging forgiveness from women. 12. There is one other point. When are you going to address the question of unfairness to girls under the age of 18 and bring your policy into line with the position in Scotland? Why do you allow boys from 14 to 18 to play against girls? Their male advantage is already clearly established by that age. We know this because both the Australian and American women’s national teams have been thoroughly trounced by 15/16 year-old schoolboys. Lamine Yamal is just 17. Walcott, Rooney, Bellingham and Sterling were all capped by England as 17 year-olds. How on earth can you justify this policy? When are you going to put women and girls first?