Somebody so oblivious
Oliver Brown in the Telegraph:
Lisa Nandy should surely have taken the hint when, having worn a “protect the dolls” T-shirt on a transgender rights march in August, she found herself roundly eviscerated.
Dolls, a slang term from the 1980s for men trying to pass themselves off as women, had long been viewed as misogynistic, a description that succeeded only in objectifying femininity. Except now the Culture Secretary has gone a step further, making the fatuous suggestion at this week’s Labour Party conference that biological men should still be allowed to compete in certain women’s sports.
“There are three things that we’re trying to achieve,” she said on Wednesday. “The first is inclusion, the second is fairness, and the third is safety. And there are some sports where it’s perfectly possible to include everybody and still meet those principles around fairness and safety.”
Gaaaaaaaaaah!
If you “include everybody” then you exclude women from their own sports, so no, it is not “perfectly possible” to include men in women’s sports while still meeting any principles around fairness and safety.
The instinctive reaction to these remarks is to despair that somebody so oblivious to the reality of sex, and to why immutable male advantage means that the integrity of the women’s category in sport must always be protected, could have been elevated to an office of state. It is as if this year’s Supreme Court verdict never happened.
It’s also to despair that this somebody so oblivious to immutable male advantage is herself a woman and in the government.
“Inexcusable,” said Sharron Davies of Nandy’s latest statement. “Women’s sport is not a consolation prize for non-conforming males. Women’s sport belongs solely to females.” Tracy Edwards, the round-the-world yachtswoman, said: “It is beyond depressing that we finally have so many women in government and most of them don’t know what a woman is.”
Or, worse, pretend not to know at the behest of a lot of entitled women-hating men.

I’m not sure if the order was intended to convey priority, but I could not help but notice ‘safety’ was last on the list.
Holms, I certainly get the impression that she listed those three the way she did because, as Ophelia has repeatedly pointed out, inclusion is most definitely not supposed to be any kind of aim when it comes to sport; rather the opposite. So, to deflect from this outrageous suggestion, she tacked on fairness and safety as camouflage so that she can pretend that any objections come from people who don’t think that sport should be fair or safe, and ignore that inclusion is neither fair nor safe when extended to categories other than female humans.