I thank my colleague Tess White for bringing the debate to the chamber. Given consistent attempts to prevent discussion or the airing of concerns on the issue, it takes real bravery and commitment to fairness in women’s sport to keep the discussion current.

I wanted to listen to the debate before framing what I wanted to say. I think that everybody knows that I have been involved in sport at all levels for 50 years or so. I genuinely and strongly believe that every person should have access to sport and physical activity. On the one hand, we are talking about one of the most vulnerable groups of people in our communities, who have endured much violence and prejudice, as Maggie Chapman said. On the other hand, we are discussing fairness and safety in women’s sport—especially those sports where strength and speed are prevalent.

The issues that we are discussing today were predicted in the gender recognition debate way back when the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was progressing through Parliament. What we are seeing in sport is an inevitable outcome of not dealing with those issues back then.

I spoke then about the huge differentiation that comes with going through puberty as a man, rather than as a woman: a difference in muscle mass of more than 30 per cent, a difference in bone density of more than 30 per cent, and a difference in heart and lung size, as well as a difference in the all-important Q angle at the hip. No matter how dedicated a female sportswoman is, or how hard they train, they cannot come near to compensating for those biological facts.

It was bad enough to watch a 51-year-old trans woman in the 200m and 400m at the Paralympics taking the place of what should have been a biological woman—a trans woman who, incidentally, had won 11 national titles as a man. However, the grotesque sight of women being bludgeoned by two XY chromosome boxers brought home the reality of what we are discussing here and what we discussed when debating the GRR bill.

An equivalent-sized man can generate 160 per cent of the force that a woman can. Back during the discussions on the GRR bill, all that I was asking for was for advice to be given to sport—and that was denied. I wonder what our future sportswomen are making of that just now. It is not just an issue in international sport; it is prevalent in grass-roots sports and all the way through. I have seen it many times in Scotland.

I had a trans woman come to my surgery to discuss this particular issue. She said to me that she had been banned from taking part in cycling. I said to her, “You haven’t been banned at all; you’ve been banned from taking part in women’s cycling.” I explained to her the reasons why, and her suggestion to me was to ask, “Why can’t I compete in a different category?” The trans community itself understands the issues here.

The wrong decisions, however well intentioned, are still the wrong decisions. We cannot create equality for one group by creating inequality for another. It is hugely important that sport is inclusive and accessible to all, irrespective of background or personal circumstances, but it is also crucial that safety and fairness are considered when we set the rules.

It was inevitable that we would debate this topic, given that, no matter how much we strive for equality, there are certain circumstances in which biology, and the XX and XY chromosomes, matter. Women’s sport is governed by biology and cannot be defined in any other way. We must have a balanced discussion and we need better solutions to ensure fairness, inclusion and—most of all—safety in women’s sport.