Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

Despite the claims that people like me do not understand biology, or accept that there are physical differences between a human body with 'male' amounts of testosterone and 'female' amounts of testosterone - that is not the case.

I acknowledge the effects of hormones on the human body. I also acknowledge the effects of oestrogen.

I appreciate the advantage biological males have in strength.

I appreciate the advantage biological females have with a lower centre of gravity.

In certain contexts.

When it comes to elite sports, where the smallest margin makes a difference, I believe it is perfectly reasonable for an elite athlete who wishes to compete AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL in a gender category that is not aligned to their biological sex some form of levelling the playing field be required.

I would not expect a trans man who is not taking testosterone to compete against cis men in Olympic wrestling (for example). That would be unfair as the cis men would have an advantage. However, if the trans man has medically transitioned he absolutely should be competing against men.

In non-elite levels of sport I do not think medical transitioning should be required. I think a person should be allowed to compete as the gender they identify with - or both if they feel like it.

I played rugby to elite level. Although I am sure I never played against a transwoman at the highest level due to World Rugby's rules, I neither know nor care if I played with or against transwomen at provincial or club level (and I could have...). All I cared about was using my abilities and advantages to play better than my opponent. Their genitalia/chromosomes were immaterial.

That is my position.

And yet many sporting bodies have no bar on Trans women who transitioned before puberty competing as women at the highest level. Their science mustn't agree with your science.

Those puberty blockers that have been proscribed for pre-pubescent people who believe they may be transgender since the 1990s. Which is around 30 years ago. Don't know about you but that seems a reasonable amount of time for specialists to gain experience to me.

Meanwhile Anon poster with a few hundred posts on an Irish site is the go to expert.

Sure thing

Every single elite athlete athlete has an advantage over other athletes.

The best of the best advantages plus the training, skills, mental fortitude, discipline, coaching staff etc etc to exploit those advantages.

At what point do we decide one advantage is more advantageous than another? Basketball player who is just too tall for it to be fair? Suleiman Ali Nashnush was 2.45 m tall. Was he banned due to his 'advantage'? Was Jonah Lomu fair? Micheal Phelps - who naturally produces half the normal amount of lactic acid for an athlete meaning he simply doesn't get tired as quickly. He won 28 Olympic medals thanks, in part, to that 'advantage'. Was that fair? Why is the concern about 'fairness' and biological advantages only applied to women's sports?

Or in a society traditionally segregated along gender lines we have decided male/female is the important one.

Was a time we also believed race was a pretty big line. Thankfully we have mostly gotten over that.

Possibly.

As more investment is being put into women's sports we could see the performance gap begin to narrow vis a vis men's.

We are already seeing women rugby players at the top level who are considerably bigger than some male internationals.

My thoughts are that is your position.

I disagree with your position.