Gonna assume you meant MTF on that one, but here's the thing. You say "to a comical degree". I'm really hoping you have support on that. Of course, we hear about it when a transwoman wins a sports competition, because it means we start the argument again. Nobody ever reports in the news about transwomen not winning a competition.
The question at that point is: are the people running the sporting event taking into account the history of the transwoman? Take the recent cycling competition which the Canadian transwoman won. She had to go through a series of testosterone blocking treatments before she was allowed to compete. Prior to her win, she lost in similar cycling competitions eleven times to a woman she finally ended up beating. At that point, can you really say she had a "natural physiological advantage"?
Also, the Olympics have their own rules on allowing transgender people to compete as well, in the interest of fairness.
The fact that there are so many people who rush to the conclusion of "a man in a wig beating women" is what gets my goat about the argument. They just assume that there are no preparations or accommodations made and that no one thinks before putting a transwoman in their sports competition.
Good post, I also find it weird that a lot of people say stuff along the lines of "Science says this person is a man!" but don't pay any mind to the science these athletic commissions use to determine if a person is fit to compete in a certain division or event.
Athletic commissions using bad metrics doesn't provide scientific validation. It's always hilarious when SJWs think science is in their side.
99% of evidence points to chromosomes. Then one fringe study says "but some trans people have brains similar to biological males." Oh yeah? Guess what standard they use when comparing to biological males. ---
If you're going through hell, keep going. -Winston Churchill