Whoa whoa whoa. You mean to tell me that somebody got beaten up in a combat sport? Oh dear god. This cannot be allowed to continue!
Presumably, you're referring to Fox and this person. Fox had a thoroughly unremarkable career. She injured one opponent, which detractors love to fixate on (usually with the "fractured skull" line, which is blatant fearmongering when you're talking about an orbital fracture, given how common that is in any sport where people are routinely punched in the face) and won a few fights, but lost most of her other ones. Her performance (including the rate at which she caused injuries) was pretty ordinary.
MacLaughlin has had one fight. She won it, sure, but that's not exactly a meaningful sample size. You really can't say much of anything from that.
When asked to provide measurable harm that has come from a certain policy, you're going to stand a much better chance of making a convincing argument if you A) Provide actual measurements, and B) Ensure that those measurements actually support the conclusion you're trying to draw. N=1 doesn't support much of anything, nor does not really differing from the average. Sorry, please try again.
And which "biological and medical science" would that be? Why does the definition of gender at birth matter more than the definition of gender after more psychological growth? Why are we limiting ourselves to the biological and medical science used to define gender at birth instead of also considering the biological and medical science involved in transitioning?
As a general tip, saying "it's just science" when you don't actually understand any science beyond high school doesn't make you sound any smarter. Quite the opposite, in fact. Every scientifically literate person knows how utterly meaningless that claim is.
thank you very much for cherry picking my post and then mansplaining to me how it is ok for a biological male to beat a woman in front of a cheering crowd. you are so kind, and not at all an apologist for deplorable behavior.