I have not seen the apology. Someone post a link.

Not seeing an apology. Just a statement saying they retract the original hogwash.

I was thinking about your comment suggesting redefining biological male. Not sure if I agree that is the best answer but I think you are on to something in your approach. I believe the IOC and other sports bodies refer to woman competition (or age divisions etc) as a protected class. Maybe an overhaul of the protected classes is needed that does not directly rely on the traditional male/female approach. I don't have a real solution but what about protected classes that rely on things like % muscle mass etc? Could also require gender identification as female, max testosterone levels etc. So any woman (tans or cis) is allowed to compete against other females within a category. FYI, I would have no problem if they removed the protected class "men" completely. Just have an open category that allows anyone to compete. Thoughts?

To be clear, I am of the opinion that testosterone exposure does result in some significant level of development that is to the advantage of trans female athletes. That said I try not to give the impression that my position was arrived at from anything other than observing people. I think the argument is strong but I don't want to misrepresent it.I can't say how much or in what areas any future studies might support this view so I try to avoid making specific statements about its magnitude.

When I mentioned testosterone and bone structure I also put in "etc" They were intended as examples, not an exhaustive list. I used testosterone levels as an example for the trans side because I'm aware of one scientific study that presented data where the authors concluded past testosterone levels did not show much difference in the markers they were looking at compared to cis females. I have no reason to doubt the authors, but one small study looking at a very focused question is very far from conclusive evidence that there is no difference at all. Unfortunately when I hear arguments saying "just look at the science", my answer is "I'm trying" I just can't find much. If you are aware of other cases that compared trans to cis females (not men compared to women) then you have more info than I do which would not surprise me.

I think you hit on the underlying issue in your last statement but I take another view. The subject has much in common with religion in that "fairness" is ill-defined (like most gods) and can mean different things to different people. There is no empirical evidence for how fair a thing is since fairness is not an objective thing. Effects from testosterone can be studied objectively. Fairness can't. On one level it might be argued trans competitors are unfair to the cis women because of earlier exposure to testosterone. The exposure to is an objective fact, the fairness is not. On another level it is argued that its unfair to trans women to ban them since they are women and want to compete in female events.

I think we both agree trans women deserve the same human rights as everyone else. This was not arrived at by objective reasoning. Human rights of any kind, for anyone, are intrinsically a subjective stance. So we can agree on the principle of fairness (even though it is subjective) but we will inevitably have different opinions of what is fair. My view is that to not differentiate trans women from cis in athletic competition is fair from the perspective of trans rights. Nevertheless, trans women have had a kind of hormone exposure that cis women did not so it is unfair from that perspective. It becomes a moot point if there is no advantage so I'm not surprised that some people hope it can be shown through scientific studies that there is no significant advantage. If you're particularly zealous in your conviction you might want to argue (erroneously) the science already proves there is no difference. In the most extreme cases it gets argued that the science is already conclusive and to approach the topic from this angle is at best ignorant and at worst a sign of hidden trans phobia. I reject this.

So how do we make it fair? I immediately reject the separate but equal approach (have a trans category), Not on principle, it's just that it's been tried in American society and produced the opposite result of what most would describe as fair and/or equal. I reject it because it does not work.

I don't have an answer but I think we might get closer to a result that satisfies our idea of fairness if we reexamine the protected categories in sport. No one seems to object to weight categories in some sports, perhaps % muscle mass/weight categories. I know this does not address all potential testosterone effects, it's just intended to illustrate that other ways to look at this may be available.

At the end of the day power sports are going to be dominated by those who are the most powerful competitors. If it turns out that the biggest badass women are also trans then so be it. If trans women are excluded they would just get replaced with women who have clear advantages from sources other than early male development Things like parent genetics, socioeconomic factors, nutrition, etc.

Bottom line for me is I think human rights of trans people are far more important than the somewhat arbitrary standards of fairness in sport. Subjective? Yes, we' re discussing a subjective idea.