Quoting from the conclusion reached in the article:

But some researchers have also pointed out that while science plays an important role, the question at the heart of the debate is a cultural one: What does fairness look like – and is the playing field ever truly fair?

“This is that social justice issue where science is just not going to satisfy everybody,” Anawalt told UW Medicine in 2023. “I worry that scientific facts will be used to bludgeon each other and that we won’t come to a consensus because our feelings are so heightened.”

He believes that no amount of research will be able to deliver criteria that will satisfy all athletes.

The issue of fairness in sports, and in professional sports much more than in casual amateur sports, is not so much about science, but much more about social justice and very prone to the bias of money, power and influence.

In my personal opinion even the Olympic Games have long since transcended from a so-called amateur competition to a professional endeavor. Because absolutely no amateur can even so much as qualify for participation! Why? Because the athlete has to dedicate at least two to three years of full-time (on the order of 10 to 12 hours per day) of dedicated training to even have a chance at qualifying for participation. That is more than 60 hours per week! Whereas the standard of full-time employment is [depending on jurisdiction] capped at 35 to 48 hours per week.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (unfortunately the Oxford English Dictionary definitions are hidden behind a paywall) defines amateur as:

one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession

In other words, something done in the free time left over after fulfilling the obligations of a full-time job. Either in the evenings or on the weekends.

I still remember reading about the controversies of doping at the Olympic Games during my high school years in the 1980s. These controversies ignited after Montreal 1976, grew after Moscow 1980 and came to a head with Los Angeles 1984 as well as Seoul 1988. This was especially noteworthy because it became extremely noticeable that especially female athletes from Warsaw Pact countries were becoming less and less distinguishable in build and proportions from their male counterparts. Apparently these countries treated their “star athletes” with testosterone-like hormones from early puberty, just to gain a prestigious advantage over the evil capitalist west.

In my opinion, a rigorous scientific study of the lives of the athletes who participated in those four Olympic Games (1976, 1980, 1984 and 1988) have evolved since then could be very enlightening. Especially the impact on health, fertility and family life in the 37 to 50 years since those games.

I have previously cited the case of Renée Richards, who in 1977 used a court verdict to become a professional tennis player. She later in life expressed ambivalence at having done so because of backlash it has caused against trans-athletes in at and after the turn of the millennium.

Another case in point is Caitlyn Jenner. Another athlete with more money and influence than common sense.

Yes certain restrictions, prohibitions and limitations can feel unfair and unjust. This holds true even on the narrow gender binary. There are virtually no restrictions for females to compete in male sports and classifications. But there is an all but absolute prohibition against males competing in female sports and classifications. And given that this generally accepted injustice is considered to be fair, it is not surprising that trans-athletes are not really welcomed among female sports and classifications.

Given that the majority of bullying and mobbing originates from the so-called athletic “jocks/jockettes” crowd in secondary schools, with more bran than brains, I find this fight against banning trans-athletes to be hugely counterproductive. All we are doing with this is focusing the bullies against us as a community. And it has started to unravel the health care provisions of even cis-females.

In the long term, it is much more important to quietly advocate for better health care, both physical and psychological, for the benefit of every member of society, than to fight publicly for the inclusion of 0.002% of all athletes when the backlash results in the loss of health care for 50% of the population.