You repeatedly use the term "biological male" to refer to trans women. That. Is. Hate. Speech. Full. Stop. That is the ONLY context it is used. There is ZERO use of the terms "biological male" and "biological female", that is not rooted in dehumanizing trans people, in the current climate.
You're a centrist, I get it, but you're using the far right to support your views. You will be judged by the company you keep, and whether or not you call them out for their failings.
As to your question at the end there?
No, I would not be okay with a trans feminine person who has not suppressed their testosterone competing in a protected divison. I have had heated arguments with two different trans women who ether thought self identification should be sufficient for competition, or thought providing proof of compliance with fair standards for hormone levels over time (and thus the muscular atrophy and composition changes that take a while to complete) were beneath them. One of them is no longer a part of my organization because of it.
Testosterone suppression over a period of 24 months, to levels within the range of cisgender women brings a trans woman's strength into parity with their peers. THAT is what makes inclusion in competition fair. Even though I'd transitioned many years longer than that when I came back to competitive disc golf, I still played my first event back in MA3, because I knew I didn't have the documentation available (it takes a surprisingly long time to get Quest to provide you multiple years of test results) to formally be reclassified for play in the protected divisons. The TD of that event would've let me play in FA1, and offered to do so, but I can't take a solid stance as someone trying to fix the rules, if I just break them willy nilly - even knowing I was in compliance with the testosterone levels required.
