And blade runners are not allowed to compete because their prosthetics confer an unfair advantage. I don't think many people buy that such a prohibition represents a form of discrimination against the disabled.
Quite.
All of these things can and will be fixed appropriately over time, once a good body of representative evidence has been able to be gathered. In the case of blade runners, it's relatively simple to apply physics to the problem, in order to work out - reliably - whether blades confer an unfair advantage over various distances. For many race distances, when comparing athletes with similar VO2 MAX levels, muscle mass, skeletal anatomy (to the knee, obv) and muscle twitch profiles.. one can form an evidence-based conclusion that blades confer a significant benefit (mostly owing to their higher mechanical advantage and efficiency relative to motion generated via lower legs and feet).
But when it comes to transgender athletes vs cisgender athletes (and specifically transwoman athletes, of course), it's already abundantly clear that a) it's actually quite difficult to figure out the appropriate comparator metrics in principle, b) it's difficult to figure out the appropriate allowable spectrum edges for many metrics (eg testosterone), and c) there's simply not yet sufficient evidence for gathering real-world evidence comparing elite-level transgender athletes against their cisgender competitors.
My own opinion (which I've stated many times here) is that within the next few years, most major sports administration bodies will have been able to gather & collate sufficient real-world evidence to enable them to make proper evidence-based judgements. And I strongly believe that the evidence will show that 1) transwoman elite athletes do indeed hold various unfair advantages over ciswoman elite athletes, and therefore 2) transwoman athletes will be banned from elite- (and sub-elite-) level competition for all sports where musculoskeletal and cardiovascular capabilities are significant factors determining performance.
But I am also strongly against sports administration bodies imposing policies before they have sufficient evidential data upon which to base those policies. For example, if I were currently part of the IAAF committee which regulates in this area, I would absolutely resist the banning of elite- and sub-elite transwoman athletes in the women's category at this point in time - even though I already strongly believe transwomen have an unfair advantage. Because policy/regulatory decisions such as these simply should not be made based upon beliefs that are not (yet) backed by reliable evidence.
We've already seen the UCI (cycling) take the first steps in excluding elite transwoman athletes, because it's relatively easy to identify, bmeasure & compare the relevant performance metrics for transwomen vs ciswomen. I will be very surprised if weightlifting (for example) doesn't follow suit very soon (again, it's relatively straightforward to gather the appropriate evidence for that sport). But for many other sports - including most track & field events, football (ie soccer), and swimming - it will necessarily take more time to gather the appropriate evidence. I wouldn't envisage it taking much more than a couple of years from now though, so I therefore believe that by around 2025, transwomen athletes will be prohibited - justly, and based on proper supporting evidence - from participating in most elite-level women's sports.
In the meantime though, it's both saddening and wearily predictable to see transwoman elite athletes themselves being targeted for personal abuse and vilification. I would suggest that those who are acting in such a manner should leave the athletes alone, and instead focus their attention upon the relevant administration bodies - while also (critically) having the perspicacity to understand that those administration bodies
must gather the right amount/quality of evidence before bringing down the ban hammer upon elite transwomen in their sports.....
