Not sure what you find objectionable about my use of language. I thought I was being very clear.
Point is that the female category in sports is constructed around female bodies, not identities. The category exists because if it didn't, sport would be dominated by male athletes and we would not be able to appreciate female athletic excellence. So, changing this to include a subset of male athletes with male physiological advantage undermines its main purpose.
This executive order, and similar policy elsewhere, which ensures male athletes are excluded from competing in the female category isn't "anti-trans" because, in fact, athletes with a trans identity can and do still compete in this category. Some examples: Keelin Godsey, Hergie Bacyadan, Iszac Henig.
Point is that the female category in sports is constructed around female bodies, not identities. The category exists because if it didn't, sport would be dominated by male athletes and we would not be able to appreciate female athletic excellence. So, changing this to include a subset of male athletes with male physiological advantage undermines its main purpose.
This executive order, and similar policy elsewhere, which ensures male athletes are excluded from competing in the female category isn't "anti-trans" because, in fact, athletes with a trans identity can and do still compete in this category. Some examples: Keelin Godsey, Hergie Bacyadan, Iszac Henig.