Somehow in this whole discussion the point is missed that Ms. Yee suggested doing away with gender/sex/whatever distinction in sports and, basically, ONLY having an "open" category.
That is actually quite brilliant.
First off, it would completely wipe out any controversy about who should be allowed in women's or girls' categories -- because there would be none. Trans, intersex, whoever -- you can define yourself any way you want, you still all run/jump/play together.
And, when you get right down to it, why does anyone care about women's sports at the top levels anyway? Who do you find it interesting or exciting whether Sydney M-L can run 47s in the 400 -- if you are really excited about the fastest possible 400, you are only paying attention to the men's races where they are running 43s. In a sense, all women's/girls' sports are like contests to see who can whisper loudest. Nobody who really wants to hear loud voices would be interested.
That, of course, ignores the participation argument. If you make everyone play together, while they all get to participate, no biological females will ever be in the top 10% of participants. But, mathematically, 90% of participants will never be in the top 10% anyway, even if the genders are separated -- and nobody ever argues that they are getting blocked out of the benefits of participation. So, that argument doesn't really stand up. If it did, you'd need to keep tall people out of basketball leagues, fast people out of track, etc., just to allow the more mediocre participants a "level playing field" to excel.
I used to think that allowing trans and intersex (i.e., any non-XX) people into women's/girls' sport ruined the whole point of having separate women's/girls' categories. No, after reading Ms. Yee's thoughts, I'm questioning what the point is in the first place. Can anybody remind me?