I have to say rojo, I very much expected more from this op-ed, which I found unsavory.
The concerns that you're raising here regarding the state of women's sports, are surely legitimate (specifically, a "level" playing field) but a lot of the statements you're making betray an underlying misconception of gender and biology, discrediting your overall argument against the ruling. I know that you, as a benevolent dictator are well-educated and do your legwork, but the perspective you're starting with is flawed.
The CAS acknowledges that given a variety of metrics, gender might be difficult to assign on a binary scale - as Epstein notes, "sex and gender do not break into tidy binaries" - yet you pin much of your argument and questionable rhetoric on this basis. Namely, you tie male/female genderization directly and solely to testosterone levels, because of its advantage in sport. You argue that, "years of steroid abuse and common sense show that testosterone has a huge impact on performance," but you fail to acknowledge that the testosterone levels present in these women are naturally occurring (while unfairly associating them with PEDs, if indirectly). The language the CAS uses is admittedly tricky "enhanced testosterone levels and improved athletic performance" implies *unnaturally* enhanced levels for *unnaturally* improved athletic performance, but that's not the case.
In fact, a key point is that these T levels are natural, and that these women, while outliers on a scale, are still very much women. There are several instances of genetic outliers throughout sports that equate to advantage for the sportsman/sportswomen (gymnasts are tiny, basketball players are tall: each example can be related to hormone levels), and usually it is these outliers who train and hone talent that can break records. (Incidentally, it's interesting to note that Paula Radcliffe testified against the outcome as she has several genetic traits that have helped her succeed, but can't understand why it's comparable.) But you get lost by reasoning that high level of T mean that hyperandrogenic women are something other than women, reflexively likening them to men. It's very easy to do so given that there is an alternate to fall back on, cries for a "compromise" to have them as male.
I also find it problematic how you chose to report these details. Aside from the aforementioned association between naturally high T levels and steroid use you make statements that are questionable. For example, you state "While hypoandrogenic women are legally female..." In fact, hypoandrogenic women are wholly female (and I say this even understanding that some might have internal testies) and to characterize them as something with reservation, as you've done, is inaccurate at best, and offensive at worst. You also state that "just because there aren’t scores of scientific papers on athletes doesn’t mean the well-thought-out regulations should be discarded." I strongly disagree with this. Again, citing Epstein, "any criticism of such decisions must start with appropriate representation of scientific data" but your article is rooted in your reference to "common sense." Who defines "well-thought-out?" Who says what "common sense" is? And what value is either if their not based in science, but in the pseudoscience that Letrun.com posters are famous for. Is it "well-thought-out" for the IAAF say that hypoandrogenic should seek hormonal or surgical treatment so that they can compete?
You also argue that "It Might Be Difficult For The IAAF To Scientifically Prove The Testosterone is The Key Ingredient for The Hyperandorgenic Women’s Success," and that in trying to protect the few the CAS might be doing harm to the many. I wonder though what you think of the potential alternatives: should the burden of proof be on these female athletes to prove that their natural testosterone aren't what leads to success? How would they do that? Should we be concerned about natural advantages within a field of athletes and try to mitigate that in the name of fairness? And if we take it down that road, to what end?
I get that this message might be met with vitriol, but it seems like you're trying to pass an op-ed off as a report of facts, and your messaging is really a bit gross.