So if they scrapped women's races and allowed women to compete in the men's if they were somehow fast enough, the Olympics would still be open to 'all people'? Do you not see a need for paralympic sport as disabled people are 'allowed to compete' in able bodied races (without their wheelchairs etc)?
The discrimination is (at least as I see it) the fact that disabled athletes are allowed to have their turn on the greatest stage yet older people, who are no less handicapped by biology, are not.
If somebody loses a leg due to illness, they can always aspire to compete in the paralympics and hence overcome their disability. If somebody loses their muscle and their collagen and their VO2 max due to the illness of aging, then they have to accept it as something inevitable it seems. Why?
And it's no rebuttal to suggest that Master's athletes had their chance when they were young. For various reasons many Masters never did, and the same logic would exclude somebody who developed their disability as an adult from competing in the paralympics.
There's a further form of discrimination as regards the paralympics and the lack of a Master's equivalent and the general attitude that aging is not a disablity but rather a fact of life. A disabled person could receive a TUE for a medication that restored his health and allowed him to compete as an able bodied person. And we know, of course, that this permission is being abused by healthy elite sportsmen. However, a 40 year old Master cannot take TRT in order to restore his vitality if he is to compete either as a Master or as a Senior. This discrimination will become ever more apparent as real rejuvenation therapies come on the market very soon, with senolytic drugs being the first generation.