I strongly disagree. The whole reason women's athletics exist is to provide biologically female girls and women, who make up roughly half the human race, a venue in which they can compete on an equal basis.
-k
But they don't compete on an equal basis. The assumption is that biological women lack the hormones to produce the kind of power and endurance that biological men can produce with their hormone levels. The fact of the matter is, women are not tested for their hormone levels to see if they're truly competing on a "level" playing field. A genetically female athlete could naturally produce more hormones that make her naturally more competitive than other females. With a transgender female athlete, they are often on hormone regimens that severely limit their genetically male hormones to such a degree that it is far lower than some cisgender female athletes who produce greater levels of the hormones that transgender athletes are having inhibited.
So here's the question, do we test athletes for their hormone ratios and then divide them into categories that way instead of by biological sex. Because there could be far greater biological differences in hormone levels amongst cisgender athletes than between cisgender athletes and transgender athletes. Look at the African women who were running endurance races in the Olympics and all the controversy there. And what do you do about intersexed athletes?
Personally, I don't know, but I think a hormone level test might be the answer, which makes genetic sex irrelevant and also allows an opportunity for intersex athletes to compete. Nevertheless, the cut-off is going to be arbitrary because those near the bottom of the cut-off for men and those near the top of the cut-off for women may be more closely matched than those at other levels. Perhaps we create competition strata. I really don't know.