Will women start doping more to compete aginast men who think they're women? Probably not. Women have been doping since at least the 70's when the Germans made headlines. 

On a side note, men competeing against women just because they think they're women should be banned. They're not women genetically and it's not fair at all.

Actually the sisters were trying to defeat the 100th best male tennis player in the world. He turned out to be this drunk, who had a very lax training regimen, smoked on the court during breaks and played them softballs on purpose so they would have a chance. They still lost miserably.

Afterwards they changed it to something like the 130th. The guy turned right around and told them to get a rematch, as his rank had just dropped to that......I think they gave up challenging male Tennis players after that.

Females and males have drastically diffrent upper body strengh, it's nothing to scoff at. Men have less flexibility and more explosive muscle power in general, making them better at short distance running, jumping, swimming and throwing. Females flexibility makes them better at any kind of gymnastics, figure scating, ballet and high diving. Males are also supposed to have better reaction times than females, which makes a big diffrence in esports. Especially twitchy ones like SSB or LOL. (There's no evidence for males being superior strategists as far as I'm aware, which is why that all male Hearthstone turnament was one of the rare occasions of genuine bullshit on the turnament scene.)

All in all. Mixed Teams are cool and should be done more, but the seperation is overall very much justified.

I know, right? It's true though. I got my facts wrong though, it was outside of the 200 best male players, and he was the 203rd at the time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karsten_Braasch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_%28tennis%29#1998:_Karsten_Braasch_vs._the_Williams_sisters

The difference in physical performance in sports are huge between men and women, how on earth could anyone suggest otherwise?

Take discus as an example; males throw a 2kg discus and the weight decreases with age of the competitors in entry (it goes down after age 49), men 60 years old + throw a one kilo discus, while female athletes throw a one kile discus througout their entire career. With that in mind, seeing that the women's record is around 2 meter longer than the men's record, with a discus that weight half as much, that's pretty telling.

In the 100 meters dash, the current female world record is the same time that the men had as their best over a century ago and 106 men have broken the 10 second barrier. It is thus reasonable to assume that the best woman in the world is not even in the top 500 of the men, which is also very telling.
As the distance increases to 200 meters, the difference remains roughly the same, the best female time is over two seconds behind the best male time, and in this event it is likely that the best woman in the world would not feature in the top 1000 of the men.
400 meters? Same there, over four seconds difference, a pattern is emerging.

In the 800 meters, the difference is a whooping 12.5 seconds and on the 1500 meters it's 24 seconds. On 3000 it's around 45 seconds. 5000 meters times are 1.24 minutes apart between men and women and 10.000 meters 2.14 minutes. That's nearly three laps of the track during the fast laps.

Long jump shows that women are about 1.5 meters behind in the top tier, triple jump almost 4 meters. The high jump for men has a record that is 36 centimeters above the female record and the female top tier is about the same as the males were in the 1930's. Pole vault shows a difference of 1.10 meters between men and women.

In shot put, again we see an object of nearly half the weight (4 kilos versus 7.2) being thrown roughly the same distance (a little shorter, in fact), which says a lot about the huge difference in strength between genders. In javelin, the weight difference is a lot smaller, with the male implement weighing around 33% more (800 grams versus 600 grams for women) and this has a dramatic effect on results, the women's record is a staggering 26.2 meters behind the men's record in this event. Hammer throw is much the same as shot put; they weight 7.2 kilos for men and 4 kilos for women and the women throw it a little bit shorter.

In sports like soccer, handball, tennis, volleyball and practically every physical sport there is, men will have a significant advantage with more strength, stamina and usually better coordination due to better spatial awareness.

You simply cannot argue against facts; the difference between men and women is sports is massive.

Well said, I don't think there's really anything else to add to this, men are just better than women at physical sports.

Imagine if all the medals would be dominated by trans people. What a strange thing o.o Would they be forced to hold no-trans-competitions? Would that split the community, or would "real" women competitions just fade away, in favour of higher results?

But if trans people were denied acces due to being trans, wouldn't that be a way of saying they weren't actually "real" women? Thus, making them and all the activists very offended and angry. "Institutionalized trans discrimination!" ugh. Sticky situation

I'm sorry, but that is absolutely untrue. There's a reason they don't have male vs. female basketball, or softball, or tennis, or soccer (futbal), or American Football, or rugby, or hockey.....or pretty much anything. It's because human males, by nature, are built specifically to be (on average) physically bigger, more powerful, and more athletic, because they are intended by nature to be the hunters, the fighters and protectors of the group. Women can be great athletes, some of the very best in the world. But no, it is not "negligible" at all. There is a stark difference in the raw speed, strength, size, etc. etc. of most of the TOP male athletes in any given sport in the world, vs. the TOP female athletes in the world. And that is not, in any way shape or form a knock on women. That's just Nature, it's scientific fact. Men are on average bigger and stronger. Women were not built by nature to be hunters, fighters and protectors, so of coure men are (in general) going to have an advnatage over them in athletics.

That does not mean that there aren't some women who could compete or excel in male sports leauges. But what it does mean, is that they would be at a severe disadvantage in almost every sport. Could you imagine even the very best WNBA player competing in the NBA? If she's a great shot, sure. But in spite of the increasing amount of fouls, the NBA is a physical league, and a woman playing against 6'6"-7'0"+ men, just would not work out that great in the end. That is why they have a women's league in the first place. Could you imagine a woman trying to be anything but a kicker or punter in the NFL? Playing any other position, needing size, strength, speed and power, not to mention big athletic men being naturally built to absorb more physcial punishment......a woman would not last in the NFL, most likely.

It's not a matter of sexism whatsoever. It's simple science. There are women leagues because it evens the odds, and makes sports what they should always be: fair. And if you have a trans, who spent most of their life a natural born male, and they use cosmetic surgery and hormones to try and become female, that does not change or negate the fact that they were born a man, and are built like a man. As an athlete, they are going to have a physical advantage of some discernable sort over natural born female players. And that honestly isn't right or fair.

Please tell me you're joking.

Lets see what man will be pussy enough to claim a medal from women, cause he 'feels like a lady today'…

Actually the guy the William sisters played against was ranked 203rd.