I think I addressed basically everything you said. 

If you disagree than somehow we clearly aren't on the same page about what we are talking about, and in that case I guess I have nothing further to say to you.

Have a good one?

To put it simply: the issue is you say "having trans-women in sports is unfair to cis-women" and cite (and I'm using that term liberally) anecdote to prove your case, but when someone actually studies the differences they don't appear. Now it's possible that marathon racing is special, but I think you would have to demonstrate that. 

You are right, well conservative pundits is also not something that is good to call people, but yes I do recognize freak out, but on the moment I read it formed as "conservative pundit freak", my bad on this.

I don't deny transexual people have their burden and that there is a significant number of them in the world. But when you try to put it as sport discussion for trans isn't important because there are few of them that is exactly the type of thing most minorities complain, that they are oppressed because their issues are considered out of importance because they are a minority.

I disagree I don't think you actually address anything and certainly not at the quality of rebuttal that you task me with (zero proof).

Example 1: I say that there is a band or variation within natural athleticism among a biological sex and that there is some overlap across gender. You simply reply and say that the variation is so huge that it doesn't even matter. You have less evidence than me in saying that - as there is no current sport where male and females compete with an even spread of outcome to prove otherwise. And now you probably going to ask for a citation here when its common sense. So if you cant see how you are wrong on a such a basic item then what are we doing?

Example 2: You also limit the discussion to top tier but its not even clear if you understand all the levels of sport if you are saying that anything outside of the top tier (which is truly a small small % of competitive sport) is not important. I clearly state that it is these formats of sport that are most vulnerable as there are no regulations and gender testing etc. The fact that you so easily dismiss all forms of competitive sport is ridiculous and is also not a rebuttal.

Example 3: You talk about seperating based on skill and not gender. It will end up being the same thing. At school level 90% of men are better than woman. You are going to end up in the same predicament - as the transgender woman will end up competing against men again. Its a circular argument.

You say a lot of random points with zero backing but you want me to cite for some basic points.

Edit: Please note that you article that you linked you to, or rather the study that the article references talks about"after transitioning". There is some implication here or hormonal changes. Again this is where pro sports actually regulate. In competitive sports at other levels this transitioning is certainly not regulated. Unless im completely wrong here and are we now saying that those who identif as female or male needs to also undergo a physical transition? That sounds cruel and unfeasable. 

A "conservative pundit" is just someone who gives their opinion in the media. I've never seen anyone consider either "conservative" or "pundit" to be pejorative. 

As for why I led off with saying that it is a tiny issue that doesn't really matter, it is because I don't want this to be used as a stand in for trans rights in general. Flashpoints often serve that purpose. It is something that individuals (predominantly in politics or the media) know will get people riled up and serves as a means of polarizing people. If you can get people to really dig in their heels about a topic like this, they will be less receptive to other aspects of trans rights. I am fine with having a conversation about this type of thing, despite its relatively tiny importance, but I want to keep the discussion in context. This is a fringe issue that has very few larger implications for the topic as a whole. To me, it is equivalent to discussing a rule change in cricket. Like, I'll discuss it as long as we all agree that rule changes in cricket shouldn't impact how we treat people and think about people and what rights we give to people outside of cricket. Probably should have made that clear from the outset, but I didn't expect my comment to be such a sticking point for people. 

Hold up are you saying now that everything said in this discussion in this entire thread is backed up with a citation? That is rediculous. We have not gone into the validity of Sundin's citation either. What are you doing here Torillian?

Edit: Study also clearly says " their race times slowed after transitioning". Reading a bit more indicates a hormonal change. This is not even what we were discussing.

Understood and acknowledge.

Yes I do agree that on the order of relevance of what is possibly important for majority of transexual people the discussion on sports is probably minor.

I've read Sundin's citation before, as someone vaguely related to the field I get these things as email updates when something interesting is posted in the journal Science. 

I'm here because I'm curious if you have any studies that would go against what Sundin has posted because I've read that before and I could think of reasons it may not apply to other sports but it's pretty convincing on its own without other studies to show its faults. Opinions and vague ideas of what could happen to sports is fine, but if you want to make policy that should be based off hard evidence and as little conjecture as possible. So far it seems that marathon running can move forward without making any special categorization of trans athletes. I'd be interested to see how this applies to other sports.

Response to your edit: Well if you're talking about people just saying "I'm a girl now" and jumping into women's sports then we can just make a rule against that. It's a boring question. 

Transgender people need only answer one question if they wish to be taken seriously:

How does one know what it is like to be different than one is?

Since this is impossible, their case is uniquely and detrimentally grounded in delusion.

But how you think that it will be better if someone does not need to disclose sex to someone if possible dating?

How many of these respondents were harrassed/attacked as a result of that?

And this survey seems to have made efforts to not only get results with discriminating effects but it can not prove it's own factuality.

''The study population included individuals who
identified as transgender, trans, genderqueer,
non-binary, and other identities on the transgender
identity spectrum, in order to encompass a wide
range of transgender identities, regardless of
terminology used by the respondent. Although
“transgender” was defined broadly for the
purposes of this study as being inclusive of a
wide range of identities—such as genderqueer,
non-binary, and crossdresser''

''Additionally, materials specified that
the survey was for adults at any stage of their lives,
journey, or transition to encourage participation
among individuals with diverse experiences''

These kind of studies usually attract more respondents with negative experiences and people with distorted mental illness,it is hard to project this on the whole community.