Re: Olympics BMX 'female' event had at least one competitor with an adam's apple.
If in the name of exclusion we include an additional logical category of men 'self-identifying' as women, which is logically equivalent to permitting men and women to compete for the same medals, then surely (wait for it) if it were consistent with its own parameters then certainly it could not EXCLUDE people wanting to compete in additional ways to THAT, such as all women only, and all men only, as well.
The men and women competing as men and women philosophically, 0.04% of the population are psychologically convinced that their mind is so divided from their body that they want to believe there is in themselves a division. Divided by sex first occurs by expanding supply of information in an individual consciousness that promotes two voices/stories, image of what one 'should become' and how one was born.
xx/xy is science.
Putting good women in a set up position where they would have to support THE REMOVAL of an all women only by birth competition, and cheering on men for winning a 'as advertised' all female competition, or else they're called by the radical left 'haters', when it is they themselves hating all men and all women.
To be 'anti' anything in the ancient Greek may have, still need to dig on this, always have meant not 'against' as in opposing forces, but rather 'in place of'.
We can recognize three categories of sex, but if adding two, men and women, is 'exclusionary' and not 'diverse', because it excludes three, then REPLACING all women's by birth (and vice versa but at this point in the athletics it's predominantly men infiltrating women (it is an infiltration if that information is purposefully withheld and falsely labelled as 'not important')), then the 'new' 'inclusion' is itself an exclusion.
If adding 'three' is followed by accusations that to even add it as a third is a 'stigma', so forget about one or two and just have a three, THEN A STIGMA IS EXACTLY HOW ADDED ONE AND ADDED TWO ARE PRESENTED IN THAT VERY LOGIC.
When a 'new' practise is implemented with the story that to exclude it is exclusionary, then it follows that any practise that removes all women by birth as a logical category for a dedicated set of medals, is itself exclusionary.
Calling women men and men women can be its own category, and all women by birth and all men by birth can also be categories.
If the third is an addition 'because inclusion', then it is inconsistent to itself exclude all women by birth as a category.
Let the viewers decide based on the truth of who people are by birth. Sure, I might watch the men playing as women because there is still athleticism and talent, but don't present it to me as if my knowing an adam's apple when I see one is a 'bad' thought to have.