Why not for curiosities sake? I also believe cis women with very high testosterone (much higher than other cis women through supplementation or other means) also may have an unfair advantage.
I can believe that transwomen are women and not be abusive or dismissive of a protected minority group, and yet think critically about the question op has raised.
And yet, people are constantly 'dismissive' of a protected characteristic - females and their needs.
If you choose to accept the redefinition of a well established word that is your business. You cannot expect others to agree with you when it is also their word you are redefining without their permission.
The word 'woman' has been forcibly changed to suit the needs of males. And you talk about humanity. Supercilious, no?
Ask yourself what is the effect of 'queering' the word woman? Exactly who does in benefit to forcibly change the meaning? Was it kind to forcibly change the meaning? Particularly when the word has meaning in law.
Personally I just wish others on this thread could do the same. I'm going to back out now as it's making me lose faith in humanity.
We have just seen on Maya Forstater's employment tribunal that in activist's minds there is NO way to discuss this that is not considered offensive. How is that not offensive to women? The EHRC has stated it is not transphobic to discuss the conflict of women's rights with other groups.
Compelling people's speech to force people to use chosen pronouns and labels is not kind or inclusive is it?
And frankly the use of 'cis' is also false.
Who the fuck are the group of people who actually 'identify' with gender stereotypes used by another group to describe them? And here you are using it so forceably describing and 'othering' women who are female and who have no 'gender identity' but YOU are lumping them into a group called 'cis' for your own illustrative purposes.
If you want to describe yourself that way, fine. Go ahead. Because most people I know don't fit into gender stereotyped boxes or feel they have any gender. Therefore fit under the 'trans' umbrella. If I extrapolated that out to the rest of the world's population, I would pretty much gather that is the majority of people.
But please stick around and actually engage with people instead of policing their words.
There is a lot of research and papers out there that answer your question. Have you actually tried to listen to the people and experts who are refuting that males should ever be included in female sports to answer your question below?
Why not for curiosities sake? I also believe cis women with very high testosterone (much higher than other cis women through supplementation or other means) also may have an unfair advantage.
If all you have is policing people's words, and you have done no independent research outside of your own carefully curated information sources that don't offend you, then surely that must be raising questions in your mind.
That you choose to withdraw also says a great deal about you and your own willingness to delve deeper to find answers and understand why this thread has been so busy and with so many women saying 'No thank you!'
(for anyone else who bothers to read this, No thank you is the answer given by a very brave woman who is an weightlifter when asked if any one of the three medal winners wanted to comment on Hubbard's inclusion in the Olympic event. That is all she could say and that was after none of the others answered for 9 seconds.
Maybe ToCaden can answer why women who just placed in the top 3 in their sport in the world felt they could not answer? Because it would jeopardise their future. Kind? Inclusive? Fuck off with that)