The discussion about men in women's sports is opening the door - wide - for boys who had had puberty blockers to take part in women's sports. The discussion about male puberty being something that is not undone by reducing sportsmen's levels of testosterone is valid and important. But there's something missing too.
I don't know how to address it, which is why I'm posting here, but female puberty isn't what happens in the absence of male puberty. The changes women's bodies go through surely also need to be framed as a) positive b) separate and valid in their own right and c) unachievable by simply avoiding male puberty.
Even a change in the language would be welcome (by me 
) not framing the adult male form as the standard, which seems to be increasingly common when sports are discussed. I do realise that most sports were actually developed for men, which doesn't help.
But does anybody see what I mean and/or have ideas about any of this?
Going back to the puberty blockers, I guess it's possible that male teens/adults who've taken hormone blockers and cross sex hormones will not have the physical capacity to compete against girls who've gone through normal development. Which is sad in the physical implications of that for the teens/adults themselves. But at the moment I think it's fair to assume that in the next five years we'll start seeing these kids assuming they can join women's sports because their puberty has been blocked and our arguments about going through male puberty being an advantage will need to be unpicked.