Interesting thought here but is sport at odds with the rest of pro trans inclusion without question for one reason: money
If you follow the money elsewhere in the debate, it's heavily stacked against the interests of women.
Not so in women's sport.
Its a growing market which is having increasing revenues. For women's sport to survive it needs the support of actual women (not trans women), have opportunities for women and to be seen to be fair. Otherwise this market will completely collapse.
But as more viewers are drawn to women’s sports, a growing number of sponsors are stepping up.
Research from Sports Marketing Agency Two Circles found attendances for women’s sports in the UK had grown 38% year-on-year since 2013. This year, for the first time, the number of fans attending elite women’s sporting events in the UK was set to hit 682,000, a 49% increase from 2017.
The audience for the soccer European Championships 2017 semifinal was watched by more than four million in the UK, and nearly two million watched the Women’s Rugby World Cup final last year.
Broadcaster Sky reported a peak audience of 1.1 million for the Women’s World Cup cricket final, won by England — more than men’s Premier League matches draw on average.
McKinnon going after Kelly Holmes sponsorship therefore seems to be a real clanger. Her sponsors are getting tons of publicity for supporting an advocate of fair sport and female participation. The trans market is diddly squat and is never going to reward companies with customer brownie points in the same way that corporate bodies can benefit from 'woke points' in other areas of business.
In terms of branding and values that are important to customers, it's a completely different market and priorities are fundamentally different. Fairness beats woke identity. The same tactics are really not going to work.