Your opinions, when you don't understand these terms, are uneducated and frankly they are not valid.
Let's engage with a word or two on the subject of education, PP. It nurtures debate. It encourages challenge. It enhances autonomy through independent engagement and it necessitates critical thinking.
Note that word: 'necessitates'. There is no higher education without criticality. These things, as absolute fundamentals, are what higher education does. Fundamentalist belief-systems without room for debate or questioning have no room in education. There's another word for this. 'Indoctrination'. Another thing Higher Education excels in is interdisciplinary research WHERE - and this disclaimer is crucial - the disciplines inform and enhance one another. Now let's consider the trans-athlete who is the subject of recent controversy, and her contributions to this arena. She bands around her 'Dr' title as a talisman she believes she can carry unchallenged through life. She uses it to lend credibility to her chosen assertions, whether they're informed by her academic research or related to the topic of her postdoctoral research or not. (The subject of her PhD thesis was, interestingly enough, the art of how to BS convincingly).
Dr. M. is a philosopher by trade. She appropriates sport science and biology, using her academic credentials to validate any assertions she makes that are way beyond the scope of her expertise. (Incidentally, this is a pity. She's a lively, engaging and entertaining speaker. But what she says has little substance). As a humanities scholar, if I attend a conference of the physical sciences and use my own credentials to spit on their craft, so to speak, I will a), rightly be seen as an imposter and have the entire substance of what I say disregarded, b), excoriated in the Q&A following the paper, and c) laughed off the panel. Why? Because I'm not a physical scientist. Neither is Dr. M.
Anyone else trying to pull that stunt will be instantly seen through and discredited. Which begs the question: why not her? And whatever her views on binary versus spectrum and the gender/sex distinction, what is not - and has never been possible - is to determine how far human subjectivity is socially constructed and how far it's rooted in essentialism. No one. None. They've been chewing the fat on this one for over three decades and we're still none the wiser.
You can argue til the cows come home on this point and you'll still be on a treadmill to nowhere. It doesn't negate the truths of the pictures previously posted on this thread. And it doesn't come at the expense of women whose bodies are under threat from those with a more powerful physique, and whose physical safety (and segregated places) are more an imperative that someone else's 'validation'.