Or that at least two recent and well done studies demonstrate that the twelve months reduction of testosterone has only negligible effects on the performance differences of MTF transitioners. It's all those earlier years in their lives when the testosterone worked on their bodies that matter much more, in particular going through male puberty.
It occurs to me that all the people who think that it's all about testosterone levels and that a few years of testosterone is sufficient should, for consistency, think that it's perfectly fine for men who have in the past doped with testosterone to compete in men's sport, provided they aren't doping right now.
And in fact they should be fine with male competitors who are currently doping with testosterone provided their T levels aren't any higher than ten times the male average. Then their position would be logically consistent with their position on womens' sport. The advantage of doping is considerably less than the advantage provided by male puberty after all.
And there have been very few longitidinal studies done, how can siuch flimsy evidence justify the exclusion of dopers? Given the wide range of physiological variation,dopers don't automatically have any kind of advantage. Look at Michael Phelps! etc etc.