These threads are indeed a mixed bag. You get thoughtful, considered posts like the ones @nothingcomestonothing and @JustWaking have made in the last pages, and then you get rabid ones lacking any nuance and it's a real chore separating the wheat from the chaff.
I'm taking two things from what I've read so far. There is a relevant distinction between competing with, and competing against. Contact sports that pit opponents in opposition to each other have a safety dimension that might require a different treatment to sports where participants compete against the elements. Rugby and Boxing are meaningfully different in this sense to Skiing, Sailing, Shooting or Golf.
The second thing is this idea of inherent, or residual, male advantage. Some sports are relatively simple, in that a single function is tested to its extreme. 100m sprint, javelin, 50m butterfly, that sort of thing. The ones to which the Olympic motto of Faster, Higher, Stronger applies. I completely agree that in such sports, male advantage will often outweigh other forms of advantage to the extent that it would be justified to use eligibility criteria to remove this. That would improve fairness and restore uncertainty. But there are many other sports where male advantage is not inherent, or overwhelming. Equestrianism already sees women and men competing. In dinghy sailing, there is a sizeable advantage to heavier sailors in strong winds, but a significant disadvantage in lighter winds. This is addressed through the design criteria for the class of boat being used in a regatta and could be further equalised by rules about mast height and sail area, for example. I can't see how sex differences between sailors would come into the equation. In golf, there are many skills that a player must master - teeing off involves some aspect of biomechanics and strength, but there are already different tees for ladies and men. The remaining skills - assessing wind effects and the lie of the land, club selection, technique for playing out of the rough, and putting ... where's the inherent male advantage in any of those? There is no reason why golf couldn't be mixed.
We should design these sports and introduce rules that reduce barriers between men and women, not build them up. The rules of basketball were written by people who made choices - ones that mean faster, taller players score more points. But we can chose different rules. Netball places lower physical demands on competitors than basketball but requires greater shooting accuracy and much greater tactical awareness. Are accuracy and tactics things in which there is inherent male advantage? Many universities have mixed netball teams. Why is this a bad thing?
In the long run, the sporting associations will come up with eligibility criteria and rules that balance maximising grass-roots participation with maintaining a level of spectator excitement in elite competitions. Fighting this on ideological grounds across all sports and prioritising sex differences as the primary and universal discriminator is picking the wrong fight. We should be asking "how can we make this work" rather than saying "We refuse on principle even to consider the idea that this could work".