This was not convincing the first time you posted it a while ago, and it is still not convincing.
Just about the only sport that female people have equal competitive advantage is some equestrian events. And that is due to the horse being a major factor in determining who will win.
"There are plenty of female athletes who are better than some men who play the same sport."
This ignores the reality of sporting events. If a female person wins at any sport where a male person has a physical advantage, that female athlete is even more exceptional than a male who might tie with her in the event.
The purpose of competitive sport is to reward exceptional athletes in a category where they are able to compete because while some person with that protected characteristic may have one advantage, another may have a different advantage within the range of potential within that characteristic that will give both athletes the potential to win.
For instance, we might see people using Michael Phelps as being this mythical 'advantaged athlete'. But Phelps has been beaten. Phelps had some incredible advantages, no female swimmer can get near Phelp's performance. BUT male swimmers could using different physical advantages.
So, just because 'some female athletes are better than male athletes' is not a reason to remove the protected category of female sports events.
It is also not safe for many sports. There is a much higher risk of serious life limiting, certainly career ending' injuries for female athletes forced to compete with male athletes. And this is true for non-contact sports as well as contact. Because the additional strain put on a female body to beat those male athletes is by far greater than the strain those male people are putting on their bodies.