You're wrong about the non physical part. The league player was Remilia. She didn't even play for half a year because of harassment. Fide(governing body for chess) also banned trans women from women-only events. There was a fishing tournament recently where a woman refused to compete against a supposedly trans woman.

Because men outclass women in almost any physical ability

I have never heard this argument come out of someone who doesn't look like a wet noodle could outclass them in physical ability. It's always a keyboard warrior who hasn't cooked a meal since the Kraft Mac he made in 9th grade when his parents left him alone one evening and wouldn't know what the inside of a gym looks like if it weren't in GTA.

Motherfucker, I knew plenty of cis women who could easily out-class me in physical abilities and I was in the US military

The only people who care what's in the pants of the enlisted person beside them are pieces of shit who don't deserve to be there. Focus on your fucking job, and stop fantasizing about their crotch.

Not once did I ever wonder what a person was assigned at birth while I was in. They wouldn't be there if they couldn't physically do it.

Nobody is lowering qualifications of military personnel because the individual is trans.

You CANT split sport into "performance classes", at least not in a way where it would help - men would on average still be in the higher "performance class" and nothing would change.

Don't we already? In high school you have freshmen, jv, and varsity sports. There's recreational, amateur, and professional leagues in about every sport. There's weight classes in wrestling and boxing. Just to name a few examples of where we have no problem breaking sport into performance classes.

Ah yes, let's make sport less accessible by introducing arbitrary limitations.

Where did I suggest that? Are you sure you aren't hallucinating? Aren't you the one demanding an arbitrary limitation on what sort of women are allowed to compete?

Do we have basketball up to 1.60m height, then up to 1.70m height, then up to 1.80m height and so on? And do we introduce different tiers within those tiers by only having people up to 1.70m and 60kg, then 1.70 and 70kg ...

I said "performance classes" not "height and weight classes".

You CANT split sport into "performance classes", at least not in a way where it would help - men would on average still be in the higher "performance class" and nothing would change.

Why not? Explain your reasoning for why women wouldn't perform to roughly the same level as everyone else in their performance class. Bonus points if you can manage to avoid sexism or classism in your explanation.

I know you probably don't want to hear that, but biologically, trans women aren't women.

I know you probably don't want to hear this, but the biological differences between cis and trans people are irrelevant. Sports were only segregated because men's precious feelings get hurt when they are bested by women. Forcing trans women to compete against men will cause men to lose to people they don't recognize as men and thereby create more problems than were solved.

Nobody has a problem with trans women in non-physical sports. Nobody would bat an eye if there was a trans women in chess.

Wow...

You should have just admitted you have no idea what you're talking about. Bans on trans women in chess have been a multi-year scandal for the International Chess Federation.

But we can't just abandon fairness for cis women in sport because we want to appease a small number of trans women, and on a physical level (especially before hormone therapy), they still do have an advantage.

Because abandoning fairness to enforce gender testing that will primarily harm cis women by excluding them from competition for having too much natural testosterone like Caster Semenya is better, right?