I'm not, for two primary reasons:
1. Most professional sporting bodies already have defined limits for hormones.
2. The number of trans athletes competing at an elite level is vanishingly small.
I was more referring to people who identify as neither gender, or people whose self-identification varies with some level of regularity.
With regards to the defined limits for hormones, is that suppression of hormones that can get someone into the reference range of the sex they wish to compete with takes while a while for those advantages to diminish.
And there is much debate over to what levels the hormones need to be suppressed to, and for how long, to sufficiently diminish the advantages.
Per the British Journal of Sports Medicine:
Transgender women elite athletes may need more than the recommended year of feminising hormone therapy to remove the competitive advantage conferred by testosterone, suggests research published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
Twelve months of treatment to suppress testosterone is the period currently recommended by World Athletics (IAAF) and the International Olympics Committee to ensure a level playing field for all competing athletes.
But the study findings indicate that while hormone treatment was associated with changes in athletic performance, transgender women still retained a competitive advantage 2 years later.
To explore these issues further, and bolster the evidence base, the researchers reviewed the fitness test results and medical records of 29 trans men and 46 trans women who started treatment with gender affirming hormones. After 2 years of feminising therapy the differences in push-up and sit-up performance had disappeared. But trans women were still 12% faster than other women.
Researchers also found that for certain sports, while 10 nmol/L for one year may effectively remove some advantages, for sports (especially ones relying on upper body strength and grip strength), 12 months of suppressing to 10 nmol/L only resulted in a -5% change when compared to the baseline numbers.
Meanwhile, researchers also found the typical biological gap between women and men is so great that 10,000 males have personal-best times that are faster than the current Olympic 100m female champion, as does the 14-year-old male schoolboy 100m record holder.
So as I made reference to in my reply to the other user, it does sound like the current guidelines may not be stringent enough, but it's a case where many people (especially people who are allies of the trans community) wouldn't dare want to be the ones who would suggest telling a trans person they have to sit out for 3 years out of fear of being labelled a bigot.
As far as the numbers of trans athletes being vanishingly small, that doesn't negate the concerns. For instance, if there were a collegiate sport that had 20,000 participants across the country, and one was allowed to take steroids and skip the drug test, and the other 19,999 had to compete clean. The fact that "the number of people competing on steroids is vanishingly small" wouldn't negate the objections that the other athletes may have (especially the ones who worked hard to make it to the finals, and then lose)
I'd also go a step further and suggest that, given what we know about the increase in the percentage of people identifying that way by generation:
Silent Generation: 0.05%
Boomers: 0.2%
Gen X: 0.3%
Millennials: 1%
Gen Z: 1.9%
...it'd be better to get these things sorted out now rather than waiting till 50 years from now. It's easy enough to say, right now, "well, it's a small percentage, and you as an athlete are statistically unlikely to encounter a trans competitor so there's no need to do anything about it". If that trajectory keeps moving at the rate it has been, in 50 years from now when that number is 4-5% (and it may not be so rare to encounter in the sporting world), it's going to be even harder to get people to meet at a reasonable middle ground on this after a "do nothing, don't make a fuss" precedent has been in place for half a century.
nypost.com
