The sporting discussion is much trickier for me. I actually don't know what the solution is but I just don't like how these conversations can turn quite cruel and undignified quite quickly. I'm definitely of the opinion however that the sporting implications of transgenderism take up too much of the discussion when it comes to the rights of transgender people across society on the whole.
(I think) Perfect Fumble was widening the discussion to female spaces beyond sport. People will have varying views on this but I just don't think it's great to be speaking in the kind of absolute terms that Perfect Fumble was.
With regards to the example given with the cricket, I don't think there's enough information in the story to make an informed judgement on what's going on there. Is this person getting better scores in the women's game because they have a biological advantage, or is it because they've stepped into a league where the overall standard is much lower due to the fact historically the women's game hasn't been as encouraged or resourced as much as the men's? Did this person play and train at higher standard before they transitioned? Perhaps they are better because they had access to better training and facilities at an early age when they were living as a male. The women's game seems to be growing quite quickly now and the wider cricketing community seems quite receptive to the women's game from what I can see. I don't know loads about cricket but i do have a male friend who plays to a pretty high standard and he's told me in the past that it's not beyond the realms of possibility that you could see a woman batting alongside men in teams as so much of it is about concentration and technique rather than just strength. Would be interesting to see if you see variances like this in a world where the women's game had the same level of funding and prominence as the men's. Would also be interested to know if there are any biologically female players matching those scores. It isn't uncommon to see bigger disparities in sport where the overall standard is lower. i.e you'll get more football games going into double figures at amateur level than higher up the leagues.
You asked "Is this person getting better scores in the women's game because they have a biological advantage," to which the answer is a resounding yes. Until a year or two ago, Maxine played for the equivalent men's team, where their batting average was much less. I don't know all the rules of cricket, but I do know that women's teams play with a smaller, lighter ball and that men can bowl significantly faster than women. Not only are they stronger (& using a heavier ball) but they have, as a rule, longer arms than women which boosts the force with which they can throw the ball.
There is a good reason why women's & men's sports are sex-segregated: it is to make competition as fair as possible. It's the same reason boxing has weight classes and every sport has kids & adults separated.
As for your comments about 'better training and facilities', well yes - better training & facilities & more funding will help women improve but they will never bring women to the level of men who have intrinsic advantages once past puberty.
One example: in 1988 FloJo set the women's 100m record - which still stands. "In 2017 alone, the last full season of races, 744 senior males ran 100m faster than 10.49s for a combined total of 2825 runs" There are schoolboys who can run faster than the women's world record holder.
https://fondofbeetles.wordpress.com...r-stronger-why-we-must-protect-female-sports/
Between men's & women's sports there is a consistent 10-12% gap in "best" (this rises to 30% is many weightlifting categories)
It's not better or more training, it's not more funding, and it's certainly not "try harder" (which I've seen some people espouse): it's biology.