Squabbles, another recent reddit alternative, seems to be taking the doomed "free speech" path

As I said, below the ultra-professional level, yes. Inside the ultra-professional level, gender tests are already not used to differentiate people into competition categories so they've already solved this problem.

Why should we have separate categories at the ultra professional level only? It wasn't until pretty recently that trans women trying to compete in women's sports was even a thing, and I believe they do have some tests in certain competitions that would not allow trans women to compete.

The point is it didn't used to be. This was because people had research at the time showing that Black people had "higher muscle density" and other nonsense pseudoscience that they used to bar them from the "open to everyone categories."

That was also during a time where they were segregated from everything, right? Also, while that reasoning might have been BS, the reasoning for not allowing trans women in women's sports isn't. Biology isn't BS, it's science. Trans women have a biological and scientifically proven physical advantage over women from birth.

Since you are just not understanding this: the same arguments used to prevent Black people from competing (they would dominate certain sports, their inclusion would make white people feel bad, their existence is basically the same as taking performance enhancing substances) are literally the same ones used to prevent trans people from competing.

The reason behind the argument matters a lot. You are comparing racism backed arguments with scientifically backed ones. They aren't the same argument, they are based on very different reasons.

Gender is not "more a state of mind than anything else," any more than sex (or race) is. Trans people are their actual genders, they aren't pretending to be a man or woman for the day, any more than a Black person is pretending to be a white person or vice versa.

What I meant is that gender is all in your head, sex and race are not. We should not define sports by what you say you are in your own head. When it comes to bathroom use, sure, base it on gender, aka what is in your head. When it comes to sports, we should use sex, not gender. I'm not trying to bash trans people here, I think they should be treated as the gender they identify with, and that is what I mean by gender being a state of mind, whereas sex is a biological state.

Unlike gender though, where at some point after birth you can change it, you can't change your race. One of these is physical, the other is mental.

Frankly, as I said at the beginning of this discussion, the entire sports argument is stupid though. The rights of an entire minority (yes, their rights) shouldn't hinge on whether or not they can compete in sporting events, and every time trans liberation is brought up people whine "but what about fairness in sports?"

Right now everyone has the same rights, so you don't lose it gain rights by switching genders. There is no right to compete in sports, so no right is lost by banning trans from women's sports. Maybe you have a different definition of "rights" than the actual definition?

Maybe trans liberation shouldn't be fighting for stuff like inclusion in sports? There is such a thing as taking a movement too far. I'm all for fair treatment, access to healthcare, inclusion in society, etc. But when it comes to thinking trans women are exactly the same in every way to a biological woman, that's just taking it too far and blatantly ignoring science. There are going to be times when we need to separate trans and biological women, and for the sake of fairness and the whole reason women sports what in the first place, trans women shouldn't play in women's sports.

You should find other stuff to care about, because the amount of trans athletes is vanishingly small and the amount of ink spilled on debating their inclusion with sports totally out-of-proportion to the "problem" itself.

Maybe trans people should find other stuff to care about besides inclusion in sports they aren't eligible for. I also don't see anything wrong with stopping a problem now before it becomes a bigger problem. Just look at climate change, how much better would it have been if instead of "it's not an issue yet, no need to care about it" we actually did care about it many years ago? Personally I don't like waiting for problems to become big problems before doing something.