No, you're right.

What makes it so is her claim that dropping the requirement to lower testosterone (literally the only thing that was even an attempt to make the competition fair) is a good thing. This means that there is now nothing whatsoever preventing a fully male athlete from competing against women. Do you think this is fair?

What makes it so is her claim that "there is no evidence that trans women who have undergone testosterone suppression are disproportionately successful in women’s sport" even though Lia Thomas and Rachel McKinnon and Laurel Hubbard and Michelle Dumaresq and CeCe Telfer and on, and on, prove her wrong.

What makes it so is that she only talks about testosterone suppression. And if she does know what she's talking about, she knows that looking at a snapshot of testosterone levels says nothing about physical advantages gained through male puberty. The advantages I listed in my hypothetical pill, all of them are maintained after testosterone suppression. Note, I didn't even mention strength. Because yes, muscle mass is reduced by lowered testosterone (although not to non-male-puberty levels).

This kind of disingenuous argument is not obvious to somebody who doesn't know much about sport or physiology. So people like Joanna can push their agendas without you noticing. This is why so many people don't see the issue. But 100% of female athletes who have had the courage to speak up on the issue are very clear about how unfair this is.

But they're told to "be quiet" or made to fear for their future because you're not allowed to speak honestly about basic biology anymore.