Trans women who are using gender-affirming hormones are not "biologically male". It takes about two years on hormones for their performance to equalise with cis women. The only advantage that remains is greater speed, due to the greater height gained from undergoing a male puberty. There are plenty of tall cis women, especially in sport, so this doesn't really count as an unfair advantage. And, of course, trans kids who were lucky enough to get puberty blockers in time will fall in the same height range as their chosen gender.

I'm not going to pretend that it's an easy question. It isn't, and it's not unreasonable for cis women athletes to be concerned. But the proportion of athletes who are trans is tiny and the proportion who are champions in their sport is even tinier. I do think that hormonal transition is a pre-requisite (because otherwise they would be "biologically male" with respect to the physical characteristics which matter in sport) but I don't think anyone should be getting their knickers in a twist beyond that, and they should definitely not be using it as an opportunity to be cruel.

Most of the 'discourse' is pure transmisogyny, based on lies and fantasy demons. Most top professional athletes are biologically extraordinary, that's why they are at the top.

I don't have much time to hunt out sources but this is a decent thread from my bookmarks.