[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I understand that and the reasons, I'm just pointing out she competed in line with rules and so the Gold medal should stand regardless. She didn't mislead anyone or lie, she competed in the way the Olympics allowed her to.

I feel like you're so close to the point and whole crux of the debate with exactly this, though.

...the world is a big place, with a LOT of people in it, and where there are gaps in the rules (and in legal legislation) that can be exploited with nefarious intent (or even just personal gain/glory) there will be people who will do that. It's not MOST people, most people are not predatory, most people have a sense of fairness, but some don't. A small number of sportspeople who realistically are not competing fairly, will still compete "because the rules say it's allowed". A small number of predatory individuals will exploit access to women's spaces, because they can. It's a small number, most have genuine reasons, but that doesn't matter... where the law allows it, there are people who will exploit it, it's not even a "might".

And this is why feelings and righteousness need to be taken out of the equation and the decisions that are made need to be controlled at rules/legislation level (whether that's sports or women's refuges), and made sensibly with safeguarding (or sporting fairness, in this example) as the primary consideration. Not individual feelings.