I disagree, because I do not consider being trans a factor that is usually malleable and the relative increase in performance would not displace anyone with a shot at winning.
You wouldn't make this point about most other unchanging factors (i.e. genetics) that affect performance either. "Fairness" in high end sports is extremely subjective, and hard work is only a small part of how successful you can be, with time (which usually equals to wealth; poor people can't afford to not work) and genetics being the most important. It's simply not a meritocracy in the first place.
There is no reason to selectively care about it being unfair. The controversy only exists in the first place because it is a great way for republicans and right wing figureheads to have queer people turned into an existential threat to rally support and perhaps distract from issues more materially relevant to voters. Voters that would never care about fairness in women's sports if it didn't involve queer people to hate. You simply have to acknowledge this. Even if you were not the intended audience and now have an interest in the theoretical question through proximity, the number of people that are actually personally impacted by this is near zero and all the attention originates in anti-LGBTQ rhetoric.
I refuse to acknowledge this as controvercy that requires this kind of addressing.
Voters that would never care about fairness in women's sports if it didn't involve queer people to hate.
That's certainly a large percentage of the motivation, granted. I do think a salient point is that there's nobody lobbying to make it unfair in some other way. If there were groups successfully lobbying to, say, abolish weight classes or allow the use of some expensive performance enhancement like a heads-up display, people would also oppose it.
You wouldn't make this point about most other unchanging factors (i.e. genetics) that affect performance either. "Fairness" in high end sports is extremely subjective, and hard work is only a small part of how successful you can be, with time (which usually equals to wealth; poor people can't afford to not work) and genetics being the most important. It's simply not a meritocracy in the first place.