If I’m being ignorant it’s not wilfully so. I haven’t researched it too thoroughly but my understanding is that Hannah’s strength is considerably reduced compared to what it was before her transition.

If bone growth is an issue are you suggesting banning all tall cis women? Thought not. So what’s your point? If muscle strength is unchanged by hormone treatment why is Hannah not an incredibly dominant WAFL player, as one would expect of a former top male athlete?

My point is that I think it’s entirely appropriate for a court (which will be less ignorant than I might be) to examine the specifics and form a legal test which might apply to future applicants. Let’s get this out of the court of public opinion, with its frequently repeated bs about trans athletes having much more testosterone than their cis female counterparts.

And if you’re too rude to simply respect Hannah enough to refer to her using the pronoun “her” and not “his” you need to take, in sporting parlance, a long hard look at yourself. My ignorance about the specific impacts of hormone treatment on muscle strength is admitted, but likewise you need to admit you’re transphobic if you can’t even change a pronoun to match reality.

It’s not just hormone levels though, is it?

This person had, for most of his life, the bone, tendon, and muscle growth of a structurally male phenotype (and genotype). To reduce this to simple testosterone level is willful ignorance.

The bottom line from my perspective is that some folks are just more destined than the average to be sportspeople. If we were ever going to ban someone for being exceptional it would have been a certain Jamaican 100m champ who was great for simply being Usain Bolt. Hannah Mouncey is a good-but-not-great WAFL player with far more limited earnings and fame potential, just back off.