I posted this below so I'm replying here as well since I find the articles ridiculous as well as I don't feel like others should waste their time reading them (mostly blog posts and no research).
I read through the first article, and the first thing that caught my eye was this:
Although it is well appreciated that the skeletal muscle cross sectional area is proportional to contractile force production, it cannot be definitively concluded on the basis of this principally anatomical study that the residual difference between the hormonally treated male to female and the pretreatment female to male group would offer a significant performance advantage to the male to female cohort. In fact, there are no published, peer reviewed studies on the performance related sequelae of the commonly prescribed feminising hormone treatment regimens. A summary document accessed on the world wide web27 suggests that such testing has been conducted on at least one male to female transgender athlete and found that she fell “well within the normal range of female performance characteristics.” More definitive studies need to be carried out in the future, but for now all that can be safely concluded on the basis of the available data is that oestrogen supplementation appears to produce the desired changes in physical appearance, and also results in quantifiable changes in potentially meaningful anatomical variables over time in these individuals.
That is ONE person, not a 1,000 person study or even 10, but just one person. I don't think we can get a firm basis of what is factual when we have a single persons personal experience. She even states this in her entire blog post:
Although there appears to be a consensus of opinion within sport medicine and governance that determination of a female athlete’s genotype is of limited practical utility in this day and age,
I think you need to get a better source than that. This is mostly an opinion piece about transgender people in competitive sports, not actually stating statistics regarding muscle comparison of a MTF and a Bio woman.
Now to the second article; it's hilarious to me how she compares allowing gay/lesbian/bisexual people into competitive sports but not transgender like they are in the same group. Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual has nothing to do with body type or testosterone levels, and to group transgender people with them is extremely hilarious considering that your sexuality choice doesn't alter your performance in competitive sports. You say it's unbaised, but she clearly is since she doesn't see the difference in a gay/lesbian/bisexual person competing vs a transgender MTF competing in an all biological female sport. Also, her link regarding the study that "consistently show that cisgender females have higher testosterone levels than transsexual females" is broken http://transathletes.org/hormones.php.
Secondly, she uses terrible analogies and is actually hypocritical in what she has to say. She says that this is a myth "Myth #2 - She has a man’s body, her bone structure and bone density gives her an unfair advantage.", but how can that be a myth when she states that body types of all people can be different? You can actually have a female body type but be a male (wide hips, narrow shoulders, soft hands, etc), or have a male body type but be a female (narrow hips, wide shoulders, large hands, etc). She even states that female Black People have similar bone density to male Caucasians. Doesn't that mean that body type should be a huge concern regarding competitive combat sports, not forgotten about when talking about MTF wanting to compete with Biological women?
Also, how can she use this as an example:
"if you were looking at two different skeletons would you be able to tell what gender, race, or age they were? Even trained forensic scientists can only tell this information correctly 9 out of 10 times.
Obviously I couldn't tell, I don't know what skeletons looks like, but if a forensic scientists can figure it out with 90% accuracy, fuck me that's pretty good. I can't tell if you actually read through the article, because everything she uses as evidence and an analogy is either a broken link or a terrible analogy.
how elite athletes already often have mutations that give them advantages [in competitive sports]
So does that mean being transgender is also a mutation? I don't get what your point of that statement was. I'm not trying to offend transgender people here, but saying that "elite athletes have a mutation that allows them to compete" is extremely offensive to those athletes who have trained for years to become amazing at the sport they do. You just threw all of that out the window and just base it that they are great at what they do "because they have mutations". I'm not sure who is being offensive here, you or me. :/