Oh good grief. I don't care who you are!

There are three things you have to understand about sports in order to comment coherently. You understand one, you are implicitly arguing for a particular attitude towards the second, and refuse to understand the third.

The first is that physical differences give benefits and drawbacks to various sports. Obvious, yes, but reeeeally important. You get this.

The second is that sports are sometimes segregated by who is allowed to compete in them: almost always male and female (or sometimes whoever and female, like the PGA golf tour--the women's tour is only women, but women can compete in the main PGA tour), and in some cases where it makes a particularly big difference or is particularly important for safety, by weight. Although the historical reasons are complicated, the best current justification for keeping men's and women's sports separate is morphological: male performance is often so far above female performance at some sports that basically if you didn't have separate categories, you wouldn't have females at all. (As a society we seem to care about this; there are no 5' tall basketball players and nobody gives a hoot. Logical? Maybe not, but it's how it is.) Because you apparently don't like the "compete against women but be titled separately if you're trans" position, and you couldn't even object to this if you didn't understand it, and because you raise height segregation as a hypothetical, I think you get this point too. You weren't saying as a hypothetical that you could drop gender categories from sport, even though it's an even easier suggestion--which suggests that at least intuitively, you support the idea that it's okay for men and women to compete separately.

What you refuse to understand is that beyond a couple of rough categories: male vs female, plus sometimes a few weight categories, the only requirement is that the competitors be "natural". What is considered "natural" is a complex function of history and how we view food vs synthetic chemistry, but there it is, a huge and powerful factor in competitive sports, enough to disgrace the best home-run hitter of all time in baseball, the most consistently dominant cyclist of all time, cast doubt on the performance of the fastest woman sprinter of all time, destroy through hatred and pressure the performance of the woman figure skater with the most advanced jumps ever seen, etc.. It is a huge deal. If you don't get this, you cannot talk meaningfully about the available options.

So, we're in a weird, arguably illogical, and yet extremely solidly historically socially enforced situation where you can be 10% stronger naturally and nobody bats an eye, but if you take a steroid at levels that make you 1% stronger "unnaturally", you're disqualified for effectively the rest of your career. You have to go around avoiding certain medications in order not to get above trace levels of things that don't even make that much difference, but make enough to be on the list of banned substances.

Now into this context, we add people who start with morphologically male anatomy but want to compete as females. Through non-natural interventions (remember how non-natural interventions are considered?), we can do a darned good job of making people with a morphologically male anatomy a lot more female-anatomy-like in the ways that matter for sports, but we cannot yet do it all.

Into this complex situation jumps someone with an avowed disinterest in sports regulations who starts hurling charges of bigotry like candy when people try to acknowledge and work through the complexities of the situation.

This is not "winning an argument".

If you want your arguments based on suggestions like making height categories to be taken seriously, own it. Explain why it fits with how sports do things now, or explain why it's worth it to radically change sports along the lines of equal physical endowment, or explain why there shouldn't be sex-morphology based categories, or explain why "you started morphologically male with the physical advantages that entails and we did enough for you to count as 'a woman' but still left you with advantages" is meaningfully different from "you started morphologically female and we gave you some advantages". Or something.

Then, when you get sophisticated enough to realize that nobody would recommend height categories because it's incredibly disruptive and we've already accepted height differentials within the morphology of a particular sex, you are in a good position to evaluate whether someone else's suggestions are disingenuous.

"You are biased because you didn't make the same ridiculous suggestion I did" is a ludicrously weak point.

I heartily recommend that you do better in the future. Maybe even in the past, by amending the original article.