Sure, it covers 99.9% of cases, but top elite athletes are the genetic exceptions, they are the genetic freaks. They are the top 0.0001%. You don't get to compete at the most elite levels without your body being exceptionally gifted and almost specifically shaped for the relevant sport, which inevitably means funky genetic traits and disorders, higher testosterone levels etc.

I mean the word freak in the most loving and caring way possible, mind you.

What does fairness mean in that context?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. When it comes to the Olympics, it was decided a long time ago that having both men and women's events was beneficial for societal progress to have both sexes represented. This was at a time when sex=gender. Now, we recognize the difference between sex and gender but one side thinks the split of events was always based on gender whereas it was almost surely based on sex. This ruling confirms that view point.

It certainly is. For people who have not heard the statements, here are some quotes. I bring them up, because I think it's worthwhile to remember the bold predictions that are made now and how they will pan out in the future.

Council on Foreign Relations, 11 months ago: "In 12 months, we may be in a world where AI is essentially writing all of the code."

Axios interview, 8 months ago: "[...] AI could soon eliminate 50% of entry-level office jobs."

The Adolescence of Technology (essay), 1 month ago: "If the exponential continues—which is not certain, but now has a decade-long track record supporting it—then it cannot possibly be more than a few years before AI is better than humans at essentially everything."