The rest of your post is insane, "War on Christmas"-style. No one reputable is claiming men and women are biologically equivalent in all things.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belon...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hormone-levels-ar...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-understand-sex...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the...
If I might summarize, they mostly argue that hormonal arguments towards unfair advantages in certain sports understate the already existing disparities in hormonal distribution in a given sex. That a given trans athlete might be less hormonally advantaged than a cis woman who competes uncontroversially.
The latter articles are even less supportive of your point, and mostly discuss the uncontroversial point that binary biological sex is an incomplete model of humanity as a whole.
These are reasonable and evidence-based discussions to have.
Why does sex have to be a complete model of humanity? It's real and useful. For instance as a male I don't bother getting mamograms. Sex tells you more about predisposition of health conditions than any other factor apart from maybe age and weight. Let's not pretend it doesn't exist
This is a common straw man. No trans advocate I've heard pretends that sex doesn't exist. Indeed, what would be the point of medically transitioning if one thought sex wasn't real? Instead it seems like trans opponents like to pretend that sex is the only thing that exists or that gender identity and expression do not exist.
Additionally, sex is more complicated than a binary m/f - the obvious examples of intersex individuals or androgen insensitivity[1] come to mind. So yes, sex exists, it's not a binary state, and it's connected to but not fully descriptive of gender identity.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrom...
"It turns out that when transgender girls play on girls’ sports teams, cisgender girls can win. In fact, the vast majority of female athletes are cisgender, as are the vast majority of winners. There is no epidemic of transgender girls dominating female sports. "
"The Olympics have had trans-inclusive policies since 2004, but a single openly transgender athlete has yet to even qualify."
etc.
If trans people have such an obvious advantage why aren't they dominating every single category of every single strength-involving event?
Because there are fewer of them competing. Not every man is more athletic than every woman, but the most athletic men are more athletic than the most athletic women.
If me, as a man, tries competing in a women's weightlifting competition, I wouldnt do well, but I wouldn't do well in the male category either. But if you take competitive male athletes and have them compete against females, they will be incredibly competitive.
In fact, the difference between male and female athletic performance is so stark that even the most elite female athletes are at a disadvantage compared to teenage boys: https://boysvswomen.com
Because there aren't that many trans women who compete in women's sports.
Neither of your quotes is close to a good argument. If you want to answer this question empirically, look at statistics (race times, lbs lifted, etc) and women's competitions where trans women competed.
[1] https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2021/0215/p203.html
[2] https://www.usada.org/spirit-of-sport/education/use-performa...
Athletes who dope don't always dominate, but it still gives them an unfair advantage. Same as when males compete in women's events.
That said, in some women's sporting leagues these males are actually dominating - see https://shewon.org for a list of the many hundreds of women who have been denied their place on the podium by trans-identifying male athletes.