His is a loony proposal.
In professional cycling there already is a ton of biological testing.
The goal was to detect anomalous measures as evidence of cheating, so they set *arbitrary* round numbers as threshold such as 50%+ hematocrit. That threshold was controversial, debated, and I think even abandoned.
The problem is of course theres no single defensible limit, and theres different measures with different distributions that also affect performance.
If you take a bunch of peoples measurements — like VO2max — and sort them into classes, it is no longer sporting. You’re not setting up a bicycle race. Youre setting up a laboratory bench racing competition to see which 90ml/kg/min bodybag processes 92 for the day.
In bike racing there have been multiple transgender females winning female competitions. There have been zero known cases of transgender males winning males competition. The (obvious) implication is that those who are born male, in aggregate, are superior athletes than those born female. (As if we didnt already know from the billion other empirical data points).
“Why do you care, it doesnt affect you?”. Based on the above, it definitely affects female competitors.
“Why do you want to exclude marginalized people from sports you big meanie”. In professional bike racing, the mens category is officially an open category. Any person identifying as any gender is eligible to participate.
“What about people who are truly biologically dimorphic or socially nonbinary/trans in completely earnest manner and genuinely arent trying to cheat”. Compete in the open category. If your condition represents 1% of the population you should not get to supercede 50% of the population. Nothing against you in any other respect.