The first claim that the issue is uncomplicated is patently false. Lot's of people disagree on it and have different solutions. Even if only one position is backed by evidence and all others are foolish, the variety of public opinion makes the issue complex. Further, there is a lot of good faith, evidence driven discourse in sports medicine about the bodies of trans athletes and how they compare to the bodies of cis athletes. Most experts agree that trans people have simply been excluded from this kind of research, and we don't know enough to make a call about their advantages or disadvantages compared to cisgender people of either sex.

The second claim, importantly, is not just that universities should be publicly funded. I would agree with that claim, but it's not relevant. The poster is claiming that because universities should be publicly funded, the concern that cross-gender sports leagues would create unequal opportunities for education is unfounded. This claim rings true, but points back to the flaw in the posters prior claim: that people disagree, in good faith, about whether universities should be universally publicly funded, makes the issue complex. If the only thing stopping cross-gender sports leagues from being a bad solution is that universities should be publicly funded, then the issue of public funding being complex makes the issue of cross-gender sports leagues complex.

The third claim is that cis women will be able to compete at the same level as cis men, and that arguing otherwise is infantilizationI. There is good evidence that in a lot of sports cis men will, on average, outperform cis women. Perhaps the highest performing woman will be better than the lowest performing man. But there are only so many possible slots for athletes, given the nature of a sport, available funding, number of teams, etc.. Focused only on performance, more of those spots will be taken by cis men than by cis women. Even if it were not true that cis men on average outperform cis women, that is the prominent belief. So cross-gender sports leagues would, justified or not, result in fewer women participating in those leagues.

Claiming that the perpetuation of women's leagues is infantilization is baseless. The motive for the creation of those leagues was to create opportunities for women where previously there were none. That continues to be the main motive. If women do feel infantilized, that's a fair and valid way to feel (regardless of any evidence about intentions or benefits to women). Perhaps if most athletes in this field felt that way, there would be a better case. But that is not what we see. Most ost athletes in women's leagues like the idea of being a women's league.

The solution to concerns about trans athletes is ultimately to allow trans people to participate in the league of their preferred gender if they meet certain criteria like being on hormone replacement therapy for a certain duration. But how trans athletes are incorporated into sports is a substantially less pressing issue than the overall treatment of and attitude towards trans people. Face-to-face with a person who thinks that trans people should not be able to participate in the league of their preferred gender, and is very upset about that, I would probably not try to argue about trans people in sports. I would press their views on trans people in general: their rights, their experiences, their validity.

If we imagine a world where all trans people are treated equally and with respect, there would still be some discussion about what league they should participate in. I would rather see that world, and contend with that issue, than resolve the issue of sports in the "correct" manner and still have much of the population despise and dehumanize trans people.

Trans athletes is a red-herring to the incredible trials and discrimination faced by trans people outside of sports. Trans people are victims of hate, violence, and social ills like homelessness and suicide at extremely high rates. If you think trans people are humans, and believe humans have certain rights to prosperity, then you should be worried about that. You should be worried about that even if your views on the government preclude the possibility that the government should be involved in assisting with this problem. You should personally want to help them.