I understand the point you are making, but I feel that using a female pronoun while discussing Thomas being male would have been the more jarring linguistic choice, given the subject.
To rewrite your original comment, "Lia Thomas, who was born male, was permitted to compete on the basis of her gender identity claims" would be a fine and understandable statement, I think.
When talking about the person Lia Thomas, we are talking about a woman. She's Lia Thomas. Yes, she was assigned male at birth and her biological gender is male, but the person is female.
Again, I am maybe a bit petty, but I think this is exactly one of these important aspects when talking about transsexuality.
I'm not really disagreeing with what you're essentially saying, just trying to make a point about transsexuality.
Having said that, of course he's not a woman. No doctor in the world would disagree with me on that. You're deluded by some kind of ideology which puts even Idiocracy to shame. Snap out of it.
Source?
> don't understand why you're so offended
I'm not offended, why else would I mention multiple times that I'm being petty, but trying to make a point and start a conversation about transsexuality.
> Having said that, of course he's not a woman. No doctor in the world would disagree with me on that
Yet another person who doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender and instead decides to belittle me. Nothing I haven't experienced yet, still disappointing.
In a social situation involving a transgender person, it's considered polite to use pronouns that won't exacerbate any gender dysphoria they may feel. I would think that most of us have done this at some point, as a kindness.
However if we're discussing a controversial public figure, and the topic is sex versus gender identity, I feel it makes more sense to use pronouns that match up with material reality, for the sake of clarity.