A meta-question we could pose first: Why would a philosopher choose to do this thought experiment from the perspective of the President of the International Olympic Committee rather than from the perspective of a transgender Olympic athlete? What assumptions are embedded in that choice? (For example, is the President trans, or do they know trans people in other areas of their personal or professional lives? Because if they do, they realize that their highly public treatment of trans people in Olympic sports has effects in how trans people are treated in other contexts, which are part of the consequences of the choice.) How is a question framed differently when it's asked by the gatekeeper who's deciding to whom they'll open the gate, contrasted with when it's asked by the traveler who's deciding what gates to approach or whether they're better off attempting a road without a gate? (For example, the question might be: If you are a trans person who is very good at sports, why would you even bother training for the Olympics if you know they're just going to publicly humiliate you and shut you out, and why wouldn't you try some other amateur or pro sports outlet?)