It's not pro-child if it harms trans children. Consider that puberty blockers have and continue to be used on cis children when necessary- and the only time it's a concern is when they are used as a measure to improve a trans child's life.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/epnzjk/ ... -took-them
By all means, let's discuss the pros and cons of puberty blockers, but when this is coupled with 'concern over gender identity teaching in our schools and the changing legal landscape that replaces biological sex with the subjective notion of gender self-identity' then it's anti-trans.
Ovaries and testes- I appreciate the effort to not determine gender by these organs, however much it fails in the 'pro-woman' statement that follows. I'll assume that was a slip and not a suggestion that trans women are not women.
But the problem is that ovaries and testes are not what determines a person's success in sports. And unless every cis person is tested as thoroughly as trans people have to be before their own assessment of their gender is considered, then we have no reason to assume every cis woman is free of, say, internal testes, or has the average set of chromosomes, or has a level of testosterone comparable to the cis woman next to her.
What River just described is part of that policy- do you still consider it pro-woman? The panic over a trans woman having an advantage over cis women is leading to an absurd attempt to determine sex, which is doomed to fail as it is based on the assumption that all cis women have sex organs that fit into a very narrow description. As far as I recall you're a woman- you should not have to undergo invasive medical examinations to prove that to anyone.
Meanwhile, Caster Semenya, a cis woman, is having to battle against being forced to lower her natural testosterone as it is considered too high for her to compete with other women. And women with short hair who look too butch are being accosted in bathrooms. None of this mistrust of trans people is helpful to anyone.