My wife and daughters think this line of reasoning is asinine and illogical; they laughed when I asked them their thoughts. You are effectively arguing that men should be allowed to complete alongside women unchecked. If you test no one, then you ruin sports for the vast majority of women athletes. Your arguments drift between a few fringe cases (as in 1 out of thousands) and hypothetical scenarios that are not based in fact. The actual fringe cases were poorly handled because the issues were new and the individuals and organizations were unprepared. For those few fringe examples (and your personal hypotheticals), you would discard all integrity within competition.

Arguing ethics does not work, because there are two ethical positions: 1) that you are personally uncomfortable with male/female testing; and 2) that it is important to offer athletes as level and fair a field of competition as possible. So, your position devolves into relativism, and you are weighting your personal ethics higher than all other ethics.

Imagine what would happen to sports if the governing bodies felt athletes' rights were violated by blood testing for drugs, and that no athlete should be subjected to that test.