To be honest, I'm still forming an opinion on this topic, but my current position would probably be: We shouldn't discount the biological advantages transgender athletes may gain, though those advantanges despartely needed to be studied more throughly so that we have a more comphensive understanding of the biological data. We could then use that understanding to formulate more comprehensive and informed policies. I also think it's important not to close off sport to people. If policies need to be put in place at the elite level to ensure fairness that is one thing, but restricting participation or singling-out trandgender athletes in general does not really vibe with the global mission of sport in my opinion.
Like I said the recent discussion on gender equality/equity, I don't think the policy itself is an issue. It was badly needed at the Olympic level in my opinion. The implementation was certainly less than ideal though. I don't think the IOC needed to cut events and quotas on the men's side to reach their policy goals. It's a shame that some fans now see increased opportunites for female athletes as a detriment to male athletes
Honestly, there were already mounting problems for modern pentathlon before the Tokyo 2020 scandal, in my opinion. The level of equestrian was already rather low according to some commentators. There wasn't a great degree of universality. The sport was/is a bit of logisical challenge. Plus, fencing/equestrain certainly don't have the relevance to military training they once did, so the sport felt outdated to some (along with it's obvious connection to military culture).
I don't think the animal cruelty scandal did it any favors, obviously.