Female athletes shouldn't be be able compete against men

My opponent begins by challenging the premise of my argument, having failed to specify the debate he began. He (I assume he, based on the motion) specifies it in a way that makes his own argument easier- though not correct-, and incorrectly assumes that the word "athlete" implies professionalism. I concede to him his wish to alter the terms of the debate. My points in this round will apply to athletes both young and old, so a distinction will not be necessary. Let me be clear. We are not debating the motion, "The average man is physically stronger than the average women." We are not debating the motion, "A team of men would defeat a team of women." We are debating the motion, set forth by my opponent, "Female athletes shouldn't be be able to compete against men." ABLE. I have not, as stated by my opponent for some reason, surmised that male and female strength is the same. I have merely stated that the option should be open for a female to play on a "men's" team based on MERIT. Yet my opponent seems to be arguing a different motion than this debate's, despite being the one who created it in the first place. Two of his points are irrelevant, the third is indignation at best and at worst, for lack of a better word, whiny.He has brought up the physical prowess of men vs. the seeming lack of such in women. I apologize, but this was his main argument, and it has nothing to do with the motion. This motion is "Female athletes shouldn't be able to compete against men." ABLE. If it is true that all men are better than all women, as he clearly seems to think, then opening tryouts to women shouldn't change a thing. I am happy to accept that in a fair environment, the best athletes will be chosen regardless of sex and gender. If those athletes are all male, so be it. He has given an example of an all female team being defeated by an all male team. Again I apologize, this also has nothing to do with the argument at hand. This is merely an extension of the of the physical argument. I was under the impression that he wanted to debate women being allowed to compete against men, not some boys vs. girls competition at summer camp. He has stated that women competing against men is not "fair". Life isn't fair. Danny DeVito guarding Kareem Abdul-Jabbar isn't fair, and they both have penises. I can only repeat the motion of this debate so many time. "Female athletes shouldn't be able to compete against men." ABLE. This isn't about affirmative action in the NFL. This is about allowing all athletes to attempt to compete at the highest level and being chosen, again, based on MERIT. Lastly, and I'm sad that I have to go over this, but pointing out the sexism of a sexist argument is not an ad hominem attack. It's a fact relevent to the debate. I understand that being told you're a sexist is unpleasant, but no one identifies as such. They merely are, based on opinions they believe are innocent. To be honest, I don't care what my opponent's motive is. I only care about his premise, and his premise is sexist. He has decided that because men have more hemoglobin in their blood that women should not be allowed to compete against them. He has decided that testosterone is a good enough reason to allow NO women to even attempt to play in a "men's" league. This is sexism at it's finest, pure and simple. Maybe the average woman wouldn't make it on a "men's" team, but it there is one woman not playing professionally who is better than one man who is, then this premise is sexist.