Just a note, I’m not American or familiar with how professional standards organizations work in the US and I just quickly skimmed the committee’s report, so this is all broad strokes.

What the article missed is that the committee recommended that Clark’s punishment include Clark having to prove he is fit to practice law before Clark can be readmitted after the two year suspension, not an automatic reinstatement after two years has elapsed. In my opinion, this is a very serious omission on the part of the CNN writer that makes the recommendation sound lighter than it actually is.

If the disciplinary committee’s recommendation is implemented in full, Clark needs to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the state’s professional standards organization that he understands how badly he behaved as a lawyer, why he was punished as a result, and how he must behave in the future to meet the professional standards of a licensed lawyer. If the professional standards board members in the future are extremely strict and set an unreachable bar for Clark (which, in my opinion, would not be surprising given the international coverage of this entire disaster), this could essentially be a permanent loss of license.

How strict the professional standards organization would interpret “fitness to practice” in two year’s time or the correctness of the disciplinary board’s finding that Clark’s behaviour didn’t rise to the same level as Giuliani’s (partially because Clark wasn’t filing lawsuits over this matter) thus warranting a lighter punishment is up for debate. The less cynical and more optimistic side of me interprets this as a permanent loss in practice with a crack in the door that is the size of one atom if Clark can prove with absolute certainty he turned things around and spends his waking hours repenting for his misdeeds, is now an absolutely flawless example of how an ethical lawyer should behave, and uses any spare moment he has rescuing all the abandoned puppies and kittens in the world and finding them amazing forever homes. Realistically? Who knows. Two years is long enough that people forget and won’t be outraged if the organization’s requirements are low.

Reminds me of a quote I have always enjoyed:

“We know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality.” Thomas B. MacCaulay

As people have already pointed out, this is clearly not an issue of the effects of testosterone on the body. So you are right in the sense that this policy can only be defensible on equity grounds.The overlooked issue with the argument that the organization is providing an equitable space for feminine presenting individuals coming up through a system that is overwhelmingly make dominated is that under the current policy, transmen are having their women’s titles stripped from them unless they officially change their designations back to women. Only then, their awards would be restored. Suddenly presenting as male due to testosterone does not immediately negate the past experiences. If this policy is really about recognizing the challenges of climbing the ladder in chess as a feminine presenting individual, then these transmen who are also transitioning later in life should be allowed to keep their hard earned titles. Unfortunately, this policy is not actually about acknowledging the challenges of being a feminine presenting chess player. It smells like the organization wants to be able to claim they are acting equitably without thoroughly thinking about the logic of the policy. Whether people like the policy or not, or whether it is morally right or wrong is irrelevant. Well-crafted, consistent policy is much easier to defend. This policy is neither well thought out or consistent.