I would say that 'biological female' is not a remotely useful term, and frequently it is not used for clarity, (because that is not what it provides) it is used with the intent to hurt and deny the identity of trans women. Because frequently it is used in conjunction with calling a trans woman a 'biological male'.
To demonstrate why I don't think 'biological female' is a particularly useful term, in this or any context, I'm going to talk briefly about Mack Beggs. Mack was the subject of an ESPN 30 for 30 documentary entitled Mack Wrestles. He was a collegiate wrestler, and in 2017 he beat Chelsea Sanchez to win the Texas Girls' 110 lb championship. If you're wondering why Mack, a person I've just used the pronoun 'he' for, was wrestling against a girl in a girls' championship, it's because Texas athletic rules at the time had a rule that you must compete in the league for the sex assigned at birth. Mack is a trans man, or as someone might ignorantly say, a 'biological female'. But, crucially, Mack is obviously not who people like the author of that crappy article are talking about when they refer to 'biological females'. Now they could say 'biological females who haven't transitioned to men', but guess what, there's already a term for that, and that term is 'cis woman'.
So no, Bruce, I would say to anyone wanting to use the term 'biological females' to refer to women who are not trans, do not do this, say 'cis women'. You will be achieving a better level of clarity and as a bonus, not making trans women feel trash by the comparison.
Of course a big problem with using 'capable of having children' as the definition is that many are not. Not after menopause. Not if you're sterile. Not, for many, if you've had certain conditions like endometriosis. Some people prefer definition relating to numbers of X and Y chromosomes, with the issue being that some people may instead be born with XXY, or XO, or have the usual expected chromosomes but not have the sexual characteristics to match. And for most people you or I interact with, their number or type of chromosomes or what sexual organs they have will never be any of our business. In my day to day life, in the ways I interact with someone, what someone is 'biologically' is as meaningless as it is hard to pin down. Socially, in terms of how I relate to people, I'm gonna find terms like 'man', 'woman' or 'non-binary' with adjectives like 'cis' or 'trans' if further clarification is needed, infinitely more useful.
As it relates to sport, however:
Sport isn't fair. Some people are taller. They have an unfair advantage over me in a bunch of sports like basketball or volleyball where height matters, and no amount of training will make that not true. Michael Phelps has an abnormally large lung capacity. I'm not averse to requiring a certain testosterone level at certain levels of competitive sport, but in the overwhelming majority of cases my stance is: let women play sport with women, let men play sport with men, stop proposing dumb stuff like a whole separate league for the three trans people in the state.