That is a very good question and quite shameful for the Dutch Olympic Committee that they did not.

On the one hand that's supposedly to do with competitive advantage. It makes sense to try to even the playing field, which should have nothing to do with objection on 'moral'grounds. I'd argue this is mostly a good thing given the iffiness of many groups' morals.

Case in point, your exact examples, which brings me to the other hand. Banning trans athletes on 'fairness' grounds is bullshit. In most sports there's no known competitive advantage. Where there's an imbalance they tend to show disadvantage. The rare cases with an advantage for trans athletes tend to disappear the moment you correct for size/weight, which is not something we'd exclude cis athletes for. None of your examples should have happened. They do not hold water on fairness grounds, and any moralistic reasons behind it are reprehensible.

Obviously it's a murky subject on the topic of intersex and transgender athletes participating in the ladies' competition. However on the whole, the focus is on matters related to achieving a fair competition to a sport rather than someone's morality. The IOC, with consultation from a multitude of countries, dropped many of the testosterone and sex testing criteria for this year, where before the 2016 olympics, trans and intersex athletes were barred completely without genital surgery.

Who have they disqualified?