Originally Posted by
OBoile
But sport isn't being wrecked for "99.9%" of women. No doubt the woman that would have otherwise finished first is likely frustrated, but even for her I doubt very much the sport is wrecked. Her quest for a master's world championship is wrecked, but I hope that she does not define her entire sporting experience by one result. I'm sure the 2nd and 3rd place finishers would have been happy to be one spot higher but, again, I highly doubt their whole sporting experience is wrecked. The rest of the women, in all the other events and age categories were unaffected.
Do you compete? I ask because I can't imagine someone who puts in the years (yes, years) of work to make it to the top of their sport views losing a world title as "one result." I also know (from talking to female racers) that many women see a transwoman taking a women's world title as akin to being beaten by someone who is openly doping.
Originally Posted by
OBoile
There are plenty of genetic factors that are far, far greater than male vs female. The top female cyclists are more genetically gifted (including any "penalty" they get from being female) than the vast majority of males. Despite being an above average male cyclist, my VO2 max will never come close to Annemiek van Vleuten's. And the gap between us is far, far larger than the typical male/female gap. She has, straight up, far more natural ability than 95% of male cyclists. If we were dividing people based purely on genetic ability, she, along with just about every female pro, would be racing in the tougher division.
You're cherry picking stats. Men are faster cyclists than women. This isn't opinion, it's simple fact confirmed by race results, world record times, TT results, etc. I wish McKinnon the best, but she doesn't belong in a race with women who were born women, and she certainly shouldn't wear the women's rainbow jersey.