I think it warrants further discussion.


I don't think athletic competition is a right. I'd have trouble interpreting anything in the bill of rights to align with that, as such I believe one can be supportive of a person's right to live how they choose and say simultaneously they can't compete in a particular category or type of racing. That isn't to say that women can't be as good or better at certain endeavors. As I pointed above a woman rode me right off her wheel on Whiteface, and at 2017 I rode a significant portion of the Mount Washington race with the 1 & 2 women's finishers, who eventually shed me. I've yet to race in a crit where a woman was a factor, and I've done a lot as in NY the popular format it to combine the women with the masters. So in my experience it depends on the type of event. Women can have better w/kg ratios than men, which is one of the reasons that some of the best rock climbers have been women. I think some of that obfuscates the issue though. Transgender people can race in the category they identify. Women have the added stipulation that they need to show their testosterone levels are low enough to be in a particular range for a woman. That's the rule. Things don't get less complicated here though.


Rachel make's an interesting point in that women come in all shapes and sizes, but to start this debate with the 6 foot 200 lb outlier in a match sprint race doesn't help. I believe Rachel said she transitioned at 29. For whatever reason the debate about doping comes to mind. The one that says if you've trained on doping products, some of those advantages never go away. You've had the ability to train at a higher more powerful level. That's in the background of the individual. It just is. It's probably the same thing that allows some ex elite racer show up at he local race and factor in despite the fact that he hasn't ridden his bike.


I'm not smart enough to understand the science of all this. I do know it offends me to be treated like a climate change denier because I look at a podium photo and can't help go "but, but, but...she's HUGE, of course she won." And this is perhaps where the discussion gets most interesting. Philosophy and science aside a lot of this comes down to the PR game. And Rachel was never very good at that here, and she's not very good at it out there. When the discourse brands anyone transphobic who wants to explore the issue it's going to be tough to win allies. And without allies it ultimately doesn't further the trans cause, but hurts it. Pissing off people who are really on your side, because they question the relative fairness of an athletic event is not a very good way of playing the long game. And this is a long game. Women aren't even treated the same as men in this country yet, and they were given the right to vote in 1920. We're making incredible strides socially, which are highlighted by the attention destructive behavior is given. Still there's a long way to go. So even if the science of allowing trans women to compete in the women's categories is solid, the movement needs a more nuanced and deft spokesperson. "You can't erase my identity" might be the worst argument in the whole thing. It's philosophically unsound. It assumes that people are (and indeed some are trying) trying to erase her identity because they question the fairness of the competition. And that's just not necessarily the case. This is a case of athletic fairness. To make it the poster cause for trans rights isn't an astute PR or political move.