Seeing as I was asked politely...
My comment was general, and not a charge at any one person. It was in response to what I perceive as a growing problem of intolerance to others and a number of personal attacks on those who hold different views orchestrated by a few individuals who perhaps feel emboldened by the relative anonymity of the internet. Both in the wider net, and here on this particular forum.
I am fully aware of the famous Pastor Martin Niemöller's famous poem.
I believe that the whole point of civilisation is not that we all should be alike, do alike and believe alike, but we should accept and not discriminate against others and their differences. I am not slow to see that this results in conflicts between the rights and needs of different people. Seemingly fundamental conflicts that appear to have no logical solution that protects the rights of all sides. But just because the way forward is difficult, and requires self examination and a willingness to adapt, doesn't mean we should just pander to the loudest voices and throw everyone else under the wheels of fascism.
There is no answer obvious to me, to the particular issue raised in this thread. It seem logical that a person born physically male who perhaps spends some years developing physical capacity in some discipline, will despite having their testosterone levels chemically reduced, have an advantage over someone who was born female and therefore has never had the same benefit of muscle mass building attributed to higher levels of testosterone. That is after all why international athletics etc ban the use of steroids etc that could increase muscle mass or improve the cardio vascular efficiency of a body.
But may I remind people of the quite wide variance of body shape, height and weight, in the top athletes competing in world class cycling such as the TDF.
I am not familiar with the history or biological statistics of the rider who forms the subject of this thread. But I can see multiple connecting issues that maybe none of us here are fully qualified to judge on. We don't know what it is truly like to be for instance to be born as a woman in a man's body, I can only imagine the considerable mental stress that could cause. Neither will I decide if it is right that such a trans woman should give up her competitive aspirations because of the situation that fate brought about. I suggest that that is still discrimination; to say yes you can transition, as long as you don't do A,B or C.
The IAAF policy on hyperandrogenism, or high natural levels of testosterone in women, was suspended following the case of Dutee Chand v. Athletics Federation of India (AFI) & The International Association of Athletics Federations, in the Court of Arbitration for Sport, decided in July 2015. The ruling found that there was a lack of evidence provided that testosterone increased female athletic performance and notified the IAAF that it had two years to provide the evidence.
I am mindful as I write this of the case of the sis woman, Caster Semenya who has to fight for the right to compete as a woman just because she has a naturally high testosterone level. Then there are the cases of people who are born intersex, with physical characteristics of both sexes.
Nor will I demand specific rules be enforced in order to "level the playing field" Who is to say precisely how much difference testosterone actually makes to competitiveness. I am content to leave such debate to committees who are better informed as to the scientific ins and outs of human physiology. I do know however that a top female masters cyclist in my neck of the woods can wipe the floor with me because she did the other year going up Michael Gate in Lincoln. That's despite me having been a competitive hill climber myself in my youth, and still boasting a peak power exceeding 1400W as measured on a Wattbike. Whether it was her lighter weight or better conditioning or superior racing bike, who cares, but that cyclist beat me up those cobbles regardless.
We are all different in some way. Sometimes being heavier will be an advantage, sometimes being smaller will be. Be born and living at high altitude is believed to improve oxygen transport for example. Some people have a medical condition that means they don't produce lactic acid in the same way that most of us do, so they don't get the burn we do. Just at what point do we draw the line at which characteristics to control for in competition. Some women who don't have heavy periods could arguably have a competitive advantage over women who do because they lose less blood, and lose less training days each month. Some of us men develop chests which are more 'he-man' than the puny types amongst us, a bit unfair isn't it....?
I'm also aware of the on going issues surrounding trans women using for instance changing rooms, or attending 'women only' swimming sessions. Or transferring to female prisons. Or schoolchildren who are transitioning. There are serious and valid concerns that women have about their safety and privacy. Society needs to have long hard debates about the issues, but debate is NOT about abusing individuals. If an individual that you are complaining about has committed an offence then a court is the place to hold them personally to account for their actions. Does anyone here wish to claim that a trans competitive cyclist has broken the law? State your case if so, what law, what regulation?
If you are abusing an individual, then that is what you are doing, you're not seeking intelligent resolution to an issue. You are getting in the face of someone. A human being. A sentient being with feelings and emotions. What right do you have to do that? Would you like it if someone got in your face down the pub? Of course not. But I feel that some people think that if someone in some way falls into an "other than me" category, then they automatically don't have feelings, don't have rights.
The point remains, we don't have the moral right to wade in and throw abuse at individuals because we don't agree with their lifestyle, or situation, or background or whatever. And when I read through all the posts on this thread, I honestly felt that there were posters who were using it as an opportunity to discriminate against others. If any one person still feels that I am personally attacking them, then maybe they need to consult their own conscience. Maybe they need to examine why they feel they are always under attack when someone else disagrees with their view point.
We have the valued right to freedom of expression in this country unlike in some. That means we can speak out when we see wrong, or promote new ideas. We can go against the crowd and perhaps pathfind to a better tomorrow. We can also contribute to increased intolerance to others, we can make hateful comments, we can champion bigotry over compassion.
Freedom of speech, a two sided sword. Maybe if we abuse that right we will ultimately lose it, maybe if we're not careful a totalitarian regime will seek to divest us of freedom of individual thought.
So I reiterate my previous post:
You have the right to say anything, but it doesn't mean you should.
A graphic purloined of the declared weights of the Tour de France winners to illustrate that there is no clear and consistent relation of weight to cycling success.