@trancepants
I agree that there are some people who are just 'sporty' and can do reasonably well in whichever sport they try - I think mindset has a lot to with it, as well as a good level of fitness. I doubt any of them could go from novice to Olympian in the space of 5 years if they were in the correct category, especially at such a relatively advanced age.
I know absolutely nothing about Stephanie Barrett however Geena Davis, who I think we all know is definitely a natal woman, took up archery in her early 40s. And she came very, very close to qualifying for the 2000 Olympics within about 2 years. She came 24th out of the 300 women who were good enough to compete for an Olympic team spot. Now as a wealthy, prominent person she was able to hire an Olympic coach right off the bat, which most women in the 40s won't be able to do. But even at that it's incredibly impressive to go from really enjoying watching the archery at the 1996 Olympics to nearly qualifying for the 2000 team in your 40s.
A biological female outlier does not prove that biological men have no advantages. As well as having the wealth to be trained by the best, GD is not your average woman in terms of height (she's 6 foot) and has had to train in various different sports for acting roles, so will have had a level of underlying fitness well into her 40s. She also never considered herself to be sporty until she did those physical activities as part of her acting career, and then realised she is bloody good at everything she turns her hand to. However, she was bloody good when competing against other females. She never competed against biological males.
Your average American woman in 5'4", and will have the corresponding arm reach. Your average American woman in her 40s will have had children and/or be experiencing the beginning of peri-menopause. She will not have the wealth or the name to attract top trainers. Taking up a sport like archery from scratch in their 40s is beyond the reach (literally!) of the vast majority of American women.
However, taking up archery and excelling in the women's category would, I venture, not require your average American male to be anything special at all. Yes, they would need to develop the skills, but if they were as skilled in the art as their 5'4" same age female contemporary, it would still not be an even match, because they would have the strength and probable height advantage.
A college level female archer posted this on reddit in response to a question as to why there are separate male and female categories:
Men and women compete separately in individual archery competition because men's scores are typically higher. For example, the new WRs are 700 (male) and 673 (female).
This is in large part due to the men having higher arrow speeds. Higher speed leads to higher scores because higher arrow speed = less wind interference + more forgiveness for form mistakes. As such, men don't have to account for the wind as much or be as precise with their movements. (They're still REALLY precise though!)
So how do men get this higher arrow speed? Two major reasons:
longer arms = longer draw length (basically how far you can pull back the bow)
stronger muscles = able to handle higher draw weight (basically how much force the arrows leaves the bow with)
So in conclusion, different physiologies require different categories.
As a side note, I can confirm that breasts DO NOT hinder female archers in any way.
Ironically, Geena Davis's involvement in archery apparently inspired many girls to take up the sport. How many such girls would drop out if they were competing against biological males?