This is probably the main thing preventing you from understanding the article. It seems to be focused on America where cycling is pretty rare and the culture and attitudes surrounding it are pretty harsh.

I wasn't aware of such harsh attitudes around biking, and it didn't match my pre-existing ideas on biking (I thought that they were overthinking something that doesn't need to be thought of this way). Besides, the article only shows responses of people who feel strongly about the subject, so it might be self-selection bias. So my first response was to reject this article's premise.

As for gender-based injustice, it's society-wide, and may often manifest in nonobvious ways. It's not useful to get offended or act incredulous when someone attempts to discuss the subject.

If I gave the impression that I was trying to disprove / be offended by gender-based injustice in anything but this specific case, I am sorry, that was not my intention. I understand that it can be an important discussion to be had, it just seemed bizarre to me that the article would discuss gender problems with biking on a similar level as other, more apparent gender issues. Especially this sentence struck me as odd:

Like any gender conversation, this one is subjective, nuanced, messy, and sometimes perplexing.

To me, the article seemed to address problems that weren't there, which at best is ridiculous and at worst detrimental to the biking culture.