It's a difficult question for sure, but taller and stronger doesn't mean better, especially when you get to world class athletes.
World class athletes are a different breed and play different games than we do. Any advantage that a trans woman might possibly have had by going through male puberty is greatly diminished, to the point of non existent by HRT. To compete at elite levels you need way more than just the possible advantage of having started with a larger body.
A simple example would be basketball. You can arguably state that Michael Jordan is the best basketball player ever and he was not the tallest or strongest player on the court at any time from college on for certain.
In most amateur and recreational sport, it can surely be enough of an advantage, but not one that a cis woman of the same size wouldn't enjoy. Also possibly unfair and certainly perceived so in these settings, so is something that would keep me from competing in women's sports if I had the desire to. I don't play the game for competition, but when my gender marker changed, my golf handicap dropped from 8 or 9 to around a 2. Which took me from better than your average Joe vs men to close to a a top amateur vs women.
I did read something about Dr McKinnon that if accurate, I certainly don't agree with. It appeared that she is saying that endogenous testosterone levels don't matter and it's not necessary for trans women athletes to take testosterone blockers (which the sports require). I believe it has to do with estrogen being enough to void effects of the testosterone.
I would imagine she is following whatever rules are in place for her competition or they'd take her victory away. She may be correct and possibly help to prove that to be true, but at the moment I don't think it has been. There are links to her research on her web page if anyone wants to give it read. It is academic research and can be a tough read, especially if you're not familiar with that style.
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
