'renowned'.
Renowned for what? Having a qualification in a certain area and being willing to take payment to go on record and declare someone is a woman.
When the criteria for 'being a woman' in this situation is laid out by IOC as having an F in your passport. Not being female.
This is a fairly typical example of propaganda to try and add legitimacy to something that's problematic by giving it some sort of professional backing.
We know that there are huge problems within the field of endocrinology with a large number willing to take money to play with hormones despite a lack of robust evidence to say it's a good idea. There are plenty of endocrinologists willing to say that someone who was born a man is a woman.
In this case we have someone on record saying despite their chromosomes and testosterone levels they are a woman, not not female. Language matters here. And they've been paid to do this.
In terms of them being a) a reliable impartial witness b) saying something of scientific value we have neither.
The first thing you learnt when studying history or media is to consider the bias of the source before what they say. Then you examine what they say and what their intentions is. Then you look for other sources of information to see if they match or say something different. Then you assess what is said in terms of its value and reliability. What you don't do is go "oh well they are an important person, so I will take what they say at face value and not apply any critical analysis to it". Because that's dumb.
We have a number of sources, including ones with bias towards to individual, who all say this is an XY individual with raised testosterone levels outside the female range.
And the problem with that in sporting terms is that anyone with raised testosterone levels outside the female range, who has XY chromosomes is likely to have gone through male puberty and have both an unfair advantage and pose a physical safety risk to females in a high risk contact sport like boxing.
Which is the entire argument about why we don't want males in female sport and why female sport was created in the first place.
Just because you declare someone a woman based on your paperwork definition doesn't mean that they are female or a woman based on actually being a women.
I do wonder about people who just blindly follow 'expert says' without actually thinking about what the expert says or why the expert is saying it and whether they really are a reliable expert or just someone on the payroll.
Corruption is a huge social issue. We have surprisingly little discussion of it compared to the scale of the problem.