For anyone able to access twitter, this was the IOC's response.
https://x.com/treesey/status/1818672682038104253
Here is a condensed version:
https://x.com/runthinkwrite/status/1818234505833877736
So the ever reliable  @seaningle asked the key question at the  @iocmedia prezzer just now, about the two male boxers in the female competition. Here are some comments on the answer from Mark Adams, for the IOC...
Adams said that the two boxers in question were designated as female on their passports.
But this - 'passport sex' - is not the right criterion for assessing male advantage (and male risk) in sport. As CAS correctly determined in 2019: "It is human biology, not legal status or gender identity, that ultimately determines which individuals possess the physical traits which give rise to that insuperable advantage, and which do not."
Adams' second tack was to say that the boxers had competed as female previously. This is, of course, irrelevant to the justice of their eligibility now. If they have competed unfairly and unsafely in the past, all the more reason to prevent further harm and unfairness.
his third argument was that this is all 'incredibly complex'. But Sean's question indicated why this isn't true. Going through male puberty gives male advantage, and male advantage must be excluded from female sport
and the fourth argument was linked to this. Adams questioned - with a straight face - whether male puberty gave an clear advantage in boxing. All this, as a support for a 'sport by sport' approach. Indeed Adams called for a 'discipline by discipline' approach
It's difficult to know what to say about this, except that the IOC appears to be intellectually and morally corrupt. All four arguments are hopeless. And this corruption amounts to the IOC licencing men punching women as sport.
So all us women and girls out there, it is now official as per IOC that if someone has an F in their passport, they are female. And if a male person has done something once before and got away with it, then that sets it as a precedence for that male person to continue on. And that if it is all a bit too hard, prioritising the needs of female people should be just dropped.