She was raised a girl, she had female genitalia and assigned female at birth. She rose to the top of her sport through hard work and dedication like any other athlete.
She doesn't have the advantages of a true biological male and she still gets beaten by other women. She got beaten by Amy Broadhurst in 2022, a female boxer who SUPPORTS her being allowed to compete. Her next opponent has said 'bring it on'.
I suggest that you read the thread. All of your points have been addressed, in quite some depth, already.
But here it short answer.
She was raised a girl, she had female genitalia and assigned female at birth.
The evidence that framed the IBA statements show that this person is a male athlete. They are male. They potentially have a DSD, but they have been stated to have male physical advantage over female athletes.
She rose to the top of her sport through hard work and dedication like any other athlete.
This is irrelevant.
In fact, suffice to say that because of the male advantage that caused them to be excluded from the IBA competitions, that the female boxer who missed their chance at the Olympics because this male person took their place logically worked even harder than this male athlete. Why? Because female athletes need to work harder to get to the level that a male athlete achieves with their physical advantages. Hence, why female sports categories need to be protected.
She doesn't have the advantages of a true biological male
You do not know this. You do not know which male DSD group this male athlete belongs to. What we do know is that they have been tested and found to have a physical advantage over female athletes.
she still gets beaten by other women. She got beaten by Amy Broadhurst in 2022, a female boxer who SUPPORTS her being allowed to compete.
Mediocre male athletes will be beaten by exceptional female athletes on occasion. It does not mean that the male athlete does not have an advantage.
How is this as an example:
If someone put a motor on their bike and competed in the Tour de France, and lost, does that mean that the competitor didn't have a competitive advantage? Or was not a mediocre competitor?
So this point too is irrelevant for competition. But. Not for safety.
What you are supporting is, in effect, very dangerous for female athletes due to male people have on average 160+% more punch power than female people (that is not athletes, that is just the general population) and many other advantages.
Female people have been proven to have bones that are more prone to breakage, particularly in the face. And they are more prone to concussion and brain damage due to their more delicate brain fibres. This has been studied and is now shaping Rugby guidelines for female participation, as an example.
What do you believe will happen to a female with those more delicate bones and brain fibres when hit with punches that are 160+% harder than other female boxers?
Do you think that perhaps there is a significant issue here?