Actually, that is your interpretation of what we had been writing. We were pointing out that the male athletes losing were losing because they when you considered their physical advantages, if they were elite level male athletes at the same level of peak performance as the female people that they were losing against, they would not have lost.
To be very clear, if the male athletes losing to those exceptional female athletes were as good and as fit and performing at their full potential as those elite athletes, they would have won.
In fact, several male athletes are competing in female events and setting records that female people may never break. Those male athletes are in almost comparable performance level as the exceptional female athletes, but their physical advantage is coming into play, so to speak.
Consider the physical advantage to constitute x% performance advantage over all. To achieve the same level of exceptionality of the female athletes, their performance will = peak female athlete performance + x%. Hence setting records that may not be broken.
If the female athletes are beating the male athletes and those athletes have male pubertal advantage, then they simply are not as good as the female athlete. In fact, if those male athletes with x% pubertal advantage tied with the exceptional female athlete, then by comparison, the female athlete is better.
That is the point posters were making. Maybe you were so hung up on censuring posters language, you forgot to ask for further clarification.