For readers who think because they don't always win that this means they don't have competitive advantage, such as quoted below, perhaps this will help.
"I think their records aren't so impressive as to think they have any advantage because of their biology beyond that of other athletes, most of whom will have a build/height/weight that advantages them in their chosen sport."
'But they didn't win', 'they have been beaten', what does it matter, type arguments really show a complete lack of understanding about competitive advantage.
The male athletes losing are 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. They are not at any where near the level of exceptionality of the female athletes they are competing against.
In many instances, there performance rates as mediocre when compared to male athlete peak performance.
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.
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. In fact, part of the punch power is derived from skeletal leverage that males have to give this power that female people do not have. And bone mass and density that is greater in male people than female people.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289906/
This above is the review of 13 studies from Dr Emma Hilton and Tommy Lundberg and it shows these advantages, if anyone wishes to check for themselves.
To be clear. This bone difference means stronger bones!
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.
Rugby concussion: Swansea University study into protecting women https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51434749
To those who use the 'but they didn't win' 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?