This is a position that shows your ignorance of how competitive advantage works.
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.
Just because a male athlete does not win every single time doesn’t mean they don’t have an unfair competitive advantage. It just means that they have an exceptional female opponent. Even if they beat every female competitor, by comparison to those male athletes with the same DSD that Khelif has been said to have, by measuring their potential they are effectively mediocre. When compared in the correct sex category, these are not exceptional male athletes they are well down the rankings.
When a male athlete loses to a female athlete, they are losing because they face an exceptional female athlete. When you consider 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, their performance rates as mediocre when compared to male athlete peak performance.
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%.
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 with ignorant statements such as this 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?
Can you understand that if a person enters the Tour de France with an electrified bike and still doesn’t win the Tour de France, they are still racing with an unfair advantage, they are just not exceptional. Because if they were at the same level of exceptional fitness and skill they would be winning with a huge margin. Ie. the best performance from a female athlete + x% advantage.
In any case, anyone making such an ignorant statement should check the dates of when that bout happened and the losses by Khelif since then.