It may very well be that after this Olympics, the IOC will have to draw some arbitrary line (e.g., if you are a female with testosterone-sensitive Y chromosome, then you can't compete with females).
It is possible that the top athletes in many sports have a yet to be discovered rare genetic condition that allows their body to recover faster, gives them faster twitch muscles and supreme mental focus. That's certainly a genetic advantage.
Take the typical female (XX) and typical male (XY) one rep max on say a squat, bench press and deadlift (could/should also compare cardio, etc) vs someone with this condition. Who are these individuals closer to when untrained? That's who they should compete against.
It isn't, they can't lift that much because they are untrained so it's difficult for them to hurt themselves. Many other exercises would also work, 50 yard dash? Rucking with a backpack for a few miles? Anything where a gender difference exists today that is large enough to be statistically significant.
They do this sort of thing all the time: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34873221/
I understand the BBC article to also make it clear that there is no test for "genetic advantage". If there were such a test then we could separate athletes to "advantage categories" so that all the athletes with the same kind of advantage compete with each other. Rather what we have is broad categories of weight and gender where different athletes have different strengths and weaknesses, where the majority of them have some kind of genetic advantage over the average non-athlete of their gender and weight, and where there are very often athletes who are clearly head and shoulders above the competition in every which way; and probably without doping.
Flawed logic when applied in a domain that is selecting for high performing women.
This isn't a "all things being equal" draw of marbles from a bag.
In the real world that we live in there are woman that don't look like Barbie.