You can have a person with XY chromosomes and complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (they are immune to the effects of testosterone so it builds up high and all converts to estrogen). Let them compete in women's sports. They will likely look like a supermodel from all the estrogen and can't build large muscles. Consider them women.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have women with CAH, or congenital adrenal hyperplasia. If they survived up to the point where they can compete, their condition is being treated and their high cortisol levels convert to testosterone. They may identify as male or female. If they identify as male, let them compete against the men. They aren't going to get hurt. However, a woman with XX chromosomes with their high testosterone that can build large muscles from having CAH, unlike an XY chromosomed female with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome who can't build muscle, should not compete against women given a clear advantage.
You cannot base qualification on levels of testosterone. In both these cases, they will have high testosterone. Only one will have an advantage in sports by it. The other may have an edge in a beauty pageant. In these cases I would consider the person with XY chromosomes female and the one with XX chromosomes possibly male. Intersex is weird.
What's odd about this is everyone keeps saying "it could be" ... and "if this is true then" ...
The facts we know on the ground:
1. The organizing body for this event did not (apparently) do any testing
2. Two organizing bodies who tested this person said they have XY chromosomes and high testosterone levels
3. This person is taller than the (male) judge, and stands head and shoulders above any of the other competitors
4. This person has body hair similar to a man's, and doesn't shave it (legs, etc.) ... most females with this kind of body hair shave to achieve a more feminine look
5. There are pictures of this person in Algeria, a Muslim country where dress codes are strictly enforced, wearing male clothing, in public
6. This person's actions before the match appear to be very masculine (adjusting body parts a female does not have, not adjusting body parts a female does have, like most of the other women competitors).
7. This person hit an experienced female boxer so hard she gave up and cried.
This is, AFAIK, what we _know_.
All the bits about their possible being born this way or that is _speculation_. No-one has said "I saw their genitals, and they are female." No-one (that I know of) has said "I have proof from a doctor this person is female," or "they have this condition." It's all "gotcha, proved you wrong."
One thing that does upset me--the people treating the woman who "gave up" as some sort of idiot, someone who'd never been in the ring before, someone who'd never been hit. She's in the Olympics. She's been hit before. She's been in the ring before. She knows how hard other women hit. Progressives want to say "believe all women," but when she says "I've never been hit that hard before," we totally disregard her testimony and speculate about how to justify this situation.
We're so busy defending this person we are forgetting there was someone else in the ring. Someone who was badly hurt. We're forgetting about the women who have been physically disfigured or disabled, permanently, in other situations (apparently) similar to this.
So I don't buy the whole "this person might be ..." Prove it, and then prove why--even if they have such a condition--they should be in the ring hitting a woman in the face.