Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
You know what? To an extent, you're right. We're questioning the appearance of those boxers - and we're doing it for reasons that have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years.
First off, sex itself has a fairly simple definition, despite some people who want to argue about what they think are terminological gotchas. Within any specific species that reproduces sexually via the merging of two different sized gametes (anisogamous species), there are two sexes that have evolved as a result of those gametes being different sizes and having different production mechanisms. One sex will have evolved the anatomical structures for that species that are required to support the production of large sessile gametes (eggs), and we call that sex female. The other sex will have evolved the anatomical structures for that species that are required to support the production of small motile gametes (sperm). Those definitions do not require actual production of gametes at all - a prepubescent male is still a male, because they have the structures that evolved to support production of sperm; a sterile female is still a female because they have the structures that evolved to support the production of eggs. Not all elements of the anatomy are required to be present, nor are they required to be function.
In anisogamous species, there are only two sexes because there are only two types of gametes - and there are only two body types that have evolved to support those gametes.
That doesn't mean that everything always goes perfectly. Reproduction isn't foolproof. So sometimes things get wonky, parts don't develop as expected, and processes get derailed.
That doesn't mean that someone with a derailed process is a different sex or is a blend of the sexes - it just means that it might be difficult for us to properly decide which category they belong to. A person with a male-specific DSD is still a male. A person with a female-specific DSD is still a female.
Particularly key to this is the understanding that karyotype (whether you're XX or XY or X0 or XXXXXXXXY or any other combination) doesn't dictate a person's sex. Karyotype doesn't define sex - it's merely the mechanism by which sex develops in an embryo.
Now let me circle back to the appearances from above.
Appearances come into play because humans are a sexually dimorphic species. That means that in addition to having different reproductive anatomy on the basis of sex, we've also evolved a host of other sex-specific and sex-linked characteristics that differ by sex. Secondary sex characteristics are the most obvious of these, and they represent traits that are directly linked to sex in their development and expression. This includes things like: breasts, wider hips, wider and more rounded pelvic opening, different angle of femur to hip attachment for females; facial and body hair, enlarged adam's apple, denser muscle structure, narrower hips, and nipple placement in males. Sex correlated characteristics are those that differ statistically by sex, but aren't directly resultant from sex-specific development processes. That includes things like difference in overall height and size.
All in all, there are dozens - maybe hundreds - of sex-related and sex-correlated markers in humans. Everything from overall body shape to facial conformation to size comes into play. For simplicity, let's say there are 50 characteristics that differ by sex, most of which are sex-linked, and the remainder of which are sex-correlated. The number of people who fit a perfect textbook "Barbie vs G.I. Joe" exemplar of sex exactly is vanishingly small. But the overwhelming majority of people will fit 47 or 48 of those characteristics, and only really show ambiguity or overlap in a couple. So yeah - some females might have a few characteristics more commonly associated with males. One might argue that Grace Jones has the height, jawline, and muscularity that would normally be considered "masculine", and thus is a fairly "manly" looking person - but that's only in comparison to other females. You stick Grace Jones next to an average male, and it's blatantly obvious that Jones is female. There's no question about it.
The same thing is true for Khelif and Ting, just as it was true for Semenya, Wambui, and Niyonsaba. They have all of the characteristics of an average male human being - and none of the characteristics of a female.
Khelif doesn't look like a female with some male-like traits. Khelif doesn't even look like someone with half male and half female traits - they look like someone with completely male traits. Ting doesn't look androgynous - Ting looks male.
Semenya, Wambui, and Niyonsaba all looked completely male - they all have all of the visual markers for the male sex that our species has developed. Which is not surprising because they are all males.
What is being objected to is sporting bodies allowing males to compete in female sports. Whether those males are transgender or have a DSD is irrelevant. What matters is that males have a different body type, and it is manifestly unfair to females for them to be allowed to compete in female sports. We don't care how they identify, nor do we care what their passport says - we care what they are.
Seriously though, the same people that are arguing that penis and vagina dictates which private spaces you go to, are now gordian knotting themselves to an impressive degree.