Is Bolt a normal man? Is Phelps? Is Ledecky? They are all one-in-a-billion+ occurrences, after all. Semenya has lost more than Bolt has.
Sounds like a certain 100/200 runner. Sounds like certain swimmers.
Sadly for the butthurt, rival aggrievement is not a criterion in determination of an athlete's inclusion. See Phelps. See Bolt. See Ledecky.
Bolt. Phelps. Ledecky.
Should Bolt, Phelps and Ledecky have medical/surgical procedures to "normalize" the features that given them an undeniable advantage in their sport? They win so handily, and the competition might feel aggrieved, after all.
No, of course you would not argue this.
Sports have for many, many years celebrated the extremes of the human condition that allow for excellent performance in various events. Go to an NBA game or an Olympic volleyball final and tell me the competitors are normal. Tell me Shaquille O'Neal or Lebron James are. Tell me Bolt, Phelps and Ledecky have no "advantage" over anyone else.
Of course they have an advantage. The only time an inborn trait causes controversy, though, is when it contradicts false ideas about gender.
Guess what? When women were included in various Olympic sports in the 1900s-1920s, the only criterion was self-declaration as a women. Semenya self-declares as a women. Then, nude anatomical checks were added. Guess what? Semenya has female external genitalia. And now yet another "definition of womanhood" is being introduced. What next, no women over 6'2"? Very few women are that tall, after all, and it is such an advantage. No women with less than 7% bodyfat? That is both rare in women and advantageous in some sports.
You can't just make up a floating arbitrary definition of "woman" when you don't like a certain feature leading to dominant performances. The only defensible distinction is by chromosomes: XY or anyone else with a male chromosome (XYY etc) male, XX and others without a Y (XXX etc) female.