Nothing.
Men have the "unfair" advantage of naturally occurring steroids (testosterone) and biology that makes their bones denser, gives them more muscle mass, and greater upper body strength.
This graph tells the story:
There will always be cases where certain women can best certain men physically. But all things being equal where a woman at the top of her strength goes up against a man at the top of his strength at the same age...that man is going to win. No question.
In the graph above, the 7.5-10 strength factor range to the right on the X axis, women cannot compete. They simply cannot. That area is the tip of the physical pyramid for professional athletes, football and basketball players, marathoners, etc. where small changes mean you don't succeed.
I find it interesting that women have said for years they don't do as well as men at sports because they are denied the opportunities men have. It simply isn't true (any more than the Hollywood movies that show women routinely kicking the butts of a half dozen men at a time) since women have been running marathons for generations now, and in the Boston Marathon, the very first woman to cross the finish line does so nearly 15 minutes after the first man.
That is a mountain of difference. It is why only stupid people think it is okay to let women and men compete together in sports.
Which brings us to the transgender competing in sports..........
If young, stereotypically-masculine strength is required to compete, somehow that didn't prevent Krone, who weighed 100 pounds "soaking wet," from winning the Belmont. It also didn't prevent 105-pound Bill Shoemaker from winning four Kentucky Derbies, the last at age 54.
Leftists doing back-flips to avoid stating the truth: Bill Shoemaker was probably stronger than any 105 pound woman on the planet.
That logic applies to the special units in the military as well. If the best of the best are selected from that 7.5-10 strength factor range, the women won’t be making the cut at all. That is reality.