I would base my decision on the spirit of the separation of genders, to pit humans of equivalent biological aptitudes versus one another. If she generates that much testosterone (which has significant impact on physical aptitudes), has all the genitalia of a male, and only partially that of a female, I would say she biologically belongs within the ranks of male competition. I would also ask for the chromosomes and consider those.
I certainly wouldn’t consider making extensive special rules and regulations to accommodate a single athlete.
I was born with the physique I have, and I might have been able to compete in some sports had I tried, but certainly not all. I have to accept that my biological makeup does not allow me to excel in all physical areas. If this runner has biological traits, (breasts, fat storage, or other gender based traits) that exclude him from being able to compete with those most aptly equating to his physiology, then it’s no different than I or anyone else.
It seems to me that he likely has the overall appearance of a female (from the reference to his daughter), but has unseen chemical and physiological advantages over females. If this places his aptitude (maximum potential) beyond most women, but insufficient to adequately compete with males… welcome to reality with the rest of us, we aren’t on the men’s or women’s olympic competitors lists either.
In fact, from what I have read, she/he fits the description bio-chemically of a female on specific steroids, and the fact that he generates these chemicals naturally doesn’t seem an adequate excuse to allow him to compete with the inappropriate gender for his aptitudes.
I can hear the arguments coming about women that place times amongst the male competitors, but they do so with no more or less chemicals than those they compete against. Testosterone makes a big difference in physical prowess, a noticeable difference.
I would take the medal. Likewise, I would reinstall the rules of gender checking for both sexes.