But you do engage with it on his terms. You say that you point out a "big fallacy", which includes the question: Why does he suggest making a notation of their gender rather than making a notation of their height?

Well, he tells you why. You don't address that: The issue is that when you’re talking about the top 1% of male and female athletes, when the margin between glory and obscurity is measured in thousandths of seconds, male puberty functions like a performance-enhancing drug.

When someone presents arguments and you ignore them, that's not merely "choosing not to engage an article on the author's own terms". That's sloppy at best, intellectually disingenuous at worst.

Doing so while avoiding citing who you're talking about, so nobody can see how you are misrepresenting your target and not actually addressing the reasons they give, kicks it yet further towards the intellectually disingenuous side. Maybe that wasn't your intent, but it's the effect.

There are reasonable things to say in response to Steve's assertion. You just didn't say any of them.