Yes, it has.
With the case of Lia Thomas, it is being framed as a 'transphobia' issue, but really it's a question of ensuring a level playing field, particularly for natal females.
Because anyone can see from looking at Lia Thomas that she has evident physical advantages over her competitors, on point reactions to the story evoke 'The Emperor's New Clothes': people have to forego what their common sense is telling them in order to strike the right note.
But anyone who has taken part in strength or endurance-related sports will know that having athletes who went through puberty as biological males compete alongside females makes no sense at all. Anyone who even lifts weights at the gym will know that next to an average female, what they lift, row, and press is far in excess of females, even though there will be a number of females (usually active in competitive weight-lifting) who can go higher than them. In the same way that guys above 180 cm will deadlift more than guys below 180 cm, there are innate advantages to simply being born a male, or being tall, or simply having genetics conducive to lifting.
Yes, Lia Thomas has had to take various hormones in order to transition but the fact is that it is impossible to quantify to what extent that has diminished the advantage that she would have held at the outset of her transition.
It should not be framed as an issue relating to transphobia (even though transphobes do get involved in the debate) but it's a simple question of genetics, which also affects males within the group itself.