That kind of ignorance goes both ways. I for my part become suspicious of any Argument that is using data with a limited amount of context and Details on how the data was collected and analysed.

Especially if the aim is to have some kind of "proof" for the superiority of one group of people over another.

Using your specific example of the 100m-record. Women's 100m 1988: 10.49s, men's 100m 1987: 9.93s. Less than a second difference. And I would argue that with a time of 10.49 even a women would have been competitive during the 60s.

And now I stop this arguement, as long we are talking at this level of who is superior there is no way we reach the point where we talk about how we act on those, most of the time only perceived, differences. Which is the more important question, right?

> Less than a second difference.

A second is a massive amount of time in the 100m.

Compare male 100m world records with female:

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/w_100ok.htm

Most of the fastest women in the world can be beaten by high school male runners.

For example Michigan high school mens third place in 2018 was 10.66. That’s top 10 women’s world record.