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?