While this thread seems to have been derailed in considering the term 'man up' (somewhat cringeworthy, but ultimately, not the worst thing in the world), women lack the equality in society. It's not that women are not athletically capable and need physical equality. That's simply not going to happen, but it's about getting equality as best as possible in all aspects of society, and it comes through by challenging the Patriarchal society in which we live in, and which has shaped our society, over generations, through a new outlook on things. That's what my definition of Feminism is.
In terms of athleticism, look at women such as Paula Radcliffe, who would have been able to run a marathon faster than 99% of men. Look at the female Jamaican sprinters. Not many people run an 11.00 100m, yet alone something that approaches 10.50. What about Ronda Rousey who looks like she would be able to beat up many average men in a MMA fight. Heck, Billie Jean King whupped Bobby Briggs, a former top tennis player, in the Battle of the Sexes (which was really liberating for the Feminist movement, and forced Briggs who was an unabashed chauvinistic pig to hush his mouth.) And don't tell me that Serena Williams would not be able to compete with some of the Tennis players, in a three or five set game. I don't see it. There's also an Indian-Australian girl, who is scoring hundreds, for fun, in the local boys' cricket team, and who could be the next big thing for Australian women's cricket. A school which produced the likes of Peter Siddle. Shane Warne also came from a nearby town.
I can also happily accept that there are women who are far more gifted athletically than I can ever hope to be.
So, please, it's not that women don't have the capability to be elite athletically. Sure, maybe the elite women are not quite as good as the elite men, but no feminist will suggest that it can be so. However, it is wrong to say that any man could step into women's sports and succeed. That's totally misguided.
Taking this sport analogy further. There is so much time, coaches, money, infrastructure, TV exposure etc. invested in men's sport, in the UK, in the US and elsewhere, that it almost gives the message to young girls that they shouldn't play sport. That's wrong. Rather, a feminist response could be that women's sports should get more TV exposure, infrastructure, time, money and coaches etc.
Why is it that Sky Sports doesn't show many women's sports, and concentrates its focus on men's sports? Sure, maybe the quality isn't as good, but women's sports do pretty well considering that they don't have the resources of men's sports? Why isn't there a sports channel dedicated to women's sports?
Therefore, I think a lot of it, isn't because of a biological-determinist position, especially with regard to sport, but it's societal. It's conditioned.
However, the fact does remain that, because of differences in biology, women are expected to have different roles to men, especially in the patriarchal society we see today. Again, that's wrong. Women shouldn't be excluded from being engineers, or physicists or anything, simply based on biology. Feminism is therefore required to write that wrong.
It's also really misguided to suggest that women and men don't have equal intelligence. Intelligence is something that can be measured in different ways. Again, a lot of women can show an aptitude for mathematics. Heck, my A-level Physics had As at GCSE and at A-Levels in all of her subjects, and a first-class degree from Cambridge University, in Physics. That's something I know for a fact...and well, a lot of people on TSR studying STEM subjects, male or female, would wish they could achieve something close to that. But then again, women haven't exactly had the same opportunities in education, as men have, looking at it from a historical perspective.