The second half of your comment seems to agree with Ms. Wiskarska, and as to the first half--how does it do women now any good to note that it might be that their ancestors from 40,000 years ago may have been stronger?

In situations where facilities tend to be tailored to the average, if the users are women, it seems like you should optimize differently than if the users are men. For example, male and female soldiers are typically kitted out similarly--to the point where even male soldiers are somewhat impaired by the weight and there are arguments to cut back. Seems like a sensible feminist thing to do would be ask, "Hang on--men and women aren't identical. Do we need to re-think the weight-utility tradeoff for women? Is it actually necessary that we exclude a large fraction of women for not making minimum physical fitness requirements (needed to carry all that stuff), or is that just a failure to re-examine male-centric biases?"

It does not seem like a sensible feminist thing to say, "Yeah, actually, women are as strong as men. Or maybe were, tens of thousands of years ago. Or even if not, who cares. If you're weaker because you're a woman, tough luck." That kinda runs the gamut from denialism to misogeny.