@actanonverba22
Nope, that's not at all a straw man argument. I understand your comment to mean you are stumped and have realised your position here is indefensible.
The individual activities can be substituted at will in this thread - kayaking/strip club/5k/walking 1000 steps/ballet lessons on a Saturday morning/dog walking-cat fostering to help out the local shelter and raise the profile of the company in the community - but the principle remains exactly the same.
That is to say, activities designed by a manager that are not related to actual performance on the job, where participation is not actually voluntary at all because there are negative consequences for non-participation including but not limited to covering the work of those who win the day off, with the activities and the motivational factor designed regardless of the wide range of conditions and circumstances affecting employees' ability to participate, and deemed 'essential' elements of 'success' in any given company.
In real life, if employees are asked to accept that an employer is within his or her rights to make 'success' dependent on ability to participate in activities deemed 'requirements' to be seen as a 'team player' you are looking at exactly the same principle - an employer sets the bar regardless of protected characteristics and penalises those falling short of attributes such as physical fitness and physical conditions, and caring responsibilities.
In practice this means many women, people with disabilities, and older people won't 'succeed'.
It's disablist, ageist, and sexist, to the max.