Oh God. This is like the Michael Phelps argument.
By that I mean 'some people have biological advantages, so why is this situation any different?'
If you were to plot all athletes on charts for body strength, pelvis width, arm length... almost any physical attribute... you would find the results clustered to form 2 bell curves. The bell curves would overlap, but there would be 2 peaks. If you then used different coloured markers for women and men, you would find women clustered around one bell curve and men around the other. There are ALWAYS outliers, but the two peaks of averages would be as plain as day.
Taking Michael Phelps, who is built to swim and has very unusual physical attributes that make him an incredible natural swimmer. He is extraordinary, but he still fits within the 'human male' bell curves.
On some curves, other men may be plotted higher up than he is. Some swimmers may have longer arms, for instance. He wouldn't be the top for everything when compared with other males.
Now take a similarly blessed woman. On the adult human female curve, she may be off the scale for some attributes that make her an ideal swimmer. She may have greater lung capacity, a narrower pelvis, a bigger heart...etc than other female swimmers. She would be an exceptionally gifted female swimmer and would even beat some males.
Would she ever, ever get close to most of the men in the centre of the men's bell curve, though? Nope. Not for 1 attribute.
So you would have 2 gifted, hard working swimmers with extraordinary body composition, but in a mixed sex competition, only one is going to even qualify.
Just on that sort of data alone it is clear to see that men and women are different and competition between the two would never be fair.
Never mind 'here's one time a woman beat a man'. So what?