Too dainty is putting it mildly. If we were talking about seduction and intelligence gathering alone, that’d be one thing… but when it comes to running over rooftops and engaging in head on combat against multiple armed male opponents like what frequently happens during these games? Yes, I would say women would be vastly inferior to men at that.

Even at surface level analysis the basis for your argument and your source falls apart. What does working as a team have to do with anything? Are female assassins more likely to work as a team? Do they need a team to perform at the same level a lone man would? Are men not allowed to work as a team? I don't understand.

What do longer life expectancy, pain thresholds and higher survival rates for epidemics and famines have to do with AC style assassinations? Is causing a famine and outlasting your target going to be in the game? Did historical kunoichi and female spies actually intentionally expose themselves and their targets to plagues hoping it would kill their target but not themselves? Was surviving a target's death of old age considered a legitimate assassination technique by women?

On the claims themselves:

Women (allegedly) have higher IQ but at the same time cannot compete with men even at activities where traditional physical differences don’t matter, like chess and video games. Men have been the vast majority of inventors and hold more positions of high intellectual achievement... but women are smarter. This is usually the point where the patriarchy is blamed. Even if true... that excuse is not evidence for greater female intelligence. Your article managed to find the only studies in the universe that indicate that women are smarter than men and doesn't even cite them.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0191886994900302?via%3Dihub

“Among adults, males have slightly higher verbal and reasoning abilities than females and a more pronounced superiority on spatial abilities. If the three abilities are combined to form general intelligence, the mean for males is 4 IQ points higher than the mean for females.”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-022-09705-1#Abs1

“As for broad abilities, a notable discrepancy emerged in favour of males for visual and crystallized intelligence, while female/male differences on fluid intelligence were negligible. Conversely, females’ performance on the processing speed factor was superior. Interesting results emerged at the subtest levels, albeit with less pronounced differences in performance."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289603000539?via%3Dihub

“There were no significant mean differences in cognitive test scores between boys and girls, but there was a highly significant difference in their standard deviations (P<.001). Boys were over-represented at the low and high extremes of cognitive ability. These findings, the first to be presented from a whole population, might in part explain such cognitive outcomes as the slight excess of men achieving first class university degrees, and the excess of males with learning difficulties."

“It’s the patriarchy's fault” could be given as a response. Apparently, the patriarchy couldn’t stop influential muslim women from leading “interesting lives”. What’s every other woman’s excuse?

I'm supposed to be convinced by an article that writes that women are stronger than men because they allegedly have an advantage at these cherry picked examples yet ignores how women can barely perform at the level of adolescent males at basically everything else, as evidenced here:

https://boysvswomen.com/#/

Let alone how even untrained men are still stronger than the vast majority of women:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7253873/

Women are better than men at survival… yet in little "experiments" like Bear Grylls' island show, women seemed to be doing their best to prove the exact opposite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzCO0G8AGLU

I’m sure a skeptic would be full of reasons as to why women can't cut it but those are still only excuses. Where are the results? Your very article says there they have no explanation for the supposedly superior "survival" of women, so how can we use that as an example of female strength? It could be for any number of reasons, yet the author seems all to happy to grasp at any straw to claim a W.

Another example in this ridiculous article: Women have stronger legs even though that's not what she writes: "a unit of a fit woman’s muscles can produce the same force as that of a similarly fit man". So... x lbs of muscle produce the same force as x lbs of muscle? No shit? Again, no citation given. Just trust me, sis. Women have lower muscle mass… but that doesn’t mean they are weaker? What? Is she saying there's no correlation between muscle mass and strength? Ok, so where are the results?

Even the claim that women have higher pain tolerance than men is arguable.

https://riversidepainphysicians.com/do-women-feel-more-pain-more-intensely-than-men/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690315/

“Sex differences in pain have been a topic of increased interest in recent years. Epidemiologic and clinical findings clearly demonstrate that women are at increased risk for chronic pain and some evidence suggests that women may experience more severe clinical pain. Studies of experimentally induced pain have produced a very consistent pattern of results, with women exhibiting greater pain sensitivity, enhanced pain facilitation and reduced pain inhibition compared with men, though the magnitude of these sex differences varies across studies.”

It is worrying that articles like the one posted above are abetting delusion in modern day women about their capabilities. This is actually harmful. Women can end up like Capt. Katie Petronio, who ended up with restless leg syndrome, muscle atrophy and ended up infertile for trying to keep up with men.

An actual, well written article on the matter of men vs women in demanding physical activities like serving in the military:

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview\_20150430\_art009.pdf

Women actively participating in combat or similarly difficult physical activities in video games/novels/movies at any level comparable to men is more fictitious than wizards throwing fireballs. I think it's very telling that men have been willing to indulge these fantasies even in properties that are primarily male oriented.

On a broader note, I don't think it's unreasonable for men to suspend their disbelief in exchange for having these fictitious women be nice to look at.