Ummm, maybe I'm not the one who should tell you this, but that post is quite sexist. And you are wrong, actually - tennis, shooting, archery, or fencing are just a small example of sports where woman can and do compete equal or better compared to men.
There are lots of different possible meanings of when "woman can compete equal to men." One standard would be when the best women are as good as the worst men, such that at least
some women will beat
some men. That's a standard that is met by basically everything. The best women's powerlifter is many, many times stronger than the weakest 98 year old man in a coma!
Another standard would be where the best women are able to beat the majority of men who engage in a sport. So, for example, would the best woman's baseball player (currently) be better than
most men? This one is heavily dependent on how you draw the boundaries of the men who count for this. If we include 5 year old t-ball players, the answer is easily yes. If we limit the population of men to MLB rosters, the answer is certainly no. I think it's most sensible to draw the line around "serious competitors." For some sports, that's going to mean pros or scholarship college athletes. For some others, it's going to be the amateurs who go to national or world championship meets/matches.
A third, yet-more-stringent standard would require a woman to have been seriously competitive for a gender/sex-unresricted championship. It may not have happened yet, but it has come close to happening and, given enough time, it is inevitable; if the current best woman were to go head-to-head against the current best man, there is a decent amount of doubt as to the outcome. This is a pretty tough standard and not many sports fall here.
A fourth standard would require a woman to have
actually prevailed at the highest level of the sport... i.e., been the very best, on a gender/sex-unrestricted basis, in the world (or at least nation).
Another standard would focus less on the exceptional women at the very top and focus more on the
average woman competitor, and require a demonstration that the
average woman competitor is about as good, in terms of results/measured outcomes, as the
average man (under identical playing circumstances). This is a really tough standard for athletics - although it's pretty commonly true for most non-physical/athletic professions and other pursuits these days!
I think that
some forms of shooting games might pass most or all of these standards; the last one might be tough, but that's probably because of a big skew in how many women come into these sports at all versus men.
I am skpetical that tennis meets anything past the second, and even that gives me some doubt. A few years ago, the 203rd-ranked men's tennis player beat both Williams sisters pretty decisively in a single day.
https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,543962,00.html The Williams sisters are phenomenal athletes and should be sources of inspiration to anyone who looks to athletes for motivation... but they would not be seriously competitive with the majority of the guys on the big tennis tour(s). Golf is probably slightly more equal, with a few instances of women in men's tournaments being able to hold their own and beat many of the men in the field.... but nowhere close to winning outright or being as good as the best men players playing well. Car racing seems like it probably passes the 3rd, and might also eventually pass the broader population-based (as opposed to best-individual-based) test, and perhaps the 4th.
I think this is all kind of interesting. I have a daughter and not a son... so I spend a lot more time than I used to paying attention to women's athletics! I enjoy them on their own merits. It's interesting to note what is different between the sexes' games, and what is common between them. In any game where strength is applied by the athlete, you start to see differences. I recently listened to an interview with Jessie Harrison (nee Duff), the pro shooter for Taurus. She's an exceptional shooter, and beats a heck of a lot of male shooters in every match she enters. She specifically said that her recoil control is not going to be the same as that of a top male shooter just because of strength and mass differences.
I don't think it's sexist to recognize some of the inherent strength, musculature, and skeletal differences between men and women. In fact, it's essential to creating viable opportunities for girls and women to have meaningful opportunities to athletically compete (and get all the benefits that come from athletic competition) that we refrain from physically-unrealistic proclamations that they can or should expect to be able to compete in precisely the same way and with precisely the same outcomes as men in any strength-influenced event (just as we don't expect 120 pound boxers to go toe-to-toe with 200+ heavyweights of similar skill levels on a serious and ongoing basis).
That said, it makes the games where women really can do it at truly the same level as men all the cooler, IMO.
The post was not intended to be sexist, but this part: "still amazed that the women shoot as well as, or better than, the men." is actually quite ignorant and can be counted as such (sexist). I mean - we do live in the 21 century after all, not in the 1900's... To see what I mean, try to say it a little bit differently, like: "I'm still amazed that women can drive cars as well, or better than men.". Try it in a mixed company, see the results, duck behind cover... 
