I think the statement in the title is basically how a lot of feminists think:

"If men do better, it's proof that they cheat. If women do better, it's proof that they're superior"

Most rich people are men. And that's held up as definitive proof in feminist circles that men basically cheat and oppress women and rig society to favor men.

There was a time when women were allowed to attend university, yet most university students were men. Of course, the very fact that most students were male was seen as men oppressing women, and feminists demanded scholarships etc to fix men's cheating.

But now that more women attend university... there's zero enthusiasm about implementing male-only scholarships, or even just to abolish or equalize female-only scholarships (which still exist).

So basically, if men do better, feminists see that as proof that men cheat, and action must be taken.

If women do better, feminists see that as proof that women are just superior and they're beating men legitimately, and therefore no action should be taken.

But aren't feminists implicitly assuming female supremacy here, if their position is "if men outperform women, by definition they're cheating, while if women outperform men by definition they're just better"?