It's a familiar story to many of us: In prehistoric times, men were hunters and women were gatherers. Women were not physically capable of hunting because their anatomy was different from men. And because men were hunters, they drove human evolution.
This claim comes from 2 people, I would be a little more cautious about broadly embracing there claims of systemic discrimination, without actually knowing the corpus of research on the topic.
Also there claim of endurance being an important factor is suspect. Women have better endurance in that there performance drops more slowly than men, however the drop isn’t significant enough to result in any total advantage. Which is why women still lose in endurance competitions.
It’s fair to say that women probably weren’t significantly disadvantaged in hunting (especially smaller animals), but it’s quite misleading to argue that their endurance added some additional advantage.
You do realize that their papers are linked in the article and have references, correct?
If you actually have doubts about their underlying claims, I’d encourage taking a look at those.
Here’s an anecdote from a peer anthropologist who was a fan of their work and interviewed for a different story on it:
These kinds of “oops, it turns out someone assumed male was female/intersex” finds have been happening quite frequently over the past few years if you’ve been following the field at all.