We are trying to assess peoples motivations here, its inherently flawed and very difficult if not impossible to determine.
Yet OP is stating exactly what these people's motivations are. You are reiterating my entire point.
I have provided you evidence to back it up, if they lowered the standards for everyone then I think that would be consistent with a non politically motivated effort.
That's not the whole scenario, though. If they didn't lower the standards for everyone all you're left with is that the standards were lowered for some people. You have to look at their motivations to figure out if it's politically motivated, sex-motivated, religiously-motivated, etc... and exactly like you said it's very hard to do that, but again OP is stating flat out what those motivations are. That is what I have a problem with.
IF the article is true, meaning if the females were given preferential treatment over the males is that okay, is that fair?"
If the claims made in the article are true, that only leads to some women getting preferential treatment. We can't understand the motives or attribute that to some overarching thing. But yes, in general I think it's unfair when people are treated unfairly.
So pointing out that speculations can be wrong seems like a huge waste of time.
Isn't that what you've been doing? You said that there are no other possibilities, I provided some and admitted they were speculations, and now you point out that they could be wrong and you're saying you know what is or isn't more likely. I'm asking why/how do you think that over the scenario OP has laid out? I'm not saying my possibilities should be considered correct without evidence, I'm saying we shouldn't consider OP's possibility correct without evidence.
But if it was, is that fair and if you think it might not be politically motivated what do you think happened?
There could be dozens of alternative explanations for why several women got preferential treatment. AND AGAIN: I'm not saying that it is not politically motivated, I'm saying that OP needs to back up his claim that it is politically motivated.
If you think that didn't happen you HAVE to have a competing theory (which you don't)