For starters, you're conflating recreational running with elite-level competition: the number of people in the "open age" category doesn't tell us anything about competition among elites. Look at the relative number of men versus women in post-collegiate training groups; look at the gaps in time between top finishers at most big-city marathons. Any reasonable observer can see that there's a discrepancy in competitive depth.
I like how you tout your use of "indisputable" stats and yet show your inability to use them in any nuanced way. If 2:26-high equals 2:07-high on the men's side, then what's the equivalent male performance for a 2:19 woman? Remember, 2:19 is seven minutes faster than a time you've claimed is equivalent to a 2:07. Even taking into account the need to scale times across gender, a 2:19 women's time would be worth no less than a 2:01xx on the men's. And consider what Radcliffe's 2:15 would be worth, according to your thinking.
Luckily, though, everyone else on this thread seems to agree that Burla's performance is worth something in the 2:10-2:13 range. Again, none of this is meant to detract from her great performance, only to put it in its proper context.