People talk about the effects of male puberty on athletic performance. But boys are stronger than girls even before puberty

submitted by Realwoman from self.GenderCritical

I've often seen the argument that someone who's gone through male puberty has an unfair advantage over a woman. I agree with this wholeheartedly for what I hope is obvious reasons. But what I've rarely seen being discussed is that prepubescent boys are stronger than girls their age. This has always been obvious to me as I grew up with a younger brother who was shorter than me for most of our childhoods. Neither of us was participating in any kind of sports other than just playing and we played together most of the time. We would get into physical fights and he always, always would prevail. Even though he was shorter and younger. I wasn't super strong force a girl or anything but on the rare occasions when I would get to experience the strength of another girl, I was shocked by how weak they were and I was often stronger than them. Of course, it has been drilled in our heads that boys should never hit girls (which makes perfect sense) and when we grew older and started puberty, we stopped the physical fights. I was curious if there were papers on that and yes, there are.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234027421_Physical_fitness_in_prepubescent_children_An_update

"the boys are superior in tasks that require strength, speed and endurance, and the girls on tasks with a predominance of balance, coordination and flexibility; (vi) the girls have higher levels of body fat than boys;"

BTW, I was kind of shocked when I saw so many women in the west complain online that they had just recently realized how much stronger men are than us. I have no idea how anyone could reach adulthood without knowing this simple fact, I guess all the movies with women beating men up and the constant messages on how women are strong have done a disservice to women.

Here is another interesting article https://quillette.com/2019/04/05/sex-differences-gender-and-competitive-sport/

all 44 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]worried19 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

Interesting. I'm 6'1" and have been lifting weights since I was 14, so I've always been strong for an adult woman.

Prior to puberty, I perceived myself as equal to boys. I could definitely beat them in sports or sparring. I don't know that I was an especially strong child, and I wasn't tall as a kid. I couldn't beat my brother, but that's because he's two years older. I could definitely beat my friends. I always thought boys and girls were equal before puberty. I'm kind of shocked to learn they aren't?

[–]slushpilot 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Just based on statistics I have to assume you don't personally know any women who are taller than you, but probably do know some guys who are. And when you do meet a 5'11" woman, you probably don't really think, wow she's quite tall—when she's actually shorter than you.

So yes, because of your particular physique it's possible to not fully realize these differences when you're comparing yourself to the bell curve of average people.

When it comes to before puberty, it's hard to say... the differences are probably smaller but they're definitely still there. If you're as tall as you are now, it's hard to believe you didn't have some childhood advantages either.

That is to say, everyone's unique, but the averages do tend to cluster, and the differences among outliers are even more extreme: you probably wouldn't want to wrestle someone like Hafthor Bjornsson, but then again neither would any guy!

[–]worried19 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I fully accept that I am much, much stronger than the average adult woman.

I did play on boys' sports teams and did lots of physical activities with my brother and male friends prior to puberty, so perhaps that influenced my childhood strength. I was average in size. I was athletic, but I was not a star athlete. I was good enough to never be picked last for any team, though.

[–]112223sps 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I'm short af and always have been, and I agree with you. Before puberty almost all of my friends were boys and we all were very equal when it came to our physical ability, we played every sport around and I held my own and was better than a lot of the boys. Maybe I'm the anomaly, but I kinda don't think so. I think it's more down to girls not doing sports as seriously as the way boys do, which I did.

[–]worried19 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yeah, I was a huge sports kid. Baseball, basketball, soccer, even football although they didn't let girls on the town team. I still played football with my friends. I started early, too. I was in pretty much every organized sport I could find by first grade.

[–]112223sps 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You sound the same as me! I played every sport that was available and loved it. We had a flag football team in our city and I was the only girl in the whole league.. Lol it was awesome. I think socialization and not being encouraged in sports plays more of a role in this discussion than OP thinks. I literally never felt inferior to the boys before puberty.

[–]Realwoman[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Socialization doesn't have that much of an effect, no studies have shown that strength has anything to do with socialization. Some girls are naturally stronger, but most girls Rae not and the strongest girls are still not aas strong as the strongest boys.

[–]112223sps 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So you really don't think being encouraged and pushed into sports, and most importantly practicing and being more physical, doesn't benefit boys when it comes to strength? I remember the other girls saying, and I quote, 'being good at sports is gay'. They purposely acted stupid and bad because they thought that's how girls were supposed to be. They already had this attitude at a very young age. Thats literally socialization. I don't doubt that girls are weaker on average, I just think it has a lot more to do with them never practicing those skills rather than being naturally bad.

[–]Realwoman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I guess I grew up very differently because I saw none of that. And my brother was not into sports much (only watching them on TV), he was more about reading. The pressure on girls to do sports was more or less equal, especially when it came to track and field.

[–]chrysthefeminist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I agree with you. I am not convinced by the dismissing of girls like you who played sports and were equal to boys who played sports as "outliers" and "exceptions." Boys are given a lot more encouragement and often instruction and access to equipment than girls are and just about everything needed to develop strength and athletic ability. It's like living in a society where only boys are educated and then saying the fact that they can read and do math better than girls is due to superior intellect on their part. We don't fall for that one anymore, though once it was commonly believed. I think that's the stage we are still at in beliefs about girls' physical abilities and falling for it is doing a number on our heads. Yes, I think males do have an advantage and are stronger on average after puberty, but even that is not set in stone for all time, though that is an entirely different story.

[–]112223sps 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I mean I was an outlier I guess, not because I was naturally gifted, but because I practiced 'boy' skills and didn't care about being told what boys do and what girls do. That's why I was good and most of the other girls were bad. They literally didn't try and actually acted purposely bad because to them that's what being a girl was.

[–]chrysthefeminist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree 100% with this.

When I said I wasn't convinced by the dismissing of girls like you as "outliers" and "exceptions" I was responding to OP's assertion of that as being what you are, not to your own. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[–]Realwoman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Actually, girls are better at reading than boys. They also start speaking earlier than boys.

The scientific study I linked clearly shows that boys are stronger even before puberty and girls are better at balancing and flexibility. No need to believe in anything, looking at the data is all that's needed.

[–]Realwoman[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are always exceptions

[–]Realwoman[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It looks like you're an outlier in both height and strength, you're taller than the average guy even, even if the height thing only happened after puberty. That's perfectly OK of course, it's just that it would not be fair for you to have today compete with male outliers.

[–]worried19 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, of course. My childhood dreams of playing in the NBA or NFL were just that. I wouldn't have stood a chance against biological adult men in those sports.

[–]RestingWitchface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am a tall woman as well. I used to do various martial arts and boxing. In mixed training, the different in strength between men and women is completely obvious. I am physically bigger or a similar size to a lot of men, but despite that, they have a huge advantage over me. You don't need to be a boxer to know that – if you've ever had a boyfriend manhandle you, either as part of a play fight, during sex or an act of aggression, you will know.

Just as an interesting side note, I have a younger sister who has always been shorter than me, and when we were kids she was actually stronger. Probably still is. I didn't grow up with boys so I can't comment on that from personal experience.

[–]materialrealityplz 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To see with your own eyes, go to any track and field day of a school and watch the boys way outperform the girls.

In highschool I volunteered to help out with my previous middle school's track and field day. Ended up watching kids throw balls all day for the soft ball throwing event or whatever. All the girls threw about the same and all the boys threw wayyyy past them. There wasn't even like any overlap. That was the first time it became super freaking obvious to me.

[–]jet199 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

This is true of all mammals.

Males get a shot of testosterone in the womb to develop their genitals. This also makes the rest of their body and brain develop a bit differently. In humans mothers will then even produce slightly different milk if they have a girl or a boy and the different sexes have different needs.

This doesn't only effect strength, male young are more aggressive and play rougher than females young.

http://healthydogclub.com/2012/11/when-puppies-play-young-boy-dogs-often-let-the-girls-win-anything-to-keep-the-game-going/

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

In addition to the the "shot of testosterone" that male fetuses get in utero, once male babies are out of the womb they experience another period of very high testosterone levels that typically lasts for three to five months during the first six months of life.

Between birth and six months, newborn humans of both sexes go through a several-months long period known as "mini puberty" in which both pituitary gonadotropins and sex steroids surge. During this time, babies of both sexes have elevated testosterone levels, but the the T levels of male babies far surpass the T levels of female babies because the male T is testicular in origin whereas the female T comes from the adrenal glands. In male babies, in fact, the T levels during the "mini puberty" of early infancy are often/usually as high as in puberty.

During the "mini puberty" of infancy, baby girls have elevated estradiol levels, though not nearly to the extent as in actual puberty. Compared to the dramatic surge in T that neonatal boys experience, the surge in estradiol that neonatal girls experience is much less pronounced or rather mild.

The fact that newborns go through a several-months long "mini puberty" of elevated sex hormones during the first six months of life has been known and documented since the early 1970s. Strangely, however, the effects of this "mini puberty" have not been well studied.

It has been shown that the high levels of T in male infants during this phase of life correlates with - and might explain - male babies' considerably faster rates of growth compared to females. But virtually all the "research" on the implications of neonatal "mini puberty" conducted in the nearly 50 year since neonatal "mini puberty" was first established as "a thing" in the 1970s has come from the behavioral sciences, with psychologists trying to link the surge in T levels that infant boys experience in the first six months of life to later sex differences in behavior.

The only research from the physical sciences into the physiological consequences of the male neonatal T surge has been very narrow in scope, focusing on such issues as links between high male T early in life and the size of boys' penises and testicles later on. But the impact of neonatal "mini puberty" - and particularly very high rates of T in males in the first six months of life - on the physiological differences between the two sexes prior to puberty remains unexplored.

[–]Realwoman[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Very interesting, do you have an academic source to link to? I'd love to use it for arguments

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"Hypophyso-Gonadal Function in Humans during the First Year of Life," from The Journal of Clinical Investigation, March 1974; first section is "Evidence for Testicular Activity in Early Infancy." When the paper was written it was not yet known if the high T male newborns experience is generated from the testicles; it since has been proven to that the testes produce the T surge. The paper concludes:

"Plasma testosterone increase in male infants in the first months of life probably reflects testicular activity and might have an important physiologic role... The present data indicate that the testes are active in the postnatal period... It is possible that the surge of testosterone in the first 3 months of life plays a role in the future life pattern of the male human being."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC333063/

"Dihydrotestosterone and Its Relationship to Testosterone in Infancy and Childhood," published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism in May 1979:

"A cross-sectional and longitudinal study of the change in dihydrotestosterone (DHT) and testosterone (T) serum concentration was undertaken in infants from birth to 18 months to elucidate the differences in the concentration of DHT and T in male and female infants. In addition, changes in DHT, T, and the T:DHT ratio were studied in males from infancy to adulthood. Both DHT and T in cord blood were significantly higher in male than in female infants (P < 0.005 and P = 0.01, respectively). Postnatally, in male infants, there was a parallel rise in DHT and T to pubertal levels, resulting in a constant T: DHT ratio (mean ± SD, 4.9 ± 2.7). After hCG stimulation, the T: DHT ratio was similar in this age group (mean ± SD, 5.3 ± 1.7). Both DHT and T decreased sharply at age 6 months in young male infants..."

"Activation of the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Gonadal Axis in Infancy: Minipuberty" published in Hormone Research in Pediatrics, August 2014:

"The postnatal gonadotrophin surge results in gonadal activation in both sexes. In boys, testosterone levels rise to a peak at 1-3 months of age and then decline following LH levels. Postnatal HPG axis activation is associated with penile and testicular growth and therefore considered important for the development of male genitalia... Testosterone levels in boys are low in the cord blood but start to increase after 1 week of age, peak to pubertal levels at 1-3 months and then decline to low prepubertal levels by approximately 6 months of age.

"In girls, elevated gonadotrophin levels result in the maturation of ovarian follicles and in an increase in oestradiol levels.

"Biological significance and possible long-term consequences of this minipuberty remain elusive, as do the mechanisms that silence the HPG axis until puberty..."

"Sex Differences in Reproductive Hormones During Mini-Puberty in Infants With Normal and Disordered Sex Development" published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism" in August 2018:

"A transient postnatal activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, also termed mini-puberty, occurs in healthy infants. This rise in gonadotropins, which peaks when the infant is between 1 week and 3 months of age, appears to show a marked sexual dimorphism with preponderance of LH in boys and of FSH in girls. A subsequent rise in serum concentrations of the gonadal hormones is also seen in bothsexes, with preponderance of testosterone (T), inhibin B, and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in boys and estradiol in girls. Concentrations of LH, FSH, and T in boys and of LH and T in girls decrease to prepubertal levels in the following months, whereas the elevation of FSH and estradiol is more prolonged in girls."

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/103/8/3028/5037960

Mayo Clinic Lab Values for TESTOSTERONE, TOTAL say that the normal ranges for Males by age from infancy to young adulthood are: 0-5 months: 75-400 ng/dL - 6 months-9 years: <7-20 ng/dL - 10-11 years: <7-130 ng/dL - 14 years: <7-1,200 ng/dL 15-16 years: 100-1,200 ng/dL - 17-18 years: 300-1,200 ng/dL - 19 years or above: 240-950 ng/dL

Mayo Clinic says normal Male T levels before and during puberty are as follows: Tanner Stage I (prepubertal): <7-2/ Tanner Stage II: 8-66/ Tanner Stage III: 26-800 /Tanner IV: 85-1,200 Tanner Stage V (young adult): 300-950

https://www.mayocliniclabs.com/test-catalog/Clinical+and+Interpretive/83686

Lots of other papers out there if you search such terms as "mini puberty in infants" and "neonatal testosterone surge"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4462291/

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2016/06/07/peds.2016-1301.full.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283588320_The_Postnatal_Endocrine_Surge_and_Its_Effects_on_Subsequent_Sexual_Growth

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/138/1/e20153561

[–]Realwoman[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Brilliant, thank you!

[–]Realwoman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep

[–]Camberian 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I had a very curious online discussion a few months back - unrelated to any of the radfem topics - in which I was completely astonished that the (US American) other woman maintained, that women as a rule could keep up with men, if they were athletic and worked out a bit. She was dead set in this belief too. The discussion arose from me stating that a 70 years old guy still was likely to be way stronger than any young woman. To say I was completely flabbergasted by her belief is understating it.

[–]Realwoman[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The delusion is real. Even Serena Williams cannot beat a man ranked 203:

https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,543962,00.html

[–]chrysthefeminist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Yet Billie Jean King, in her 20s, beat a 50 something male ex tennis pro, Bobby Riggs. And don't tell me Riggs let her win or anything. I was alive at the time, an adult and followed it. Riggs had been boasting and boasting about how even an old codger like him could beat one of the current women pros, so he wouldn't have thrown it on purpose. Also, watching in on the match, I saw him on a break gulping water like he was about to die. After the game he burbled about "a re-match, a re-match." She beat him fair and square.

[–]Realwoman[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Not saying it's not ever possible for a young outlier woman that trains a lot of to beat an old guy but in general it's not very likely. Also, when it comes to tennis for example, there's no harm in playing tennis with someone much stronger than you for fun. But if it comes to combat for example the danger is real and the difference in strength even more pronounced.

BTW, I've heard from people that like to watch tennis (I'm certainly not one of those them) that they prefer to watch women's tennis because the ball moves slower and it's more fun to track.

[–]chrysthefeminist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

She didn't just beat "an old guy", she beat a retired tennis professional who had been "training a lot" all his life and was still "training a lot" in order to make good on his boast. And the match was not "for fun." It was at the height of the women's liberation movement of the 1970s when both men's and women's feelings were running high on the subject, and was in deadly earnest for both. And I disagree with your dismissal of young, talented women as "outliers."

[–]Realwoman[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

He was also 50.

Are you implying women can beat men in sports? Should men and women compete with each other?

Women that can beat some men are outliers. That's not dismissing them anymore than calling math prodigies outliers is dismissing math prodigies.

Women are not as strong as men and should not have to compete with men. Also, women need protection from men because men are stronger. Denying this basic fact is denying women's rights.

[–]chrysthefeminist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Don't put words into my mouth. I am responding to your assertion that no woman can ever beat any man, and that if she does she's an "outlier." That there is no overlap at all in strength between men and women, just two entirely mutually exclusive "strength" classes, based on sex. I think that the accomplishments of the outliers point as much to the unfulfilled and unrecognized potential of many women as they do to the talents and skills of the outliers themselves. I think women on average are not as strong as men and as such we have every right to our own sports competitions without them. We also have a right to them for purposes of setting our own boundaries.

As to "protection from men", brings to mind the old protection racket (women need men to protect them from men.) I think women need protection from the protection racket, and are perfectly capable of devising our own means of protection.

[–]Realwoman[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

There is the occasional woman that is stronger than the occasional man. The same way that there is the occasional woman that's taller than the occasional man. The vast, vast majority of the men can easily overpower and rape the vast, vast majority of women.

[–]loq453 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

https://en.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/4vcxd0/almost_all_men_are_stronger_than_almost_all_women/

You are correct. In fact even top female athletes, who most likely abuse steroids, would have problems beating an average men in any competition of pure strength, and this is ignoring the weight difference.

Just look at combat sports, no woman can beat a man in same weight bracket. A good example is the fight between Lucia Rijker against Somchai Jaidee. Lucia Rijker is one of the best female martial artists in history, Somchai Jaidee's only historical record is this fight, the weight difference is 1 kg and she still lost.

Then account that in real life there is a weight difference, and that probably in any country men on average are 10 kg heavier.

[–]Realwoman[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep, denying reality is detrimental and even dangerous for women. Men have evolved to fight other men, millions of years of evolution cannot be undone by wokeness.

[–]chrysthefeminist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

the occasional woman that's taller than the occasional man.

Yeah, compare Finns with southern Italians and see how "occasional" it is for women to be taller than men.

I think there's a lot of undeveloped and unrecognized female potential and I simply don't agree with you that the situation is set in stone for all time. I think that any further "dialog" between us on the subject is likely to be unproductive and I am also very bored with your views, so let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[–]RestingWitchface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How many women realistically have the time and energy to stay in such good shape? And even if they do, it's not always enough to compensate for the strength difference, especially if they are up against a man who also trains. That is completely detached from reality.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When more than 312 10-11 year-old boys and girls in Portugal were compared performing a variety of physical education tasks, "it was observed that the boys were superior to the girls on tests of aerobic capability, speed, agility, explosive strength, and maximum isometric strength. The girls were superior in flexibility of the lower back and hamstrings and balance."

https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Fulltext/2012/07000/Physical_Fitness_Differences_Between_Prepubescent.4.aspx

Apparently, the advantage that the males age 10-11 studied had in "explosive strength" over females of the same age was especially pronounced.

The greater aerobic capacity that males have even prior to puberty or early in puberty is probably linked to the fact that even when height, weight, girth and body shape are similar, males throughout life have considerably larger lungs and hearts than females, which gives them greater blood oxygenation. Similarly, the faster speed that males have in PE tests is most likely linked to such factors as males having faster twitch fibers in their muscles.

Also, the long-established differences in sensory functioning seen in male and female humans from infancy on might factor in too. Though in babies, females are thought to be more attuned and responsive to auditory cues, particularly the sound of human voices and human crying, in elite adult athletes it's been shown that male stature and physiology provide some sort of advantage that enables males to have considerably faster reaction times to the startling auditory signals - such as starting gun, buzzer or shout of "Go!" - commonly used to start off athletic contests like running races. Between that and other factors, such as greater speed generally and much higher "explosive strength," this means male Olympic-level runners are much faster off the blocks than their female counterparts.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198384/

[–]Nona_Biba 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for this, I'm gonna bookmark that study in case i get in a debate about transgender women in sports.

[–]mangosplums 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I don’t think this is true.

[–]jet199 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Why don't you look at the evidence rather than just using your imagination and biases.

[–]mangosplums 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have that’s why I said i don’t think this is true. Pre puberty little boys aren’t generally stronger than girls.

[–]Realwoman[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Based on what?

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This document dated today July 16 2020 shows the best performances in various athletics events by 5- to 19-year-olds of both sexes from 47 countries:

http://age-records.125mb.com/

The stats for boys and girls of the same age in the same events are not shown side by side, so to compare you have to keep going from one table in one section to another table much farther down. I don't have the time or ability to chart them side by side, but I think it would be interesting to see them presented that way.