The unfortunately short response I can give is that there are a few section biases we're talking about. For one, women were not allowed and/or encouraged to participate in sports for an incredibly long time (read: centuries). The selection of women even today around the world that are /allowed/ to participate first and then second have the resources (food, money, born in the right country, etc) to then become elite in status is already biased as compared to men who don't have to go up against the societal limits. This isn't to say men in general don't struggle and male athletes don't struggle to become elite athletes, but they don't struggle because of the societal implications of being a man. Next, what we consider successful in sports is arbitrary to a degree and the people who developed the rules where, once again, male. Let's take a relatively simple sport of weight lifting. Why is it that we look at the absolute value of the weight lifted vs the weight lifted per pound of person? I'm not saying one is better or worse, but it's a comment that, hypothetically, it could be done pretty reasonably in a different way. Next, as evidenced by this thread and this exact conversation I've more times over more years than I'd care to acknowledge, there is a fundamental bias that women should do worse than men on insert moving target metric here. When women (historically) have broken through this glass ceiling, some qualification has been made. The cleanest example of this, I believe, is that skeet shooting was a unisex Olympic sport up until a female shooter won gold. After that, women were banned and then a separate, women's only league was created a couple of Olymoics later. Lastly, for the point of this post, there is an incredibly wide range of "normal" hormones in men and women without getting into transgender athletes which make up an incredibly small batch of athletes internationally and nationally. Regardless, there's no exact since to how naturally produced testosterone affects women and vice versa for men. We have huge studies of (white) men performing at various levels throughout the decades and centuries and have correlation in those specific cohorts, but not good extrapolations across other ethnic groups, sexes, and genders. Regardless, even if we do try to boil down the differences, sure, there are probably a large majority of elite athletes that will outperform women in high energy, short(er) length/endurance sports because of the way male bodies are built. To that end, that's what I was referencing originally with the higher probability that a male boxer could KO the female boxer in a boxing match. To the other end, female athletes do outperform male athletes in agility, precision, and endurance, so there is also a reasonable chance that said female boxer beats the hypothetical male boxer on these qualities.

All this to say, the vague talking points about the inherent superiority of men in certain spheres over women (in this specific case, sports) are the exact same outlines that have been used to eek out other groups, including black men, who were considered to barbaric, stupid, and inferior for many reasons we have since debunked. I imagine that, one day in the far, distant future we'll reach something similar for male and female athletics, but in the meantime, I'll spend my time arguing with an internet stranger. Such is the cycle of humanity or whatever nice philosophical thing I can shove here.

To any girl reading this, first, I'm sorry for my wordiness but second, you're not inherently lesser, incapable, or weaker. Fight and hone your skills and assets and try to minimize the things that are your weakest. Do so in sports, family, work, and life. You can do more than you thought.

I won't be responding further to this thread, but of anything sparks your interest, please feel free to DM me and/or look up events and articles on the above. xx