I am very skeptical about the common assumption that men are inherently stronger than women. Patriarchy makes women much weaker in SO many ways by twisting their minds that it makes me wonder if the differences shown in various "studies" are more a result of society than anything. Like with brains for example: people will look at brain scans and see that men and women have different brains, and they will declare that this "proves" that men and women are inherently different... all while completely forgetting about neuroplasticity, the ability of the brain to change and alter itself based on how it's used. Obviously when women and men are pressured to act differently and to do different things, when one is told "boys do this and girls do that", a person's brain will actually change itself based on the actions which are taken as a result of gender role enforcement by society. So it makes me wonder if the "studies" that show men to be stronger than women on average suffer the same flaw, that women are not born weaker, but are *made* weaker by society's influence.
A short example: men are expected to take up lots of space when they sit, women are expected to cross their legs and shrivel up as much as possible when they sit. Science shows us that taking up lots of space like that and taking "power poses" can greatly increase testosterone levels (in either gender) which leads to a person being more dominant and aggressive... which can easily alter physical performance. Also, this shows us more how the mentalities of men and women are forced into a box by society. In the end, Patriarchy is a major problem and women, in truth, are not likely to be nearly as weak as the mindless masses assess them to be.
If you make an average guy and an average girl go through the same training and they both work their hardest, the guy is going to be more athletic because guys can easily build muscle compared to girls. And there will always be a guy who is more athletic than a girl. Like my ex female team mate and myself, she was faster and had more endurance than I did when I first started. But, after ten months her almost three years of hard work meant nothing because I was faster and had just as much endurance as she did, and she was one of the better female runners in my division. She wasn't trying less than I was, I can argue she was trying harder than I was, but for some reason I caught up and past her.
I think they are basing their answers on physicality rather than atleticism. Very commom misperception. Men have the capability to be faster and stronger but in things like willingness to compete, to train and teamwork no gender has the advantage.
At your age it would be possible for a girl to be close to a boys level because of a girls earlier and faster rate of development but from mid teens on boys should develop quicker.
I think men are naturally more athletic than women in a performance sense. Just look at results from any cross country and track&field meet. But the way it was worded in your description made it sound like athletic girls are less athletic than non-athletic guys, which is obviously false. Also, there are many kinds of athleticism. I'm pretty sure women are more athletic with body coordination (there's probably a better term for it) like in some areas of gymnastics or dance.
You can be more athletic but top tier male athletes still beat out top tier female athletes in almost everything.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions