Interesting real life stats on boys/girls sports

[Ozgirl75]

My 8 year old son recently competed in a cross country event. This was for around 25 schools, each of whom did their own cross country at school and then sent the fastest 5 runners to compete in this event.
This is all primary, being age 8/9, 10, 11 and 12.
I received the results today. I would have assumed that because the 8/9 and even 10 year olds were well below puberty, that boys and girls were similar speed runners.
Well they weren’t at all.
My son came 54th in the boys, running 2k in 9minutes 24 seconds. In the girls race this would have put him in 7th place.
The fastest boy was 40 seconds faster than the fastest girl. And this is 8/9 year olds.
This is relevant as the top 15 runners go on to trial at another event where the fastest runners of that run for the state and then eventually, Australia (obviously the pool gets smaller and smaller!)
My interests firstly are, why? Why are Pre pubescent boys significantly faster runners than Pre pubescent girls? For example, my son isn’t really even a runner, he’s just an all rounder and plays lots of sport, but he would have finished one place behind a girl at his school who already runs for NSW (and obviously runs and trains pretty hard).
And secondly - wow. If this is the difference before puberty, what will the difference be like after? (Rhetorical question). It makes me see even more strongly before that sport should be segregated for the absolute protection of girls’ sports and scholarships.

Those are your kids though. You cannot extrapolate to all boys and girls are like that. They aren’t.

I don't think anyone is saying that. We all know it isn't true, many of us may not have been that way ourselves. I do think though that many are surprised when they have their own kids and observe them, and their friends and classmates, and they are much more divided by sex at what seems a pretty basic level.

I was somewhat surprised with my own kids - there were some things where they didn't seem to follow strict gendered norms, like shiny sparkles, that they all liked as kids, and my second daughter was less into dolls than my son, though my first liked them a fair bit and my youngest is obsessed.

But n other ways, particularly physicality, there was a difference, and educationally they followed pretty standard male/female paths around language acquisition and reading. (And no, I didn't avoid talking to the boy.)

The real question though is whether there is a difference at a population level.

What a great thread!
Here's the new research about teenage girl footballers having twice the risk of concussion than boys:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56894240

Predictably research in this area was all based around boys, despite the fact there were big differences in the way boys' and girls' bodies responded to head injuries and the way they were managed . Interestingly girls are told to sit out less than boys after an incident.

Pleased to see that the FA recognises the dearth of sex based research and wants more research into the impact of head injuries and concussion in the women's and girl's game.
Maybe they can have a word with the idiots in England Rugby currently demanding that women team up with men in women's teams

Those are your kids though. You cannot extrapolate to all boys and girls are like that. They aren’t.

Of course you can't but neither should you discount observable differences between the sexes at a very young age. If you had told me before that boys were different, I would have pooh poohed it and said it must be nurture driven. However, that was not the case with my two and I don't believe it was merely a difference in personality.

@WarriorN

like us mums of boys would give them more freedom or something

There's been studies that this is the case. Ironically in saw it explored in a bbc program with Alice Roberts and Michael Mosely; Alice was firmly saying and showing that there was no 'brain' difference and it was all how people treated the baby/ toddler if they thought they were male or female...(she clearly did a reverse ferret soon after.)

Mums of boys were shown to allow them to explore independently a bit further than mums of girls over a high ramp.

Strangers treated babies dressed in blue differently to babies dressed in pink.

I remember seeing that programme. I thought of it one day when I was in a lift with two other women, one had a young baby in a buggy, I said she was a lovely baby and the other woman agreed. The mother said, "Yes she's a really girly girl." I didn't know if I should laugh or cry, she must have been six weeks old and there she was in a pigeon hole.

I home schooled mine for a few years, we went to home school groups where boys and girls always played equally. When my kids started school at 9/10 they found it really difficult to understand the "rules" about what boys and girls could do and how they should interact e.g. my DD got into hot water for talking to someone elses boyfriend. She had no idea that 9 year olds were in "relationships" and you got in the middle at your peril.

@bluebluezoo

Perhaps I was particularly naive, but a lot of the narrative surrounding 'girls can do anything' glosses over the physical differences

I never felt it did.

Yes boys/men are physically stronger, no once is saying they are. I did a lot of sport and while I was physically more able than many boys, when it came to the ones that did similar training to me there was no question. Centre of gravity is different, everything is different. Didn’t stop me trying to beat them though!

The whole “girls can do anything” for me was more of an antistereotype message. Girls can play football, nothing is “for boys” or “for girls”. Girls don’t have to like babies and drawing, they can prefer joining in with building cycle jumps and tree climbing if they want. It’s exclusive to stop girls joining in or assume they’re inferior at something purely because they’re girls. Or boys.

Physical differences are something we cannot change. We can change the stereotypes. Unfortunately from being a child in the 70’s where child specialists were actively encouraging dismantling of such gender stereotypes, we’ve now gone the other way where so many people seem to be buying into “innate” pink brain or blue brain as the thing we can’t change.

Back in the 60s and 70s we used the "boys are physically stronger" as a reason why they should do manual work and women should be the managers/scientists/engineers. Made boys stop and think.

Of course you can't but neither should you discount observable differences between the sexes at a very young age

Many of these differences are subject to confirmation bias though.

One of mine was very gender neutral as a toddler. Short hair, wore trousers and tops.

I found if I took them to the park in “boy” colours, people would admire their bravery in climbing to the top of the frame, encourage them, and tell me how I had a typical boy and I must be exhausted running around after them all day.

If I took the same child in a pink top or a dress, as she climbed the frame other parents would ask if she need help, or step in to help. They’s look round for me to check it was on, or ask her where her mum was. Lots of “ooh that’s very high, be careful”. If she played in the sandpit others would tell me girls were so good at entertaining themselves and they were so much easier as you could leave them playing.

People saw what they want to see. They saw what confirmed their own opinions on gender.

I once had an old lady laugh at me and tell me off in the street because I’d allowed my little boy out in his sisters clothes. That sort of thing should stay at home. She absolutely would not believe she was a girl and clearly thought I was crazy. Because she was running and jumping alongside me like a boy, and didn’t have long hair (her hair just did not grow. Still doesn’t.)

Ancient gran, it's been interesting watching my eldest, who preferred played with girls at nursery, (role play games rather than chasing and pushing) slowly morph into a "only play with boys" at school. And the girls he played with at nursery and how they've changed. Poles apart.

Yet when she last came to play, (ages ago now sadly due to the pandemic) they slipped back into an equal way of playing which was lovely. He also has a friend through friends who is a girl a year younger he plays with beautifully we see occasionally. We've been on holiday with them so he's close.

Playgrounds do impact a lot. Bills New frock is a brilliant book to read with year 3 for that.

I'm a bit sad that I'm currently unable to take my toddler out and about to toddler groups to meet other children and see how he plays. He plays closely with one boy at nursery but i don't know how he plays.

WarriorN, it was funny when mine started school. It was a bit "raised eyebrows" as my DD happily played with the boys without being interested in the boyfriend bit, DS's best friend was a girl. He was very caring of others as a child and is in a caring role as an adult all 6'3" macho him. His sister did a STEM subject at uni, did some caring work in uni holidays and hated it, all 5'2" petite feminine little her. She was never interested in dolls, he loved playing fantasy games with small figures. They make me smile as they fit bits of stereotypes and defy others.

Interestingly I have 2 older ones who went through nursery/school and fit the male stereotype perfectly.

Is it them, is it me or was it outside influences?

I think fitting in has a lot to do with how much kids conform to stereotypes. Ds could be me as a kid. Spoke and read early and fluently, head in clouds, disorganised, gentle, rarely angry, scruffy.

Dd aggressive, competitive as fuck, non reader.

But. Ds more drawn to marvel etc. Is that cos his dad is and he wants to please his dad?

Dd wants to wear makeup, but hates brushing teeth and hair. Has hsd a string of boyfriends in rotation from year 1.

I have always been at great pains to get rid of stereotypes at home and 11yrold ds can spout it all back, but kids do tend to conform with social norms.

I would echo the comments on social factors, with boys being encouraged to be more active. This increases the talent pool for boys essentially.

In chess they did an analysis to see why men are ranked higher. In some countries (note, not all) the difference can pretty much entirely be ascribed to a difference in talent pool. Talent pool being how many boys vs girls even begin to play chess. If you take a random 1000 boys and a random 10 girls into any particular exercise, chances are plenty of boys will be better than the top girl.

On a different note, according to this www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323085#typical-testosterone-levels from age 10 onwards boys already have up to 3-4 times as much testosterone as girls.

There have been quite a lot of studies suggesting PP boys are stronger/fitter/faster than PP girls (and a few that suggests they aren’t). I think the difference that gets quoted is not more than 10%. I think pp boys are also typically slightly heavier and have slightly higher calorie needs. I presume that it would be down to higher testosterone in the womb and in babyhood.

Boys are usually encouraged to run around, play football etc. Even if girls are encouraged to be physically active it’s one ballet or gymnastics class a week, which won’t help with running fitness, so the difference between them and boys who are running around everyday playing football will be huge

I'm not convinced it is just down to encouragement to be physical. My granddaughter is very physical and adventurous and is encouraged to be so. she also loves climbing, and loves the monkey bars in the park. she will spend hours practising. She is six.

A few months ago I saw a young trans child in the park, on the same set of monkey bars as my grandduaghter. the child was around the same age; but the obvious difference in muscularity and physicality was undeniable in comparison. Even the gait.

Of course you can't but neither should you discount observable differences between the sexes at a very young age. If you had told me before that boys were different, I would have pooh poohed it and said it must be nurture driven. However, that was not the case with my two and I don't believe it was merely a difference in personality

I agree with you. I have a daughter and two sons, and now a granddaughter, and even given differences in personality the differences were there.

But how can you tell that the differences aren't even subtly imposed by society? My dc got the idea about girls' and boys' toys from adverts and other kids at nursery. Ds believed that men cook and iron and women put the washing on until he went to school. He has never run around much or been into football. Neither kid is noisy, because I've never allowed it in the house. Both wiry and flexible. Dd much, much more given to the outdoors. Ds more stamina.

It doesn't count, cos it's anecdata, but up until school age and possibly a bit later, I could have told you my dc were opposite sex and you wouldn't have questioned it.

And aren't there studies that show boy/ girl brains are the same, but by society reinforcing certain patterns etc, brains end up being moulded? The language we use has an effect from the minute they're born.

That doesn't fit with us as mammals with dependent young for an extended period though moth.

In almost every mammal there are dedicated roles for male and female. Unless you believe that mummy and daddy lion look at the baby lions and say "this one has a vulval opening, isn't she pretty, and oh look, this one has a penis what a big strong boy" and treat them differently, they still grow up and the male lions still go off alone and the female lions still gather in a pride and do most of the hunting and all the nurturing, and if a new male takes over the pride he will still kill any cubs that aren't his.

Obviously as I said before, nurture reinforces gender roles and stereotypes, and there are significant differences at individual level. But at population level, if women (well, at least one of the sexes) weren't biologically primed to feed and nurture their babies it would be a disaster for the species. We'd have to have a fish model where you have thousands of babies that you don't look after and a few survive to adulthood.

In almost every mammal there are dedicated roles for male and female

Yes, but until sexual maturity there’s no noticeable difference in behaviour. They all playfight, practice hunting, and sleep in the sun. The girls don’t segregate off and sit round watching the boys play games. Girl mammals don’t prefer pink.

Sexual behaviour is different. But gender is a social construct- girls and boys have different “innate” likes according to the society they are brought up in. Humans dictate that girls like pink and drawing, not biology...

It's interesting that women make different milk for male or female babies.

I started a thread on more real life sex stats in sport here, really very pertinent ones: (and from the US.)

Teen girls have double concussion risk of boys www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4230537-teen-girls-have-double-concussion-risk-of-boys

Ive also always found research on cosleeping with boys v girls has positive impact on boys at age 5 at school, interpersonal relationships, but makes no difference to girls.

But how can you tell that the differences aren't even subtly imposed by society

The muscularity of the trans child was a give away...... not that girls cannot be muscular or toned. Of course, humans all have different body shapes and builds.

If you had been there and witnessed the difference between obviously athletic girls and the trans child you would understand. ( the child was wearing clothing which exposed the arms). I found it very interesting how obvious the physical differences were, even at such a young age.

www.englandathletics.org/athletics-and-running/england-competitions/national-championships/england-athletics-championship-records/#Table9

This link contains among others the records of both under 15 boys and girls in outdoor and indoor events. Again the difference is striking.

www.gbrathletics.com/uk/wu13.htm
www.gbrathletics.com/uk/mu13.htm
Might find these interesting too.

So much of this is about how much bell curves overlap between boys and girls at different ages. Growing up I genuinely believed that any differences were entirely due to nurture, and that if we addressed socialisation there'd be no difference in the two bell curves. Now I realise it's not as simple as that.

Possibly socialisation is also related to differing development timelines. At population level boys tend to develop gross motor skills before girls, and fine minor skills after girls which may explain play preferences as children gravitate to things they are better at. The critical thing IMO is to then encourage children to practise the other skills as they develop them rather than reinforcing those early differences.