[quote IamAporcupine]@SamphiretheStickerist - can I too?
I am currently having a discussion with someone (*) who argues that the physical differences between males and females are due to socialization... 
. That we are weaker beacuse of Dysney basically. She cites Colette Dawling, who I must admit have not read. It would be great to have your input 
(*) she also finds 'difficult' to 'decide' what is male/female...[/quote]
Tell her that she is considering only half of the human condition - socialisation. That would tally with the Disneyfication. Usually referred to as the Victorian Perspective, but I suppose Post Modernism demands an update in everything, eventually.
When it comes to actually measuring the human body and it's potential in any physical activity then yes, that socialisation will have an effect. Think about the differences in how we persist in 'sexing' everything, whether via toxic masculinity or that Princess Effect. Boys will be boys etc. So young girls will be socially steered into 'acceptable' pursuits, away from boxing, rugby, etc.
But then look at how that has been changing over the last 50ish years. Nicola Adams, women's football and rugby etc etc. More young girls are starting those sports and, more importantly, the sports themselves not only accommodate them but encourage them.
So that deals with the half your friend acknowledges.
But the physical science tells the same story. Despite the amazing leaps in understanding the differences in exercise stress responses of sexed bodies, leading to different training regimes for males and females and an better understanding in the relative strengths and weaknesses between the sexes NOTHING can overcome the innate, built in differences.
Usually based, connected to the single most important for the species bodily differences of childbirth demand that female bodies have different hormones and different body responses to them. Think about the hormonal effects on muscle laxity during pregnancy. No male body experiences those changes, it is a sexed difference that has knock effects for anything to do with muscles, for good and bad, depending on the situation.
Placing all men along a spectrum for any bodily measure and women along a separate one the difference between any individual at the same point on the male and female lines will have the same measurable differences - that is men will be roughly 10 % stronger, faster etc. So whilst women's records in all sports have been set and broken, reset at an amazing rate that gap in absolute results remains.
That hasn't changed with the newer, better sexed training regimes. It has become more common. Yes there are areas where female bodies have an advantage. Those same childbearing abilities mean that women have a more stable stance. That Q angle of the pelvic girdle that betrays every transwomen once in motion means that all men have a narrower stance and are less stable, so in sports like archery women have an advantage in stance. But men retain the advantages of lever length, strength etc. So archery, with all the mechanical engineering of the bows etc might eventually make some different decisions about elite participants.
And the body's natural make up of lipids, muscle tissue etc is one we are getting to know more about in extreme endurance sports. Women may well, eventually, become the acknowledged elite performers here. But that allows that enough women will want to... Baby making will again have an effect.
But we know now that women's bodies can come back quite quickly after giving birth, see event cyclists etc. They regain their elite performance levels, but still don't beat elite male performers.
I might have missed something, and this is obviously an explanation not a lecture with all the stats and evidence. I hope it helps.