We don’t know how good the best female athletes in the world can be. We have never seen it.
The prevailing assumption is that the performance gap between elite male and female athletes is a simple fact of biology. Men are faster, stronger. The data seems to confirm this. But this conclusion commits a fundamental error. It mistakes the output of a century of unequal investment for a pure measure of innate potential. We have not been studying biology. We have been studying the results of a rigged system and calling it nature.
Consider the pipeline. Athletic excellence is not discovered. It is manufactured. It requires an ecosystem: youth coaching, sports medicine, year-round competition, financial stability, and a media landscape that makes the pursuit viable. For male athletes, this pipeline is a seamless, funded superhighway from childhood to professionalism. For female athletes, it is a series of broken footpaths. A promising girl faces attrition at every stage not from lack of will, but from lack of investment. We then compare the few who survive this gauntlet to the men who were propelled by it. The comparison is not between two athletes. It is between a product of maximal investment and a product of systemic neglect.
This corrupts all performance data. In a valid experiment, you control for variables. We have done the opposite. The independent variable, sex, is tangled with confounders: funding, coaching, technology, competitive depth, professional pathways. To claim the observed gap is due solely to biology is as invalid as claiming a plant grown in a closet is inherently smaller than one grown in a greenhouse. It is bias masquerading as fact. Our world records are not measures of human limits. They are measures of the limits of our investment.
Biology sets a range of potential. Investment determines where within that range an entire population of athletes will cluster. The current male record represents the peak of male potential after a century of unprecedented global investment. The current female record represents the peak of female potential despite a century of systemic underinvestment. We have no idea where the female ceiling lies under equality. We only know where it lies under constraint.
The necessary experiment is vast. Equal funding for one Olympic cycle is insufficient. You must equalize the entire developmental pathway from the moment a child picks up a ball. This means equal access to facilities, to elite coaching from primary school to sports science, to sponsorship, to media coverage that creates aspirational pathways. Only then, after a full generation of athletes has progressed roughly twenty-five years from childhood to their competitive peak under comparable conditions, will we have data that is not garbage. Only then can we ask the question of inherent difference with any integrity.
Until that experiment is run, any claim of a definitive biological gap is a misuse of science to uphold a financial order. The circular logic is self-fulfilling. Women’s sports are underfunded because they are perceived as less capable. They are perceived as less capable because their development has been underfunded. The current data is then cited as the immutable justification for continued underfunding. It is a closed loop of discrimination.
The question is not whether men are better athletes than women. The question is this: what would happen if we spent the next hundred years and a trillion dollars finding out what the best female athletes on the planet could truly do?
We have no idea. We have only seen a shadow of the possibility, constrained by a world that never believed in it enough to fund it.
The challenge is to reject the current gap as the artifact of a corrupted experiment. The only valid response is agnosticism about the final limits, coupled with a demand to run the real test. Build the pipeline. Fund the dream. Not for one tournament, but for a generation.
Only then will we stop debating the shadow and finally see the substance. Only then will we know what we have been missing.
Only then will the record books reflect human potential, instead of just our historical failures to cultivate it.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Just wondering if the author is actually questioning the undisputed scientific fact that men are significantly physically stronger (on average) than women – especially when it comes to upper body strength.
And that similar differences between the sexes are seen in many animals.
However, I’m wondering if the author has been able to come up with a definition of “women” or “men” in the first place. It’s apparently quite a challenge for some people to do so, these days. (Including for a Supreme Court justice.)
“what would happen if we spent the next hundred years and a trillion dollars finding out what the best female athletes on the planet could truly do?”
You could spend the next hundred years and a trillion dollars and I still wouldn’t be able to do full splits or actualize a full king pigeon pose in yoga. But I could hum a few bars :-|
The history of track & field for the last 50 years tells a very different story. In the US men’s and women’s track have received equal funding since the late 1970s and boys and girls have competed in high school in equal numbers for most of that time. Yet the measured performance gaps across all events have remained largely constant over that entire period. If your thesis was correct we would have seen some closing of the gap, but that’s not happening. And that’s because there is an inherent biological difference there. The next question is how long does it take to remove that advantage and under what circumstances. The difference can’t simply be assumed away.
“The next question is how long does it take to remove that advantage and under what circumstances.”
The answer to that question is a question: How long does sexicide of the planet take?
But of course, once you did that, you’d end up with no more generations . . . small prob . . .
But we’d solve the problem as defined . . .