Gender again. Sorry!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

monkers

Squire
There aren't any US high school girls beating the Women's World Record in the 100m so it's definitely not age. Lots of high school boys do, which proves it's sex.

Again fruitloops, decline succeeds peak. Decline can not precede peak, that's an absurd notion.

The VTTA demonstrates through its standardised times that athletes decline with age with men declining more rapidly than women.

In a 10 mile TT event, between the ages of 40 to 50 male performance declines by 36 seconds; female performance by only 10 seconds.

Between the ages of 50 to 60 male performance declines by a further 68 seconds; female performance by 45 seconds.

A female rider age 40 completes the ride faster than a 66 year old male.

https://www.vtta.org.uk/standards
 
Why can US high school boys beat the Women's 100m world record but US high school girls can't?

In your link all the male times look to be faster than the women's times, regardless of age. Why is that?

Your arguments are increasingly desperate.
 

monkers

Squire
In your link all the male times look to be faster than the women's times, regardless of age. Why is that?

They don't, and that's ''why is that''.

As was said in my last post, ''A female rider age 40 completes the ride faster than a 66 year old male''. This demonstrates through standards determined across the whole set of riders, rather than relying on outlier cases, that age is another significant factor. It isn't just natal sex that affects athletic performance - age is another significant factor. Sex and age are not the only significant factors - I've already argued those points too, but you think absolutely everything is just about sex.
 
Last edited:

monkers

Squire
Someone should point out to these fencers they have superior grip strength (or some such nonsense)
https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/04/11/trans-fencer-redmond-sullivan-wagner-college/

I think that's very likely to be true. It doesn't make them faster, better trained or more talented though. Despite what Fruitloops claims, the single biggest determinant of sporting ability is the inheritance of genes.
 

CXRAndy

Über Member
Men generally have slightly faster reaction times than women, with studies showing an average difference of about 10-20 milliseconds in simple tasks. This is often attributed to physiological factors like muscle response and neural processing speed. However, the gap narrows with training, and individual variation is significant—some women are faster than most men. Context, like task type or stress, also matters
 
Despite what Fruitloops claims, the single biggest determinant of sporting ability is the inheritance of genes.

Why aren't women's records as good as men's then? Are there no exceptional sporting genes being passed on to women?

All elite sports people likely have natural ability to some extent so it's not relevant to category fairness. Exceptional women athletes will beat some males, even some very good males, but on a like for like basis they don't - regardless of their genetic inheritance.

Sex is the biggest determinant factor. Who would row faster in a singles race between Olympic rowing medalist siblings Tom and Emily Ford? I would bet on the 6ft 3" male winning personally.

GUEAUpKX0AAnVNx.jpeg



When sporting performance is measured in fractions of a second, and teams spent millions of pounds on achieving marginal gains to give their athletes the edge, it's ridiculous to say sex isn't the biggest determining factor in most sports.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom