Nature Versus Nurture: Have Performance Gaps Between Men and Women Reached an Asymptote?
Abstract
Men outperform women in sports requiring muscular strength and/or endurance, but the relative influence of "nurture" versus "nature" remains difficult to quantify. Performance gaps between elite men and women are well documented using world records in second, centimeter, or kilogram sports. However, this approach is biased by global disparity in reward structures and opportunities for women. Despite policies enhancing female participation (Title IX legislation), US women only closed performance gaps by 2% and 5% in Olympic Trial swimming and running, respectively, from 1972 to 1980 (with no change thereafter through 2016). Performance gaps of 13% in elite middistance running and 8% in swimming (∼4-min duration) remain, the 5% differential between sports indicative of load carriage disadvantages of higher female body fatness in running. Conversely, sprint swimming exhibits a greater sex difference than sprint running, suggesting anthropometric/power advantages unique to swim-block starts. The ∼40-y plateau in the performance gap suggests a persistent dominance of biological influences (eg, longer limb levers, greater muscle mass, greater aerobic capacity, and lower fat mass) on performance. Current evidence suggests that women will not swim or run as fast as men in Olympic events, which speaks against eliminating sex segregation in these individual sports. Whether hormone reassignment sufficiently levels the playing field in Olympic sports for transgender females (born and socialized male) remains an issue to be tackled by sport-governing bodies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Since the 1990s, the difference in performance records between males and females has been relatively stable, suggesting that biological differences created by androgenization explain most of the male advantage, and are insurmountable.
“Yet, since the 1990s, the difference in performance records between males and females has been relatively stable, suggesting that biological differences created by androgenization explain most of the male advantage, and are insurmountable [5, 26, 27].”
From Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage (2021) · cites this paper as [27]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 39 · Cited by 40
- Authors
- Millard-Stafford, M., Swanson, A. E., & Wittbrodt, M. T.
- Corresponding author
- Millard-Stafford, Mindy
- Venue
- International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
- Publisher
- Human Kinetics
- Published
- 2018-04
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 530-535
- ISSN
- 1555-0265 (ISSN-L)
- 1555-0273
- OpenAlex
- W2788863583
- Cited by
- 40
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 4.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sports, Gender, and Society
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Sex and Gender in Healthcare
- Keywords
- sex differences in athletic performance, swimming, running, Olympic sports, Title IX, sex segregation in sport, fat mass, transgender athletes, muscle strength and endurance
- MeSH terms
- Anthropometry, Female, Humans, Male, Sex Characteristics, Sex Factors, Sports, United States, Muscle Strength, Athletic Performance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review