Boys outperform girls by 10 to 20 percent in sports after puberty.

1. Concern (minor) Confidence matches the evidence

   Narrow the title's '10 to 20 percent in sports' to running, jumping and swimming; the article measures no team sports and finds gaps of 0% to 46%.

   High confidence for the finding itself is justified: several methods, countries and decades agree, and the limitations section is unusually candid (one meet, no drug testing in high school, team sports unmeasured). The gap is in the headline wording. The title and socialTitle say 'Boys outperform girls by 10 to 20 percent in sports after puberty', one range for sport in general. But the article's own evidence shows the margin depends heavily on the event: 6.8% in the Olympic 1500m freestyle, 18-28% in Olympic jumps, up to 32.1% (4A long jump) and 45.8% (4A pole vault) at the WIAA meet, 'more in strength' per the answer, ACSM's 10-30%, and no sex difference in Olympic rifle shooting. For team sports, the objection response's 'The claim is therefore well supported for sport in general' is an inference from component abilities, not a measurement, yet the title states the range as if measured across sports. A reader would still come away believing the large-advantage claim, so this is Minor. A title such as 'Boys outperform girls by 10 to 20 percent or more in running, jumping and swimming after puberty' would match the evidence.

   About conclusion, evidence:olympic-results, evidence:wa-state-meet, evidence:female-advantages The finding

2. Concern (minor) Strongest objections answered

   Address why high-school margins in technical events (long jump 32%, pole vault 46%) far exceed Olympic ones, which suggests depth of girls' participation and coaching inflates the high-school gap.

   The strongest objections are named and mostly answered with evidence. The opportunity objection is answered with the timing of the gap (age-emergence) and its stability at elite level since 1983 (stable-gap), and doping with drug-tested Olympic results and surveys of ordinary people. A secondary alternative explanation is answered selectively. The doping response and conclusion say the Paris margins 'match' the high-school margins, citing 'about 12-18% for Washington 4A champions', which are sprint and middle-distance margins only. Yet the article's own WIAA evidence reports 32.1% in the 4A long jump and up to 45.8% in the pole vault, against 19.4% and 27.6% at Paris. Gaps that much larger at high-school level in technique-heavy events are what one would expect if girls' fields there are shallower or less coached, so at high-school level part of the measured gap may reflect participation and coaching rather than biology. This does not overturn the finding, since the sprint and running margins and the elite data still show a large gap, but the article should acknowledge the divergence rather than present the two levels as matching. The age-emergence limitation (top-100 performers only, no pubertal staging) also leaves open whether teenage girls' dropout from sport contributes to the widening youth gap; the article does not address this. I would keep True/High but add this objection.

   About conclusion, evidence:wa-state-meet, evidence:olympic-results, evidence:age-emergence The finding

3. Pass Rates the real claim

   The claim, 'Boys and men have a large competitive advantage over girls and women in high-school and professional sports', circulates mostly in debates over school-sports eligibility. The article rates it as worded, for people not taking hormones, and says so openly in context and editorialNote, explicitly excluding transgender athletes and IL26-638 rather than quietly substituting an easier or harder claim. Its evidence covers both named levels (WIAA state finals for high school, Paris 2024 for elite/professional), and the conclusion keeps to that scope: 'the finding applies to high-school and adult sport, not to young children' and 'What remains unproven here is any policy conclusion.' I would rate the same claim.

4. Pass Rating follows from the evidence

   Before reading the finding, I would have rated this True. As stated, the evidence is consistent across direct and independent measurements: boys' champions won all 30 comparable WIAA finals by 7.8% to 45.8%, and the 8th-place boy beat the girls' champion in all 28 finals with an 8th-place mark; Paris 2024 men's champions led in every event compared (9.4-15.3% running, 18-28% jumping, 6.8-12.4% swimming); the Norwegian, U.S. swimming and Eurofit data show the same post-puberty pattern; and the physical-trait data give a mechanism. The counter-evidence in female-advantages (flexibility, fatigue resistance, pacing, long cold-water swims, shooting) is narrow and does not reach the claim's 'large advantage' in high-school and professional sport. The finding True and the answer ('about 10 to 20 percent in running and jumping, and more in strength') agree with each other and with the evidence.

5. Pass Evidence is independent

   The main lines rest on separate underlying data: WIAA 2026 official results (wa-state-meet), Paris 2024 results (olympic-results), Norwegian and U.S. age-group records (age-emergence: Tønnessen 2015, Senefeld 2019), NHANES, Janssen, Dodds, UK Biobank and FRIEND (physical-traits), Eurofit pooled data (schoolchildren-fitness), and the Thibault record analysis (stable-gap). Overlaps are small and not load-bearing. facthub-dataset is a compilation of separate primary sources, not one underlying dataset. thibault-2010 appears in both olympic-results and stable-gap, and tomkinson-2018 in both schoolchildren-fitness and female-advantages. Some authors recur (Hunter in acsm-2023, hunter-2014 and deaner-2015; Joyner in senefeld-2019 and deaner-2015), and Handelsman 2018 is coauthored by a World Athletics researcher, but these sources are used for interpretation and the female-advantage side, not as independent confirmation of the core margins. The conclusion's 'three independent kinds of evidence' (direct competition results, growth studies, physiology) is accurate.

Coverage: Read the full article payload: claim, finding, answer, confidence, title, summary, socialTitle, context, editorialNote, conclusion, all 7 evidence items with methods, institutions, years and limitations, 6 objections with responses, 6 method steps, and the 30 source records (names, titles, descriptions). Per the Skeptic prompt, source snapshots were not read; evidence was taken as stated. No part of the article was left unexamined.