> We're talking about many, many data points

Many of those data points are contaminated by a long tradition of sex- or gender-segregated races.

Here are a couple of interesting studies, which I assume are the ones the SciAm article is referring to, but I haven't checked.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38684111/ :

> "There is a prominent sex-based difference in athletic performance such that males outperform females by 7%-14% in races from 100 m to marathon. In ultramarathons, the difference is often much smaller, leading to speculation that females are "built" for the sport. However, data are confounded by the low number of female participants; just 10%-30% in any given race. This study compared data from two ultramarathons where males and females competed in comparable numbers. [...] In conclusion, the sex-based performance discrepancy shrinks to 1%-3% in ultramarathons when males and females compete in comparable numbers."

A key point in the above quote is "data are confounded by the low number of female participants; just 10%-30% in any given race." This calls the "many, many data points" that you mentioned into question.

Another study, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12068597/, of 56 suitable races, found that "pacing was not consistently affected by sex or age."

Re keeping an open mind, the corollary is that if you're not willing to ever question your assumptions - a.k.a. biases - you're not going to be able to update your understanding based on the facts.