Are Boys Slower to Potty Train Than Girls?
No! This is one of the most unnerving myths. If you are a boy mom, please do not assume your little one will take longer to potty train simply due to the fact that he is a boy. This runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is my belief that the labels we place on our children’s capabilities and how we view them as we enter this milestone plays a significant role in how they step up to the plate.
My son is my firstborn. At no point did I assume he would take longer than his female peers, nor did I doubt his ability. My approach is often to ask what my ancestors would have done. Even just a couple of generations ago. The fact is, our grandmothers and the mothers before them began potty training with the mindset that it would go well. They just did it. They didn’t try. They committed to it on a specific day and saw it to fruition. Does it mean they encountered no frustration or bumps in the road? No. Does it mean every child, boy or girl, picked up this new socialized skill instantaneously and wrapped it up in a week? No. However, to their advantage, disposable diapers were not available as an option even if they had the means.
I encourage you to ask any female friend or relative who had children before 1962 what her experience with potty training was like. You see, the disposable diaper and especially the prolonged use and around-the-clock reliance of it is what makes getting rid of it for good so emotionally and phsyically complex. It was better when babies could instantly feel the sensation of wetness after soiling themselves against a cloth diaper or commando.
So, where does this myth come from? I have a few theories. You know how we saw girls mature faster than boys both physically and emotionally during puberty? That has merit to it, however you can’t apply that to potty training. People also assume girls tend to communicate more rapidly than boys, however this is also a false assumption. It’s highly individualized.
Then, there are also these pretty weak and faulty “studies” conducted which the general public clung onto and ran with, again, as a self-fulfilling prophecy:
“Sequential acquisition of toilet‑training skills: A descriptive study of gender and age differences in normal children” (Schum et al., Pediatrics 2002) — PubMed.
“Factors associated with toilet training in the 1990s” (Schum et al., 2001) — PubMed.
“Relationship Between Age at Initiation of Toilet Training and Duration of Training” (Blum et al., Pediatrics 2003) — see here.
I call BS! These are my counterarguments:
Small sample sizes. Most “foundational” studies (e.g., Schum et al., 2002) only observed a few hundred children, often from a single U.S. community or clinic, limiting statistical power and generalizability.
Non-experimental design. These were descriptive or retrospective studies, not controlled trials. They can show correlation but not causation.
Parental self-report bias. Most data came from parent questionnaires or diaries, meaning recall bias and social desirability strongly influence reported ages.
Undefined or inconsistent criteria. “Potty trained” was inconsistently defined (dry during day? night? poop trained? independent?) across studies, creating apples-to-oranges comparisons.
Wide variability within groups. The interquartile ranges in timing for each gender often overlap significantly, showing that individual variation dwarfs any average gender difference.
Cultural conditioning ignored. Parents may unconsciously delay initiating training with boys (thanks to the preconceived notion that “boys take longer”), thus reinforcing a self-fulfilling prophecy that the research then “confirms.”
Training onset not controlled. Girls are often started earlier because of cultural norms; if you start earlier, completion typically occurs earlier too.
Assumed linear progression. Toilet learning is nonlinear. Simple median-age statistics ignore regression, withholding, or contextual stressors.
Modern Western bias. Nearly all these studies were conducted in the late 20th-century U.S., where diaper norms, daycare expectations, and “child-led” approaches already delayed training for both sexes.
Cross-cultural evidence contradicts. In many non-Western or traditional societies (e.g., parts of Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe), both boys and girls achieve dryness around the same age, often well before two years.
Temporal shifts. In the 1940s–1960s, U.S. children of both sexes completed training near 18 months. As disposable diapers became the norm, the average age rose dramatically (it’s now double what it was in 1960. The gender gap is a modern construct.
Marginal effect sizes. Even when statistically significant, the mean difference (2–6 months) is small relative to the 6–12 month spread of normal variation.
Poor control of confounders. Factors like parenting style, language development, childcare environment, and socioeconomic status weren’t adequately controlled.
Over-generalization from averages. Population-level differences don’t translate to predictive value for an individual child — yet popular literature treats them as causal truths.
