Reckless Girls Imperiled by Hypotheticals
In the print version of the New York Times Magazine, the headline for an article about injuries in girls sports says, in all caps:

EVERYONE WANTS GIRLS TO HAVE AS MANY OPPORTUNITIES IN SPORTS AS BOYS. BUT CAN WE LIVE WITH THE GREATER RATE OF INJURIES THEY SUFFER?

Short answer: Yes, when it is sensationalized sexist spin.

The article is OMG WTF BBQ TITLE IX BAD based mostly upon knee injuries for women. That sports injuries are a problem is established, that these injuries might be different from men is plausible, that there is a crisis of greater injuries for girls is, to be polite, finessed.

Here's some representative quotes (emphasis mine.:

Comprehensive statistics on total sports injuries are in short supply. The N.C.A.A. compiles the best numbers, but even these are based on just a sampling of colleges and universities. For younger athletes, the numbers are less specific and less reliable. Some studies have measured sports injuries by emergency-room visits, which usually follow traumatic events like broken bones. A.C.L. and other soft-tissue injuries often do not lead to an E.R. visit; the initial examination typically occurs at the office of a pediatrician or an orthopedic surgeon. Studies of U.S. high-school athletics indicate that, when it comes to raw numbers, boys suffer more sports injuries. But the picture is complicated by football and the fact that boys still represent a greater percentage of high-school athletes.

Girls are more likely to suffer chronic knee pain as well as shinsplints and stress fractures. Some research indicates that they are more prone to ankle sprains, as well as hip and back pain. And for all the justifiable attention paid to concussions among football players, females appear to be more prone to them in sports that the sexes play in common. A study last year by researchers at Ohio State University and Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, reported that high-school girls who play basketball suffer concussions at three times the rate of boys, and that the rate for high-school girls who play soccer is about 1.5 times the rate for boys. According to the N.C.A.A. statistics, women who play soccer suffer concussions at nearly identical rates as male football players.
...
The Injury Surveillance reports include commentary as well as data, and in 2007 the authors stated that an A.C.L. rupture is “a rare event” and advised against making too much of the tears sustained by male and female collegiate athletes across a range of sports. But a young woman playing college soccer can easily generate 200 exposures a year between her regular season in the fall, off-season training in the spring and club play in the summer.
...
So imagine a hypothetical high-school soccer team of 20 girls, a fairly typical roster size, and multiply it by the conservative estimate of 200 exposures a season...Over the course of four years, 4 out of the 20 girls on that team will rupture an A.C.L.

Imagine a 20 girls being allowed to drive cars without male supervision for a year, multiply it by an estimate of 2 accidents per month - some of them will die twice.

This quote from a section on an actual positive idea - a program training girls how to avoid injuries - shows the fact-ish journalism of author Michael Sokolove:

The Santa Monica Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Research Foundation published results of its trial in the American Journal of Sports Medicine. The research was nonrandomized and therefore not the highest order of scientific research. (The coaches of teams doing the exercises made a choice to participate; the control group consisted of those who declined.) Nevertheless, the results were attention-grabbing.

Attention grabbing as a substitute for "significant enough for NYT magazine."

EDIT TO ADD: It seems the key (yet understudied) issue of how women can be taught how to avoid injuries indicates girls sports lag in injury prevention, not that girls are fragile things unworthy of sport. This idea is mentioned, but buried after much alarmism.