New BMJ Article on Trans-Athletes

I'm fully prepared for someone to come along and critique my Latin, my only knowledge of Latin and Greek comes from seeing many Linnean binomials as part of my work. I was thinking about going with Crocs wearing but couldn't get hat to work at all.

Have come across this on GBNews (sorry, only other place I have seen it). It doesn't matter what the article says, men should not be in women's sports because men in general have larger hearts and lungs, longer muscles and bones and much faster reactions, so much better explosive speed. None of that is affected by taking cross-sex hormones.

This is what I was going to ask. I'm don't know anything about the professional science world or how it works, but here in the US scientific and medical institutions are under attack - especially by RFK Jr. and our Trump's department of health. But garbage like this gives the anti-science / anti-medical crowd real fodder that is hard to argue with. Can any yokle just conduct any "research" they want and legit journals will publish is as long as they provide a disclaimer? Is there no vetting? Standards? Accountability? Like seriously, how did this piece of trash get published can someone explain?

The casual erudition on this board is a beautiful thing to behold (by which I refer to the highbrow allusion to Tunnocks teacakes as opposed to the lowbrow Latin declensions, obviously.)

I always thought Scarabaeinae were fun and rather appropriate for this study.

Thank you for finding that!

Although the Tunnocks-eating beetle referred to above looks fair set to feature in a dream some time.

Agreed. Her take down of the study on Twitterx is pretty comprehensive

No, you are absolutely right! From 2022:

"This is your regular reminder that I am not an entomologist and I do not study beetles.

My handle is derived from a quote about creationism and I research human genetics and genetic disorders, including one that kills males."

She then goes on to set out all manner of cool beetle types that she does not study, complete with pictures of each. Evidently my brain had retained the pretty pictures and multiple tweets about cool beetles but filtered out the "not" (such is the human my brain!)

You may well be right.

I think I remember her explaining about the quote at one stage. But it's also possible that was my own fever dream :)

Who isn't fond of beetles? My favourite is probably Coleoptera elixa subsp. tunnockyvorans

I had a feeling that when she was explaining how she got started on (then) Twitter it was something to do with an interest in beetles, possibly related to her developmental biology work. But I haven't been able to substantiate that with a quick Google so it is entirely possible it was a fever dream!

But… but… but… they got ChatGPT to review it!

Oh, and the BMJ, despite publishing the thing, wants us all to know that at the same time it has nothing to do with it and is not to blame if it's a pile of crap.

"This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise."

Emma Hilton is indeed a Very Good Thing. Also interim chair of the Sex Matters board of trustees.

She's not necessarily herself particularly fond of beetles. That's from a comment attributed to Darwin - or possibly Haldane? - that God must be, given that there are so many different species of them.

The study page https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2026/01/22/bjsports-2025-110239
says
"Funding Authors were supported by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) and Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)."

So who funded this work?

Well, one (or two) of them may have higher lean mass maybe.
😂

Bloody hell OP come back when you can demonstrate that the fastest woman can compete with fastest man.

Even the people who wrote the article know this is a load of bollocks.

It is in a BMJ journal, though.

The URL is bjsm.bmj.com/ and the BJSM is listed on this page headed BMJ Journals
https://journals.bmj.com/our-journals/

Feel I should point out this isn't a BMJ article.

It's in the British Journal of Sports Medicine which is not the same thing.

Quite apart from the fact that women’s sport should be for female people, the sample sizes are tiny and the methodology utterly flawed.

I could pop down to my running club and find a bunch of women aged 45+ who could beat the vast majority of female parkrunners in their 20s. But this is not proof that women get faster over the age of 45.

Sometimes I feel old and tired and so even though I’m 49 perhaps I could identify as 61 and move age category? This must be fine as I know two women in their 60s who are quicker than me so clearly I wouldn’t have an advantage…

No male person can ever become a female person, OP.

Changing your gender does not mean you've changed your sex. Sport is based on sex, not gender.

Even the report bangs on about gender despite admitting sport is based on sex categories 🙄

Also "she/her", for instance on the website of an event to be held later this year.

One of the people involved in the report is a biological male "they/them".