New BMJ Article on Trans-Athletes

[ThisZippyBlueCat]

Body composition and physical fitness in transgender versus cisgender individuals: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

"Conclusion: While transgender women exhibited higher lean mass than cisgender women, their physical fitness was comparable. Current evidence is mostly low certainty and has heterogenous quality but does not support theories of inherent athletic advantages for transgender women over cisgender."

Mendes Sieczkowska S, Caruso Mazzolani B, Reis Coimbra D, et al. Body composition and physical fitness in transgender versus cisgender individuals: a systematic review with meta-analysis British Journal of Sports Medicine Published Online First: 03 February 2026. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2025-110239

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2026/01/22/bjsports-2025-110239

Cisgender?? Why not just biological?! Thanks for the link @ThisZippyBlueCat. Will have a read of this but the language used has already annoyed me!

The BMJ is about as scientific these days as Viz Comic.

Not a reliable robust bit of research as already discussed here.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5485771-bmj-sports-journal-beclown-themselves

It suggests an ideological bias.

Doesn’t include enough information for us to draw any conclusions. What were the relative fitness levels of all participants? Ages? Only 54 participants: a very small study.

And what’s the scientific point of such a study?
Women’s sport is for women. Men are not invited or welcome.

Has your other goady thread been deleted OP?

As soon as someone uses the term "cisgender", you already have a fair idea about which side of the gender debate they are on. They could have said "transwomen" and "women", but chose not to.

Suggests? It screams it!

It's a complete mystery who in this picture is male. Scientists are utterly baffled.

May I commend Emma Hilton to your notice?

She is a very clear and interesting developmental biologist with a fondness for robust science (and beetles).

She has already given her initial comments on this study: https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/2018976777176039808

@ThisZippyBlueCat

3/10 must try harder. 🤦🏻‍♀️

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

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

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 🙄

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

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…

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.

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/

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.

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

So who funded this work?

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)."

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.

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."

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