Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

New BMJ Article on Trans-Athletes

61 replies

ThisZippyBlueCat · 05/02/2026 06:35

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 09/02/2026 07:40

She doesn't. Isn't it odd how the activist lobby always have to stack the deck before they play? Always. It's as if they're afraid that honesty and truth would not prove what they want it to.

UtopiaPlanitia · 10/02/2026 17:13

I came across an article relevant to this thread:

https://www.voidifremoved.co.uk/p/beef-trifle

“To illustrate the problems with this paper, its conclusions, and the way these are being represented in popular media, I will simply address the single most implausible supposed finding: that there is no difference in upper body strength between female athletes and males after cross-sex hormones and testosterone reduction….

…What has happened here is:

  • A team of researchers at São Paulo University conducted research at the request of men with a vested interest in being included in female sports, which compared below-average men with low grip strength to national-level female athletes in the top 1% of female performance.
  • Another team of researchers at São Paulo University included this in a systematic review and - instead of dropping it because of the clear methodological issues and confounding factors - combined it with multiple other studies that can’t be directly compared, and produced a result so incoherent as to be meaningless.
  • Then, they declared in their conclusion that because they had a meaningless result they had found an “absence of strength disparities”, while arguing their research was evidence against “blanket bans”.
  • This was then published by the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
This was immediately picked up and circulated widely - from news outlets to Wikipedia - as clear evidence that male athletes given cross-sex hormones do not have a performance advantage against female athletes, and thus should not be subject to blanket bans.

The systematic review’s conclusion that there is a lack of strength disparities and that this has implications for sports policy is based on statistically untenable foundations. While I tend to give short shrift to those on the sidelines who cry foul about science that is inconvenient to their political aims, it really does seem that the chain of trust in science has been seriously damaged by activism and groupthink in the area of sex and gender. From paediatric gender medicine to sports science, badly designed studies and papers with obvious issues are being waved through by compliant journals, and shoddy, meaningless results spun as triumphs by political partisans. These generate exactly the expected headlines, which translate into pressure on institutions and political leaders. We need to be able to rely on the scientific method to provide us with a dispassionate and neutral assessment of the evidence which rises above such blatant policy advocacy.”

Beef Trifle

A new review in the British Journal of Sports Medicine insists men are weaker than women, really.

https://www.voidifremoved.co.uk/p/beef-trifle

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/02/2026 17:17

UtopiaPlanitia · 10/02/2026 17:13

I came across an article relevant to this thread:

https://www.voidifremoved.co.uk/p/beef-trifle

“To illustrate the problems with this paper, its conclusions, and the way these are being represented in popular media, I will simply address the single most implausible supposed finding: that there is no difference in upper body strength between female athletes and males after cross-sex hormones and testosterone reduction….

…What has happened here is:

  • A team of researchers at São Paulo University conducted research at the request of men with a vested interest in being included in female sports, which compared below-average men with low grip strength to national-level female athletes in the top 1% of female performance.
  • Another team of researchers at São Paulo University included this in a systematic review and - instead of dropping it because of the clear methodological issues and confounding factors - combined it with multiple other studies that can’t be directly compared, and produced a result so incoherent as to be meaningless.
  • Then, they declared in their conclusion that because they had a meaningless result they had found an “absence of strength disparities”, while arguing their research was evidence against “blanket bans”.
  • This was then published by the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
This was immediately picked up and circulated widely - from news outlets to Wikipedia - as clear evidence that male athletes given cross-sex hormones do not have a performance advantage against female athletes, and thus should not be subject to blanket bans.

The systematic review’s conclusion that there is a lack of strength disparities and that this has implications for sports policy is based on statistically untenable foundations. While I tend to give short shrift to those on the sidelines who cry foul about science that is inconvenient to their political aims, it really does seem that the chain of trust in science has been seriously damaged by activism and groupthink in the area of sex and gender. From paediatric gender medicine to sports science, badly designed studies and papers with obvious issues are being waved through by compliant journals, and shoddy, meaningless results spun as triumphs by political partisans. These generate exactly the expected headlines, which translate into pressure on institutions and political leaders. We need to be able to rely on the scientific method to provide us with a dispassionate and neutral assessment of the evidence which rises above such blatant policy advocacy.”

VoidIfRemoved is great, I recommend his substack.

ItsCoolForCats · 13/02/2026 08:42

I haven't listened yet, but the systematic review is covered in this week's episode of the Real Science of Sport

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7GPj34IV4s0Hl17DzahjNS?si=GxKADvVZTO20oY7UO3jjGw%0A

Prof Ross Tucker is always good to listen to on this topic

No Sports Advantage for Trans Women? / Khelif Defiant but in Denial / Bol's 800m debut

The Real Science of Sport Podcast · Episode

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7GPj34IV4s0Hl17DzahjNS?si=GxKADvVZTO20oY7UO3jjGw%0A

2021x · 04/03/2026 07:34

I have posted on the other thread

i cannot get hold of the full article but from the abstract I think the authors are being set up a little.

I have some basic knowledge of sports and exercise science and the following would need to be addressed before I will begin to entertain the idea that TW have no advantage over females

  1. The strength testing will fall within the well documented equivalent range for females of age and height. An easy test is grip strength, as a predictor for overall upper body strength
  2. Functional testing.. and easy one is distance of throwing a tennis ball/or jumping from a static spot.
  3. Cardiovascular fitness should start with V02 and be compared to already measured norms.
  4. I want to hear about the advantages in sport regarding the lack of the Q angle and the Carrying angle. It’s never addressed. Also bone health because I suspect that the TW will be at risk when playing sport by having stronger muscles than females but less strong bones.

Note all of these should Be tested in isolation away from females and discussion should be in the literature about how the TW don’t know the norms (which is why the grip strength test is so consistent because they can’t see the measure)

Finally, I don’t care about fat distribution it has much less to do with athletic ability so it’s suspicious they report on it.

WittyLimeBiscuit · 04/03/2026 09:30

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/02/2026 06:41

It suggests an ideological bias.

Show quote history

Yep. It's been written by activists

UtopiaPlanitia · 04/03/2026 17:13

2021x · 04/03/2026 07:34

I have posted on the other thread

i cannot get hold of the full article but from the abstract I think the authors are being set up a little.

I have some basic knowledge of sports and exercise science and the following would need to be addressed before I will begin to entertain the idea that TW have no advantage over females

  1. The strength testing will fall within the well documented equivalent range for females of age and height. An easy test is grip strength, as a predictor for overall upper body strength
  2. Functional testing.. and easy one is distance of throwing a tennis ball/or jumping from a static spot.
  3. Cardiovascular fitness should start with V02 and be compared to already measured norms.
  4. I want to hear about the advantages in sport regarding the lack of the Q angle and the Carrying angle. It’s never addressed. Also bone health because I suspect that the TW will be at risk when playing sport by having stronger muscles than females but less strong bones.

Note all of these should Be tested in isolation away from females and discussion should be in the literature about how the TW don’t know the norms (which is why the grip strength test is so consistent because they can’t see the measure)

Finally, I don’t care about fat distribution it has much less to do with athletic ability so it’s suspicious they report on it.

I suspect the reporting on fat distribution is to support the notion of men convincingly looking like women because they've developed hips and a bum and therefore it's cruel to make them compete against other men. It's a very superficial argument.

2021x · 04/03/2026 19:31

UtopiaPlanitia · 04/03/2026 17:13

I suspect the reporting on fat distribution is to support the notion of men convincingly looking like women because they've developed hips and a bum and therefore it's cruel to make them compete against other men. It's a very superficial argument.

Show quote history

I see... then I would like to see research on fat distribution vs. Q angle on female competitiveness to debunk its value.

oldtiredcyclist · 05/03/2026 08:31

2021x · 04/03/2026 19:31

I see... then I would like to see research on fat distribution vs. Q angle on female competitiveness to debunk its value.

Show quote history

Here are a couple of articles you may wish to look at, regarding the disadvantages which women face in running sports due to the Q angle and the fat distribution differences between males and females. Testosterone, means that males have higher muscle mass and less body fat than females.

https://drjasonkarp.com/2019/03/06/qangleandrunning/

https://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/9/3/e001672

Q-Angle and Running – Dr. Jason Karp

https://drjasonkarp.com/2019/03/06/qangleandrunning/

Shedmistress · 05/03/2026 08:55

2021x · 04/03/2026 19:31

I see... then I would like to see research on fat distribution vs. Q angle on female competitiveness to debunk its value.

Show quote history

What is this McDonalds?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page