According to the Independent<\/a>, the study found \u201cdespite larger muscle mass about one to three years after hormone therapy, trans women have physical fitness levels comparable to those\u201d of biological women.<\/p>\n Fifty studies involving a total 6485 people showed trans females had \u201csignificantly\u201d more body fat than men \u2014 the amount actually was on par with biological women.<\/p>\n And, despite trans females having more muscle mass, \u201cthere were no observable differences in upper or lower body strength\u201d between them and real females:<\/p>\n Scientists suspect there could be residual musculoskeletal differences that may not confer an athletic edge.<\/p>\n There was also no observable difference between trans women and [real] women in their maximal oxygen consumption (VO\u2082 max), a key fitness measure.<\/p>\n In the case of trans men, after one to three years of starting hormone treatment, they had less fat, more muscle, and greater strength.<\/p>\n Citing a key limitation of the research, researchers said studies included in the analysis mainly focused on physiological outcomes, \u201cwith little consideration of the social, psychological and cultural factors\u201d, which also shape sport performance.<\/p>\n The concept of \u201cmuscle memory\u201d, or the capacity for previous exercise-adapted muscles to retain some advantages even after hormonal alterations, remains unexplored, according to scientists.<\/p>\n The researchers concluded that \u201cconvergence of transgender women\u2019s functional performance with cisgender women [\u2026] challenges assumptions about inherent athletic advantages.\u201d<\/p>\n According to the Independent report, endocrinologist Ada Cheung who runs the Trans Health Research Group<\/a> at the University of Melbourne said \u201cblanket bans on transgender women in sport are not supported by the best available evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n She added \u201cInstead of blanket bans, we need eligibility criteria for elite sport, and we should focus on the real work of supporting women\u2019s sport: improving visibility and pay, reducing sexual harassment and assault, expanding access to facilities and coaching, and ensuring fair media coverage.\u201d<\/p>\n The Trans Health Research Group\u2019s \u201cKey Definitions<\/a>\u201d page includes terms such as \u201cbrotherboy\u201d and \u201csistergirl\u201d (Aboriginal words describing \u201cgender diverse people who have a male\/female spirit and take on men\u2019s\/women\u2019s roles within the community\u201d), and its site notes a September 2025 article<\/a> claiming hormone therapy \u201coften narrow[s] or eliminate[s] many performance differences over time\u201d (between trans and biological women).<\/p>\n The piece (which begins with the trigger warning \u201ccontains reference to exclusion of, and discrimination against, trans people in sport\u201d) says bans against trans females in women\u2019s sports \u201ctend to lack scientific justification, and [\u2026] ignore the diversity among trans women in body size, physiology, training history, etc.\u201d<\/p>\n The University of Manchester\u2019s Emma Hilton, a developmental biologist, chided<\/a> the Brazilian study as \u201can insane bunch of cherry-picked metrics, cobbled together to try and argue that trans-identifying males should be in female sport.\u201d<\/p>\n What an insane bunch of cherry-picked metrics, cobbled together to try and argue that trans-identifying males should be in female sport. https:\/\/t.co\/5VVqzsw8mK<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Emma Hilton (@FondOfBeetles) February 4, 2026<\/a> <\/p>\n Manchester Metropolitan University\u2019s Alun Williams, a professor of Sport and Exercise Genomics, also took issue<\/a> with the study: \u201c[M]uch of the data they reviewed was low quality due to poor study design or measurement techniques, and little control of confounding factors like how much exercise people did.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/index_eis.webp.webp\")
Ada Cheung \/ U. Melbourne<\/p>\n