That woman can be seen as

Obviously I had to follow that link.

So let’s read the abstract:

Throughout 2019, retired athletes Martina Navratilova (tennis), Sharron Davies (swimming), Kelly Holmes (athletics) and Paula Radcliffe (marathon) all spoke publically about what they perceive to be the unfairness of trans women competing in women’s elite sport.

What they “perceive to be” the unfairness of men competing in women’s sport (elite or otherwise) – ah yes it’s wholly subjective, and downright whimsical. Why would anyone think it’s unfair for men to compete in women’s sport? Why would anyone think it’s unfair for adults to compete in children’s sport? Why would anyone think it’s unfair for non-disabled people to compete against disabled people? It’s all so silly, isn’t it.

These successful athletes, all with a history of growing and promoting women’s sport, were simultaneously celebrated for sharing their thoughts on a complex issue, and labelled transphobic for expressing anti-inclusive and transphobic views.

Growing women’s sport? It’s not a tomato. And the issue isn’t complex – it’s quite simple to see why men should not compete in women’s sport. And they may have been celebrated and called terfs at the same time, but it was by different people, so the “simultaneously” is kind of silly. “Both” would have been clearer. The views of course were neither “anti-inclusive” nor “transphobic.”

Navratilova, particularly, despite her long history of fighting for inclusion and to end homophobia in sport, faced a severe backlash for expressing anti-trans rhetoric.

But what kind of “inclusion”? Inclusion of whom? She doesn’t have a long history of fighting for the inclusion of men in women’s sport; why would she, why should she? And she didn’t express “anti-trans” anything and what she said was not mere “rhetoric.” This Sarah Teetzel person is a terrible writer and not much of a thinker.

3 Responses to “That woman can be seen as”

Leave a Comment

Subscribe without commenting