One extremely divisive subject
The BBC does a surprisingly good job of letting Martina Navratilova state her views on trans ideology without interrupting to throw rocks at her. The article is about her views on Trump (briefly: not what she emigrated to the US for).
There is, however, one extremely divisive subject on which she has previously said she agrees with President Trump – transgender women’s participation in sport. Navratilova is firm in her belief that the inclusion of trans women in women’s tennis is “wrong”.
She says she doesn’t agree with current World Tennis Association (WTA) rules, which state transgender women can participate in women’s games if they provide a written and signed declaration that they are female or non-binary, that their testosterone levels have been below a certain limit for two years, and that they sustain those levels of testosterone.
She says she feels trans women have biological advantages in women’s sports – a belief that is hotly debated.
“There should be no ostracism, there should be no bullying,” she says, “but male bodies need to play in male sports. They can still compete. There is no ban on transwomen in sports. They just need to compete in the proper category which is the male category. It’s that simple.” She adds: “By including male bodies in the women’s tournament, now somebody is not getting into the tournament – a woman is not getting into the tournament because now a male has taken her place.”
In December last year, Britain’s Lawn Tennis Association changed its rules, meaning transgender women can no longer play in some female domestic tennis tournaments. And in April, the UK’s Supreme Court ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex. Asked if she felt tennis should follow the lead of the UK court, she says: “100%”
Pushed on whether we should “spend a bit more time being sympathetic to” trans people, Navratilova replies: “Very sympathetic – but that still doesn’t give them a right to women’s sex-based spaces.”
It’s not perfect, certainly. It’s absurd to say she “feels” that men (what the Beeb calls “trans women”) have biological advantages in women’s sports, and that that’s “a belief that is hotly debated.” It’s hotly debated by fools; it’s something that everyone knows. Human sexual dimorphism is a fact; the belief is that it’s not. So, not perfect, but perhaps a step on the road to honest reporting.
Except it’s not as “divisive” as the BBC would have us believe. I believe that most people are in favour of keeping men out of women’s sport. Rewording “males” as “transwomen” stokes this “division”, by obscuring Navratilova’s position and phrasing the issue in a way more advantageous to the side that the BBC has chosen in this “divide”. I’d be willing to bet that she uses “male” or “men” in every instance where the Beeb translates it “transwomen”.
Looks like our “road to honest reporting” is going to be a long, rocky, tortuous goatpath, with lots of tricky switchbacks and reversals, rather than an nice, straight expressway. Pack a lunch.
Even if there was no physical advantage, this would still be true: every man playing women’s sports is taking a spot that should belong to a woman.
She’s kinder than I am. Right now I am not prepared to be sympathetic to trans people. I will not abuse them when I encounter them, but I feel exactly zero sympathy for them. Most of their issues (except those who are genuinely dysphoric) are trumped up, hardly worthy of the sort of sympathy they demand. They are murdered at lower rates than other groups, including women. I would definitely say they should not be discriminated against in housing or employment, but I haven’t seen any solid evidence that’s happening, certainly not on a large scale. In fact, they seem to have gained some sort of advantage in employment, with the first ‘woman’ in many jobs, awards, etc. being a man.
Nope, can’t work up the slightest sympathy.
Exactly. And of course “being synmpathetic” to trans peplemeans more than just “sympathy”. It means acceeeding to all their demands (preferred pronouns, access to women’s spaces, constant attention). Denying them any of these is a sign of genocidal transphobia. So , no, not inclined to be “sympathetic. And as for spending “a bit more time being sympathetic to” trans people, fuck no. They’re consumed too much of my time and gaze as it is. I could happily go for the rest of my natural life without seeing a name tag with pronouns, or a Pride Progress flag ever again. There are also more interesting and urgent things we could be discussing here, but for the constant social and mental vandalism of trans “rights” activists.