The smearing of Martina Navratilova by the Guardian and the BBC
Helen Saxby wrote an excellent piece on the grotesque reaction to Martina Navratilova’s Sunday Times article:
On Twitter there was a massive response to this article, the vast majority of which was positive, in agreement with Martina, and supportive of her speaking out. Many people were grateful that such a high profile sportswoman should come out in support of women’s rights and women’s sports. It was a bit of a love fest all day.
So it was surprising to see the subsequent headline in the Guardian: ‘Martina Navratilova criticised over ‘cheating’ trans women comments’. The article stated that ‘Her comments attracted criticism across social media’. Well, no they didn’t. The Guardian backed up their claim by quoting one trans lobby group and one trans cyclist who had had a previous spat with Martina over the issue. There was no mention of the hundreds, if not thousands, of messages of support and agreement and gratitude, and no counter evidence was allowed to sully the story.
Kind of a stitch-up, isn’t it.
A similar story began to become apparent over at the BBC. A discussion on BBC Radio 5 Live was due to feature Nicola Williams of campaign group Fair Play for Women, but the invitation was rescinded on the say-so of the aforementioned trans cyclist, Rachel McKinnon, who refused to debate with Fair Play, and smeared it as a hate group for good measure. A balanced programme was then impossible but it went ahead anyway. There was nobody to counter the broadcaster’s introduction of the subject, which described Martina’s comments as ‘upsetting, disturbing and deeply transphobic’, and there was nobody to defend Martina or women’s sports in general. Martina’s alleged ‘transphobia’ was the story, rather than the issue of fairness for female athletes.
The issue of what?
The issue of fairness for female athletes. Apparently that doesn’t matter at all when placed next to Rachel McKinnon’s accusations of “transphobia.”
The smearing of Martina Navratilova by two of the UK’s largest national media outlets will surely send a message to other female sportspeople watching on…
Oh, yes, to them, but also to other female people in general. It sends the message that we just don’t fucking matter, and that’s the end of it.
Accumulated areas of knowledge in many walks of life are currently being dismissed in favour of trans ideology. In schools, prisons and women’s services for example, the rule book is being thrown out when trans people’s needs are on the table, as if all other knowledge save that of trans people themselves ceases to be relevant. Experiential knowledge of what it means to be trans is not so much being added to existing expertise, but is in many cases replacing it.
In many cases trans trumps everything. Why is that? Why are so many people collapsing so instantly? I really don’t get it.
I think it’s about fear. That’s why women are collapsing.
After I have heard all the arguments I have come to the conclusion that I couldn’t even give the good Doctor the time of day. You can alter or change your physical appearance in many ways. You cannot however change your personality or the way you think. The good doctor is a fraud in her behaviour. Rachel is obnoxious, an egotist, and after viewing Rachel’s website I couldn’t be more put off more with the drum beating.
Is it really ‘experiential knowledge?’ Or a set of desperate rationalizations by which declared gender is claimed as inherent and immutable?
It’s not just women who are ‘collapsing’. The whole of academia has folded and IMO it’s due to fear of losing jobs or reputations.
Why are they in fear and collapsing? Well, there’s a huge online force of flying monkeys ready to descend upon anyone who doesn’t tow the party line.
And where is this online force coming from? Well, the ranks of those collapsing due to fear. It’s the same psychology that caused gay men to out and persecute and prosecute other gay men. It’s the best way to prove ‘party loyalty’.
If you were to ask them why they joined the ranks of flying monkeys, however, they’d say it was to protect the poor trans people’s rights.
An article that relates to why some academics may have been easily cowed (especially those in small private colleges): https://hechingerreport.org/the-other-victims-when-colleges-decline-or-close-their-hometowns/?fbclid=IwAR3bT9lHzIr7j1mfNtzWiyuMnyMfAHKeS-R1R_MqxArkz5z3KJO61VFhr2M
In the early 1980’s I worked with one of the first handful of individuals who had undergone gender reassignment surgery. It was another of those new experiences that working in the big city provided. Our work environment was extremely avant-garde and my re-education included working closely with a diverse group of ethnicities and sexual identities for the first time. It was a little scary, a little disruptive, but it was a huge part of who I’ve become. Over time It became clear that we all were pretty much born to be who we were – not much preference was involved. It also was clear to me that the more people shared equal rights, the greater the pool of talent our society would have to dip into. And that was something to get behind. I didn’t have to give up any of my rights at all to support that. All I had to do was step back and stop accepting preferred status. That wasn’t always easy as those perks were often pretty subtle. I’m still working on it.
Which circles back to the issue being discussed. I have by no means read all the transplaining on the Internet but what I have seen tends to conflate rights with preferred status. Equal rights (something everyone here seems to support) just means that you get the same consideration and opportunities and treatment under the law as everyone else. You get to be who you are. That’s fair and just. What equal rights doesn’t provide are guarantees that your life will be exactly as you would imagine it. The old white dudes got a few things right in their day (for old white dudes at least) – they talked about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No promises just that you should get a fair shake like the rest of us (but you may not get that pony). You are free to be who you are but not necessarily entitled to being a professional athlete. That determination requires consideration of things like the fact that women’s sports have barred the use of anabolic steroids to build muscle mass for legitimate reasons. How does this fit in with that? I don’t know but asking the question doesn’t make me a transphobe. After all, most of us don’t get the pony either. That’s just life – not a human rights violation.
As I think someone pointed out in one of the other threads, there is (as far as I am aware) nothing to prevent any transwoman from competing professionally against men. I have never heard of any sports organizing body setting rules to exclude competitors from men’s events based on gender, genitals, hormone levels, etc.
It wouldn’t — or shouldn’t — be insulting or demeaning or “unfeminine” to do so. On occasion, women have entered men’s professional events. Six different women have played in men’s golf tour events Manon Rhaume tended goal in an NHL preseason game, and played for some minor league teams. While some people derided these as publicity stunts and/or as taking away opportunities from athletes who were more deserving, I don’t recall anybody accusing these women of being mannish.
Of course, none of those women had any success competing with the top men. Which is the real point, isn’t it? McKinnon feels entitled not just to be a professional athlete, but to be a winning professional athlete.
This seems to be developing into a common idea these days, the idea that equal rights means you get what you want. I see this when dealing with the parents of disabled students. They feel that the accommodations provided to level the playing field are supposed to guarantee success. That’s not the case; not all students without disabilities succeed, either. They may fail for a myriad of reasons, which may have to do with their own abilities, the level of work they put in, socioeconomic considerations beyond their control, or other things that we may not even have identified as of yet. Success is not guaranteed to anyone; there are even those who are born into success that fail (the thing is, they are more likely to have people picking them up and helping when they do, ala Dubya Bush and the current resident of the White House).
This is very analogous to what the trans community (some, obviously not all) are expecting. They want to have what no one else has.
Well put, Pliny.
What McKinnon wants (and has received) is official recognition to steal other women’s ponies. Not that women cyclists could afford to do this professionally, but what would happen if they all refused to compete against McKinnon? Once you’re on the track, it’s too late to voice objections because you’ve essentially agreed to the terms under which McKinnon is accepted as a woman cyclist. What pressure can be brought to bear against the relevent sporting body or bodies?
YNNB, we can start by pointing out that the IOC’s rules for transgender players seems to have been based on a single study which was a textbook example of bad science.
And if you read the link, you’ll learn that one of the test subjects was a trans woman cyclist. Wonder who.
https://medium.com/@Antonia_Lee/the-iocs-transgender-guidelines-are-unscientific-and-pose-a-serious-risk-to-the-health-of-both-5f5f808748e2
OK–the athlete in question is NOT MacKinnon. It’s this man, Jillian Bearden:
https://cyclingtips.com/2016/12/paving-the-way-for-transgender-cyclists-the-story-of-jillian-bearden/
The quote attributed to “the cyclist” above is in this article.
The “science” supporting trans-identified males in women’s sports remains execrable.
It just floors me that anyone could see what is happening in that picture above, and still say “that’s okay. It’s just trans-women competing in the sport they love”. Yes, and women getting hurt.
Well now the media have a new story they can run with: ” Famous sports star falls from grace.” But not from drug use, cheating, doping, filandering, spousal abuse or anything like that. They can elide the real reasons for her new found transphobe status and parrot the party line that concludes she’s now persons non grata without going into the actual arguments or reasoning (which are too much like “The emperor is naked!” for the comfort of those espousing it). Better to just warn people off and point to her as an example for everyone else to avoid…