Talk

Advanced search

To think that Martina Navratilova should NOT lose her job at the BBC and that the BBC is biased?

(275 Posts)
TeamNavratilova Mon 18-Feb-19 23:00:54

On Sunday, Martina Navratilova had an article published in the Sunday Times, giving her views on the inclusion of transwomen (biological males who identify as being women) in women’s sport:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-rules-on-trans-athletes-reward-cheats-and-punish-the-innocent-klsrq6h3x?shareToken=45bc9997e063aaf79646a7f12a7363a6

The BBC subsequently decided to have a discussion item on this on 5 Live and invited Dr Nicola Williams from Fair Play for Women - fairplayforwomen.com - to speak on Martina’s side of the argument along with Rachel McKinnon (a male-bodied cyclist who identifies as a woman and now holds a cycling world title in women’s cycling).

Rachel McKinnon refused to appear on the show if Dr Williams was on so the BBC’s response was to uninvite Dr Williams and instead interview Rachel McKinnon along with another trans sportsperson who agreed with Rachel. The other side of the argument (along with all facts about the physical differences between male and female bodies which Dr Williams could have provided) was not covered and both interviewees were asked (on the BBC, by a BBC presenter) whether the BBC should fire Martina to which they both replied yes: twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1097417280084951040 McKinnon has continued to argue for this online.

AIBU to think that Martina should not lose her commentating job at the BBC for expressing her (considered, researched) views and that the BBC has behaved in a biased and unethical way, firstly, by only presenting one side of an argument on a discussion show and, secondly, by using the opportunity to put forward the idea that Martina should be sacked?

Lizzie48 Sat 23-Feb-19 10:10:40

She was always very brave, she would have had to be to defect to the USA from Czechoslovakia, as it was back then.

It's not at all surprising that she's the one who has spoken out in this case.

FermatsTheorem Sat 23-Feb-19 10:18:50

Someone on the AIBU thread has posted a share token - I suggest you link to this rather than posting Janice's article (which is a breach of copyright). If Janice is being brave enough to write (repeatedly) on this issue, she deserves to get paid for her writing.

CaveMum Sat 23-Feb-19 17:09:19

The Independent have published a shocking, awful piece on the subject today which, to all intents and purposes, says “women should sit down and shut up because women’s sport doesn’t matter and the transfolk are sooo inspirational.”

www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/caster-semenya-news-gender-martina-navratilova-trans-cas-jonathan-liew-column-a8792861.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

CaveMum Sat 23-Feb-19 17:12:06

I should add the article was written by The Independent’s Chief Sports Writer.

An excerpt to show I’m not exaggerating:

“But let’s follow this argument all the way through. Let’s say the floodgates do open. Let’s say transgender athletes pour into women’s sport, and let’s say, despite the flimsy and poorly-understood relationship between testosterone and elite performance, they dominate everything they touch. They sweep up Grand Slam tennis titles and cycling world championships. They monopolise the Olympics. They fill our football and cricket and netball teams. Why would that be bad? Really? Imagine the power of a trans child or teenager seeing a trans athlete on the top step of the Olympic podium. In a way, it would be inspiring.”

FermatsTheorem Sat 23-Feb-19 17:16:16

There's a whole thread on it Cavemum - "apoplectic" doesn't even begin to cover the reaction!

CaveMum Sat 23-Feb-19 17:35:07

Thanks Fermats, somehow missed that!

FermatsTheorem Sat 23-Feb-19 17:41:57

No problem! I may have been... ahem... a little sweary on the other thread. Just a tad.

AryaStarkWolf Sat 23-Feb-19 19:51:54

Oh look a thinks it would be "inspirational" for women to be locked out of our own sport. Well I'm surprised

AryaStarkWolf Sat 23-Feb-19 19:52:17

A man thinks*

Mummyoflittledragon Sat 23-Feb-19 20:00:49

Shit that article is chilling!
Thanks for an epic post MenstruatorExtraordinaire

Teateaandmoretea Sun 24-Feb-19 07:40:05

The 'article' is the biggest load of bollocks ever. Caster Semenya is a woman for a start, hardly the same thing. This limit to testosterone rule is actually so biological males can compete so is potentially meaning some women as born can't confused. There are natural differences between women - what next banning anyone over 5'10?

But the best is at the end 'its only sport'. So why don't the men fuck off and not compete in womens sport then if it doesn't matter? Not a jot of the article made one bit of sense to me at all. He needs to be fucking sacked.

Italiangreyhound Sun 24-Feb-19 09:09:51

That Indeoendant article! Well what fuck.

It's talking about bulging muscles. Where are all these pictures of the basketball player towering over the young girls, the power lifter, cyclist and all who are much bigger and stronger.

I think I might write to them and ask how they don't see the obvious advantage these athletes have.

I hope the srticke will be an own goal! Like the 'no smoking' signs that encouraged people to smoke!

They've painted a scary picture and added a laugh. I hope the British public will see the scary picture.

Italiangreyhound Sun 24-Feb-19 09:15:33

"That giving some of society’s most marginalised groups a chance to express their talent doesn’t harm anyone. Because trans women are women. And sport, I’m afraid, is only sport."

Are elote male athletes really some of societies most marginalized people?

If so should they be competing in the para Olympics? Whould that be fair on the para Olympians?

Does "sport, I’m afraid, is only sport." Really mean "women'ssport, I’m afraid, is only women's sport."

Because I cannot see how this is affecting males on sport, except to unfairly disadvantage them.

similarminimer Sun 24-Feb-19 11:36:54

Does anyone, ANYONE, think that putting a number one female athlete on testosterone for a year would automatically allow her to beat the number 2 male athlete in their sport? Because that would have to be the logic, if a year of testosterone levels are the only differentiator.

Vixxxy Sun 24-Feb-19 11:51:38

But the best is at the end 'its only sport'. So why don't the men fuck off and not compete in womens sport then if it doesn't matter?

Exactly. its only women who it doesn't matter to. Like usual.

Vixxxy Sun 24-Feb-19 11:57:38

Does anyone, ANYONE, think that putting a number one female athlete on testosterone for a year would automatically allow her to beat the number 2 male athlete in their sport? Because that would have to be the logic, if a year of testosterone levels are the only differentiator.

Apparently transmen have an advantage over men already, as their testosterone levels will be higher, I shit you not, this is what I saw being argued a few days back.

twitter.com/RachelT1722/status/1098768596019408898

DonaldTwain Sun 24-Feb-19 12:01:13

The writer of that article could have saved himself the bother and just written “women should be invisible and have nothing of their own except childbirth and drudgery” 20 times. He drips with contempt for us, a sentiment I cordially return in his direction.

walchesterweasel Sun 24-Feb-19 13:46:43

I can't read the comments on the newspaper site, is it being rebutted ?

CallipygianFancier Sun 24-Feb-19 15:13:39

I can't read the comments on the newspaper site, is it being rebutted ?

It's gone down about as well with their readership as it has here.

ErrolTheDragon Sun 24-Feb-19 15:26:51

I don't know if it's accurate, but one of the comments I read on that Independent piece is that this journalist - their chief sports writer - never covers women's sports. And on another thread there's a screenshot of a tweet saying he thinks the issue of trans sports is something everyone should be able to quietly agree on.confusedhmmer, yes, nearly everyone actually does seem to agree...

GiantKitten Sun 24-Feb-19 15:46:08

Why doesn’t a transwoman’s testosterone have to be reduced to the women’s maximum level, instead of some arbitrary in-between level?

(Apologies if this has been asked/answered already)

NB I know they have other physical advantages too, but testosterone seems to be what everybody concentrates on.

AnyOldPrion Sun 24-Feb-19 23:40:55

Why doesn’t a transwoman’s testosterone have to be reduced to the women’s maximum level, instead of some arbitrary in-between level?

I don’t know for sure, but have a strong suspicion that it’s because if transwomen could only compete if their testosterone levels were required to be the same as women’s, not a single one would qualify.

donquixotedelamancha Sun 24-Feb-19 23:47:37

Apologies if anyone has already posted on this thread, but there is a great interview with Human Biologist Dr Nicola Williams about Martina's comments:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3511185-FPFW-disinvited-from-discussing-Martinas-comments-on-5Live?msgid=85167573#85167573

Vixxxy Sun 24-Feb-19 23:53:14

I don’t know for sure, but have a strong suspicion that it’s because if transwomen could only compete if their testosterone levels were required to be the same as women’s, not a single one would qualify.

McKinnon reckons their testosterone levels are lower than that of the average woman hmm Yet they also argue for removal of estosterone levels at all.

Also, even if transwomen had to get as low as actual women..they would still have an advantage if they have gone through male puberty and transitioned after.

2019StandingforWomen Mon 25-Feb-19 09:54:29

Martina tweeted last night that she will be revisiting this subject. I will be awaiting her next article with great interest.

We need more sports personalities to be a bit braver and speak up as well.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »