I agree that this is a great article and am also heartened by the tweets in support of Navratilova. She has long been someone I admire.
I also remember The Guardian, literally decades ago, doing a fucking hatchet piece on her when she started training under Richards. Don't bother searching because none of this is online. But they had a photo of her on the front page taken when she was firing an ace at someone during Wimbledon. Her hair was blown about by the wind and her face was taut. You could tell that it was a picture that was designed to show her as "unattractive". The write up was all about her "new" "more muscular" physique and how she had a coach who used to be a man. There were veiled references to her homosexuality.
I remember it quite vividly because I loved her at the time. I mean, really loved her. She was supremely talented, she was exciting to watch, she was intelligent to listen to and she was also humble.
I couldn't understand why a newspaper would present her in such a negative way. They didn't explicitly say it, but the underlying message was that her coach was trans, she was training intensely to have an athletic physique and she had sex with women, so therefore she was in some way masculine.
I've never forgotten it.
So for the guardian - the same fucking rag that wrote this hateful bilge about a top woman athlete - commenting on her hairstyle like it was fucking news ffs, calling into question her femininity when she was a woman - to be all wide eyed and "oh it's just so hatecrime and intolerant that we can't include women with penises in the definition of women" is looking glass world indeed.