In slamming tennis legend Martina Navratilova, a lesbian herself, for questioning what she called “the transgender problem” in women’s sports, popular LGBT sports site Outsports writes:
The Nazis had “The Jewish Question,” and history records the horror which its leaders called the “Final Solution.” Navratilova treads a very dangerous line in asking if this issue of inclusion should be called a name that’s not so far off from Joseph Goebbels’ nomenclature.
I suppose I’ll be accused of “transphobia” for thinking that the systematic genocide of millions of Jews is, in fact, really quite different than the effort to make sure that biological males can compete in women’s sports.
The irony in all this? Since coming out in 1981, Navratilova has been one of the most prominent LGBT faces in the world. As a professional athlete who was on top of the women’s tennis world for many decades, you’d think she has the bonafides to question allowing men to compete in women’s sports.
In fact, the very stupid article I quoted was written as a response to Navratilova’s second article about the transgender issue in recent days. Her first article, from the February 17 edition of The UK paper The Sunday Times, ignited a firestorm of controversy and got her kicked off the board of Athlete Ally, a major LGBT advocacy organization.
Navratilova’s Second Article, and the Science of Trans Athletes
In this second article, appearing on her own website, she graciously apologizes for using the term “cheat” when referring to biological men in women’s sports.
Then she wades into controversial waters, at least with the trans activists, by plainly stating that men are different than women:
It is obvious that men have certain inherent physiological advantages over women. These include height, weight, bone-density and muscularity. These advantages play a different role depending on the sport, with power-lifting being the biggest and most obvious advantage. Can we make sure those advantages are nullified so that women who have transitioned from men have the same level of physical capability they would have had if they been born female? Clearly, we can’t, because you cannot lose those extra inches of height (five inches on average) no matter what you do; some advantages of weight and muscle built up over time are also likely to remain, so to what acceptable degree should they disappear?
None of this should be controversial. It’s not just common sense; it is basic biology. Men are different than women, and those differences remain after one transitions to live life as a different gender.
Navratilova sets out a truly fair marker for the transgender activists who are attacking her:
I know I don’t have all the answers. I don’t think there is a definitive answer here. That is why I want a debate, a conversation that includes everyone and is based, as I have said, not on feeling or emotion but science, objectivity and the best interests of women’s sport as a whole.
In fact, Navratilova links to three separate scientific papers at the end of her article. Those can be found here, here, and here.
Science? How dare she use science!
Trans Activist Tries to Control Navratilova’s Language
So back to the article that compares excluding biological men from women’s sports to the Holocaust.
That article concludes by arrogantly telling Navratilova what she needs to say to be right by the activists:
Finally, here’s how we would have hoped Navratilova would have phrased her closing statement:
“If fair and open discussions can be held without preconceptions or prejudice, and without people being ‘transphobic’ or failing to accept trans women as women, trans men as men, or to recognize that it’s not just ‘having a different point of view’ when someone aims to exclude any athlete from competition because of their gender identity, it’s discrimination… then: by all means count us in!”
So basically, in order for Navratilova and anyone else to have a “fair and open discussion” about whether biological men should be allowed to compete in women’s sports, she has to accept their premises that (1) people won’t be “transphobic” as defined by whatever they say that means, (2) they’ll accept that “trans women [are] women,” (3) they’ll accept that “trans men are men,” (4) “it’s discrimination” when someone “aims to exclude any athlete from competition because of their gender identity.”
Summary of the trans activists’ argument: agree with everything we say, and then we can have a “fair and open” discussion.
Actually, the Nazis Controlled Language Too
The reason the article compared Navratilova’s discussion of transgender issues to the Nazis is because of her use of a phrase, “the transgender problem.” It hardly bears repeating how extraordinarily ignorant that is, but what’s interesting is that the author is completely backwards.
Here’s an excerpt from an article by the Foundation for Economic Education, describing the work of Victor Klemperer. Klemperer was a German Jew who avoided the concentration camps and later wrote about how the Nazis controlled language. The article describes his conclusions thus:
Klemperer said that it was not that the Nazis made up very many new words, though they did in some cases with intentional design. But what was far more insidious, he argued, is that through their own particular uses of existing words, over and over again in their propaganda, speeches, and publications, they changed the meanings and contexts of these taken-for-granted words of the German language.
The Nazis, through this method, made words have only one meaning, the collective or shared meaning serving the Nazis’ purposes. “Making language the servant of its dreadful system it procures it in its most powerful, most public and most surreptitious means of advertising,” Klemperer explained, and went on:
“The sole purpose of the [Nazi use and form of language] is to strip everyone of their individuality, to paralyze them as personalities, to make them into unthinking and docile cattle in a herd driven and hounded in a particular direction, to turn them into atoms in a huge rolling block of stone . . . Where [Nazi language] addresses the individual . . . where it educates, it teaches means of breeding fanaticism and techniques of mass suggestion.”
Who, exactly, is trying to control the language of this debate and control what is and is not acceptable thought? Is it somehow Navratilova, with her supposedly sinister use of the phrase “transgender problem,” or is it these activists, whose disregard for fundamental truths is so great that they compare opponents of their ideas to the Nazis?
Navratilova Isn’t Scared – After All, She Grew Up Under Communism
Finally, it’s worth noting Navratilova’s background in Czechoslovakia, a former country in the Soviet bloc. She mentions it herself as she concludes her article:
While there were some unfair articles and responses and name calling (a TERF? Seriously people?!?), the support I have gotten has been quite overwhelming. Some in the open, some from the ‘closet’. Fairness has been my mantra all my life. And that will not change, no matter the name calling. The communists tried to shut me up 45 years ago and look how that worked out…
If fair and open discussions can be held without preconceptions or prejudice, and without people being vilified as ‘transphobic’, as I have been along with thousands of others for having a different point of view, by all means count me in!
Very reasonable request by her, too much so. Good luck asking these activists to be fair in any real way.
They have unmoored themselves from anything resembling truth. Which is why, despite claiming the mantle of tolerance, they demand nothing less than complete submission.