The US organisation Athlete Ally, which aims to support the rights of LGBT sportspeople, has cut ties with tennis champion Martina Navratilova, saying comments she made in a British newspaper were transphobic.
Navratilova -- an 18-time Grand Slam winner -- argued it was "cheating" to allow transgender women to compete in female competition because they would benefit from unfair physical advantages.
Her column written in the Sunday Times newspaper has led Athlete Ally to immediately remove her from their Advisory Board and drop her as an ambassador for the organisation.
In a statement released on its website Athlete Ally said Navratilova had perpetuated "dangerous myths" about transgender women.
"Martina Navratilova's recent comments on trans athletes are transphobic, based on a false understanding of science and data, and perpetuate dangerous myths that lead to the ongoing targeting of trans people through discriminatory laws, hateful stereotypes and disproportionate violence," the organisation said.
The portion that (I think) got her in trouble was that she said they chose to be women?
It's funny that one of the great gay icons and civil rights leaders is dismissed for not being right gay thinking enough.
USA Powerlifting just went through the same thing and their reasoning to ban trans athletes is as reasonable an explanation as your going to get. Not all athletes are suitable to participate.
USA Powerlifting is an inclusive organization for all athletes and members who comply with its rules, policies, procedures, and bylaws. USA Powerlifting is not a fit for every athlete and for every medical condition or situation. Simply, not all powerlifters are eligible to compete in USA Powerlifting.
USA Powerlifting, as a National Affiliate of the International Powerlifting Federation (IPF) adopted, and follows the policies as defined by the IPF Medical Committee which impact the participation of transgender individuals in events sanctioned by USA Powerlifting.
Two areas of policy impact such participation: The first has to do with the use of testosterone or other androgens, commonly used to assist in transition from female to male. By virtue of the anabolic nature of these compounds, they are not allowed, nor is a Therapeutic Use Exemption granted for such use for anyone. This applies to any and all medical conditions which might be treated through use of androgens. The second area involves the participation of male to female competitors. Through analysis the impact of maturation in the presence naturally occurring androgens as the level necessary for male development, significant advantages are had, including but not limited to increased body and muscle mass, bone density, bone structure, and connective tissue. These advantages are not eliminated by reduction of serum androgens such as testosterone yielding a potential advantage in strength sports such as powerlifting.
The IPF added acceptance of the International Olympic Committee Guidelines on inclusion of transgender individuals in competition. However, the IOC Guidelines also allows sports to determine the impact on fair play through such inclusion. The IPF Medical Committee, while respecting the rights of those who choose to transition, has been consistent in its opinion that use of testosterone and participation of male to female transgender athletes in our sport compromises fair play.
She suggested a man would choose to become a tranny simply in order to dominate in a woman's sport, then switch back after retiring, which would be cheating.
That is a bit silly, particularly when you're an ambassador on the advisory board for an organisation that promotes trannies in sport. Her being free to speak out isn't really the same thing as her being free to keep her job promoting the opposite of what she says. She may have a point about it being unfair to have male to female competitors, but it seems like the science isn't quite in on it yet.
it used to be that comments like this were made at the dinner table or from a bar stool. now they are tweeted out to be scrutinized by every holier-than-thou turd with a soap box.
analhamster wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:49 pm
She wrote it in her newspaper column.
I get that part. i'm just saying that in today's world, things reach a mass audience very quickly. And in that mass audience there is going to be someone that spins something into a reason to try to destroy the person.
I was watching a storm chaser show last night. the show about the guys that chase tornadoes. well, the guy that has the TIV (the tank like car that tries to get inside tornadoes to film them for an imax film along with gathering scientific data for the scientists that are too scared to do it) was trying to catch up to a storm. And there's now hundreds of people that do this, mostly for fun. so the roads are a log jam of cars and he can't get to where he wants to be in the time available.
well, the guy driving goes around one car, but when he does the car in front won't let him back in, so he speeds up to find an opening to get back into traffic. it takes a minute or so before someone lets him back in. Well, sure enough someone films it on their phone and tweets (or whatever) it out on the internet about how this reckless guy is going to kill someone trying to get to a tornado. sure enough, the people that fund his film and the science that he gathers call him in for a meeting and put all kinds of restrictions on him and threaten to pull funding.
analhamster wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:49 pm
She wrote it in her newspaper column.
I get that part. i'm just saying that in today's world, things reach a mass audience very quickly. And in that mass audience there is going to be someone that spins something into a reason to try to destroy the person.
I was watching a storm chaser show last night. the show about the guys that chase tornadoes. well, the guy that has the TIV (the tank like car that tries to get inside tornadoes to film them for an imax film along with gathering scientific data for the scientists that are too scared to do it) was trying to catch up to a storm. And there's now hundreds of people that do this, mostly for fun. so the roads are a log jam of cars and he can't get to where he wants to be in the time available.
well, the guy driving goes around one car, but when he does the car in front won't let him back in, so he speeds up to find an opening to get back into traffic. it takes a minute or so before someone lets him back in. Well, sure enough someone films it on their phone and tweets (or whatever) it out on the internet about how this reckless guy is going to kill someone trying to get to a tornado. sure enough, the people that fund his film and the science that he gathers call him in for a meeting and put all kinds of restrictions on him and threaten to pull funding.
So you're saying he drove at high speeds down the wrong side of the road, presumably in shitty weather, for over a minute, and you think he was in the right?
analhamster wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:49 pm
She wrote it in her newspaper column.
I get that part. i'm just saying that in today's world, things reach a mass audience very quickly. And in that mass audience there is going to be someone that spins something into a reason to try to destroy the person.
I was watching a storm chaser show last night. the show about the guys that chase tornadoes. well, the guy that has the TIV (the tank like car that tries to get inside tornadoes to film them for an imax film along with gathering scientific data for the scientists that are too scared to do it) was trying to catch up to a storm. And there's now hundreds of people that do this, mostly for fun. so the roads are a log jam of cars and he can't get to where he wants to be in the time available.
well, the guy driving goes around one car, but when he does the car in front won't let him back in, so he speeds up to find an opening to get back into traffic. it takes a minute or so before someone lets him back in. Well, sure enough someone films it on their phone and tweets (or whatever) it out on the internet about how this reckless guy is going to kill someone trying to get to a tornado. sure enough, the people that fund his film and the science that he gathers call him in for a meeting and put all kinds of restrictions on him and threaten to pull funding.
So you're saying he drove at high speeds down the wrong side of the road, presumably in shitty weather, for over a minute, and you think he was in the right?
well, i was watching from the camera inside their vehicle. they almost had to go around the first car. but didn't expect the car in front to not let them back in. then no one would let them back in. they were talking while filming and saying "we have to get back over". the driver was saying, "they won't let me in." the owner of the car was yelling at him to "get back into traffic". But none of that was on what went on the internet. the film on the internet was from the car that wouldn't let them back in the lane. Two lane road, no shoulder. No traffic coming from the other direction.
edit: and he wasn't driving at high speeds, the other cars were basically parked. and i don't think it was raining on the road where they were. See, these people that chase storms for fun, don't want to actually get to the tornado. they want to be behind it and just watch it from their cars. While the guys doing research need to get ahead of it.
All I'm saying is that if you watched the situation as it unfolded it seemed like the guy was getting shafted by the other drivers. If all you saw was the video posted on the internet he looked like an asshole.
He was the asshole. What he should have done was applied the brakes and returned to his place in the queue. Don't even need to see the video to go that far, if I was in a moving traffic queue and some cunt was trying to hop ahead one car at a time I wouldn't let him in either.
beagleboy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:38 pm
The portion that (I think) got her in trouble was that she said they chose to be women?
It's funny that one of the great gay icons and civil rights leaders is dismissed for not being right gay thinking enough.
Many gays don’t agree that transgenderism has anything to do with their cause. But they’re afraid to speak out because of the orthodoxy of the movement.
Well, found the video from the innocent party at least - there's a bunch of drivers that should have their licenses taken away. Your guy is speeding up to a blind crest on the wrong side of the road, it's just pure dumb luck no one came the other way because everyone in both vehicles would have been killed if they had.
Today’s instant communications and ready outrage attitude means that people act before mulling things over. Call for someone’s death, later find out they were innocent (let alone the go-along mob behavior that would cause someone to wish harm on another.)
