Donald Trump is RIGHT to ban transgender athletes from women's sports, says Martina Navratilova - as she claims it's 'obviously not fair' to let them compete
Navratilova, 68, has long voiced her opposition to transgender sportspeople coming against biological females, calling them 'failed male athletes' - despite being subjected to stinging attacks as a result.
In February, Trump signed an executive order banning trans athletes from women's sports called 'Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports'.
That has strong permutations for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, as the Department of Homeland Security has been ordered to 'reject any and all visa applications made by men attempting to fraudulently enter the United States while identifying as women athletes'.
Navratilova, a nine-time Wimbledon champion who is also lesbian and previously said she was 'jettisoned' by the LGTB community for her views, is in support.
'I disagree with Trump on everything but this issue... and for that I am called a Nazi homophobe... bigot... the Democrats dropped the ball, Republicans ran with it, and it's a popular issue,' she told The Daily T.
'And Democrats are still doubling down. They're still not changing their mind.
'But Trump is right on this. There should be no males in women's sports, period – pun kind of intended. Because it's obviously not fair.'
Last week, the UK's Supreme Court ruled that the definition of a woman is based on biological sex in a landmark judgement, which sparked widespread applause as well as protests.
In an 88-page ruling, the Supreme Court justices said: 'The definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.'
The impact on sport could be seismic, as trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if 'proportionate'.
Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner told BBC Radio 4 that trans women would not be able to participate in women's sport.
There were calls amongst the LGBT+ community to 'amplify trans voices' and warnings that Britain was 'following in the footsteps of Trump's America' after judges decided the definition of sex in the Equality Act is binary.
The likes of broadcaster India Willoughby, Drag Race UK stars Tayce and Tia Kofi and leading LGBT+ charities spoke out after the judgement was handed down.
In December The Lawn Tennis Association banned trans women from national tournaments, but competitions such as Wimbeldon and Queen's come under international guidelines on gender.
Navratilova hit out: 'I've been talking to those bodies and they just do not listen.
'Wimbledon, the Lawn Tennis Association, the International Tennis Federation and the Association of Tennis Professionals – it's a moving target, they keep changing the rules.
'Just say female only, and you take a simple cheek swab test to prove you're female and you're done for the rest of your life.'
Navratilova has support within her beloved sport.
Wimbledon and BBC legend Sue Barker has also backed a ban on self-identified trans women competing against biological females.
She told The Telegraph last year: 'I just think you take away the young girls' dreams, so I am definitely with Navratilova.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
7 minutes ago
- Spectator
How Russia is preparing for Putin's meeting with Trump
Amidst contradictory leaks and rumours coming from the US administration, no one is quite sure what to expect when Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin meet in Alaska on Friday – not even the Russian press. Nonetheless, they seem rather less convinced that Trump is about to stitch up the Ukrainians than the Western media. Of course, there is satisfaction at the prospect of Putin's first visit to the US since 2015. Facing a campaign intended to try and isolate Russia, Putin had just sent troops into Syria to reverse what seemed then the imminent collapse of the Assad regime, and with US assets also deployed in the area, then-president Barack Obama had had no choice but to meet his Russian counterpart on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. The scenes of a clearly uncomfortable US president were met with delight by the Russian nationalists. One hawkish university professor even had a picture of it in his office, and when asked why, he grinned and told me: 'That was a meeting Obama didn't want to have, but we made him. We showed him that Russia could not be ignored.' There is a similar sense among the Russian media that for Putin simply to meet Trump is already a win for Russia. However, there is distinctly less triumphalism over the prospects of a deal to end the war and a sense that they are not getting a clear steer from the Kremlin. As usual, when the Russian press is faced with a politically sensitive topic without such guidance, they fall back on selectively picking from foreign press reports and experts to allow them to write something without actually hanging their own editorial hats on their positions. There are times when this is harder than others, and then all kinds of fringe YouTubers and similar random commentators are pressed into service to make the 'right' point safely. Thus, the most upbeat predictions are attributed to foreign commentators. Nezavisimaya Gazeta, for example, finds some suitable American professor willing to say that 'everyone knows' Zelensky will have to surrender territory, as he has no choice given Ukraine's 'lack of manpower, weapons, strategy, finances and fighting spirit'. (Most Russians at the front line might question that assessment, especially of fighting spirit.) In Vzglyad, the leader of the marginal French Eurosceptic Patriots party, Florian Philippot, is quoted as saying that 'the Europsychos are hysterical at the sight of approaching peace'. By contrast, editorial comment tends to be much more cautious. The business newspaper Vedomosti warns that 'immediate results and breakthroughs, especially in the Ukrainian direction, should not be expected yet'. Western readers might be surprised to read that while their media is focusing on the 'will they/won't they' drama of a potential deal over Ukraine, though, in Russia this is not necessarily being treated as the main story. Indeed, the nationalist Tsargrad news outlet cites a pundit claiming that '99 mper cent of the time, the conversations will not be about Ukraine at all.' Instead, Fyodor Lukyanov, one of Moscow's main foreign policy interpreters, focuses in the government newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta less on what the summit may mean for the war, and more on what it says about Russia's renewed standing as a great power. He examines the prospects for a new relationship with Trump's America, as the two leaders meet in isolated Alaska, 'removed from third parties… one on one, the rest of the world watching the stage from the auditorium, spellbound'. Even so, on every side there are cautions not to expect miracles. In Izvestia, Andrei Kortunov, one of the dwindling band of relatively liberal foreign policy academics, warned that 'the anti-Russian consensus in the United States remains broad and relatively stable' so that expectations ought to be moderated. To him: The value of the planned summit probably lies not in reaching some specific fateful agreements but in giving a new impetus to bilateral relations. In other words, to set in motion the heavy gears of cumbersome state mechanisms, which without such an impetus will not budge on their own. In other words, this is just the start of a process, at best, and one which many will be eager to derail. As a commentator notes in Rossiiskaya Gazeta, in Alaska, there may be 'no British spies, Ukrainian agents or European 'well-wishers' eager to disrupt the dialogue'. Nevertheless, the Russian press is united in highlighting the degree to which 'Russophobes' in Kyiv, in Washington, in London and in the European Union are briefing against the meeting now and will seek to undermine any outcomes they don't like after. The overall sense is far from the jubilation assumed in much Western coverage. On Ukraine, there is cautious optimism, but also an awareness that even if a deal is struck in Alaska, there are still many obstacles to the kind of peace that would be a victory for Russia. Of course, there is also an awareness that even if a deal is derailed by Kyiv, that is advantageous for Moscow as a chance to frame Kyiv and the Europeans as the warmongers. Yet there is a wider hope, quite possibly unrealistic, that regardless of that, some kind of new relationship, perhaps built on sanctions relief in return for privileged access to the Russian market and natural resources, can begin to be built with the US. And as for the Kremlin, it seems to be keeping its cards close to its chest, not even showing them to its tame newspapers.
The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
A pause on higher tariffs for China is due to expire Tuesday. Here's what to know.
A 90-day pause on imposing higher tariffs on China is due to expire on Tuesday and it is unclear if it will be extended. After the most recent round of China-U.S. trade talks, held late last month in Stockholm, Chinese and U.S. officials said they expected the deadline to be extended for another 90 days. The U.S. side said the decision was up to President Donald Trump. So far there has been no formal announcement about whether he will endorse an extension or push ahead with the higher tariffs. The uncertainty has left businesses in limbo and a decision to raise the import duties could jolt world markets. SILENCE FROM WASHINGTON AND BEIJING Trump has repeatedly shifted deadlines and tariff rates, and neither side has indicated what it plans for Tuesday. Extending the Aug. 12 deadline for reaching a trade agreement with China would forestall earlier threats of tariffs of up to 245%. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Trump was deciding about another 90-day delay to allow time to work out details of an agreement setting tariffs on most products at 50%, including extra import duties related to illicit trade in the powerful opiate fentanyl. Higher tariffs are aimed at offsetting the huge, chronic U.S. trade deficit with China, which hit a 21-year low in July as the threat of tariffs bit into Chinese exports. It's not unusual for the U.S. to give hints on where talks stand, but it's rare for China to make announcements until major decisions are set. CHINA RESISTED CUTTING AN EARLY BARGAIN Prohibitively high tariffs on Chinese exports to the United States would put huge pressure on Beijing at a time when the Chinese economy, the world's second largest, is still recovering from a prolonged downturn in its property market. Lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have left around 200 million of its workers reliant on 'gig work,' crimping the job market. Higher import taxes on small parcels from China have also hurt smaller factories and layoffs have accelerated, But the U.S. relies heavily on imports from China for all sorts of products, from household goods and clothing to wind turbines, basic computer chips, electric vehicle batteries and the rare earths needed to make them. That gives Beijing some powerful leverage in the negotiations with Washington. Even with higher tariffs, China remains competitive for many products. And its leaders are aware that the U.S. economy is only just beginning to feel the effects of higher prices from Trump's broad tariff hikes. For now, imports from China are subject to a 10% baseline tariff and a 20% extra tariff related to the fentanyl issue. Some products are taxed at higher rates. U.S. exports to China are subject to tariffs of around 30%. Before the two sides called a truce, Trump had threatened to impose 245% import duties on Chinese goods. China retaliated by saying it would hike its tariff on U.S. products to 125%. MUCH IS AT STAKE A trade war between the world's two largest economies has ramifications across the global economy, affecting industrial supply chains, demand for commodities like copper and oil and geopolitical issues such as the war in Ukraine. After a phone call with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in June, Trump said he hoped to meet with Xi later this year. That's an incentive for striking a deal with Beijing. If the two sides fail to keep their truce, trade tensions could escalate and tariffs might rise to even higher levels, inflicting still more pain on both economies and rattling world markets. Businesses would refrain from making investment commitments and hiring, while inflation would surge higher. Companies are in an 'extended wait-and-see mode,' Oxford Economics said in a recent report.
The Herald Scotland
36 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Yes, Scotland owned slaves, but don't just blame us
But this also means comprehensively, rather than partially and selectively, and recognising in the words of the novelist L. P. Hartley that 'the past is another country'. Goring asserts that 'even' the Picts traded in slaves. Why 'even'? All tribes and societies throughout history probably did, and we can all agree that Britain's part in the Atlantic trade and the plantations was brutal and appalling, but could not have happened, at least to the extent it did, without the enthusiastic and enriching supply role of the West African kings and tribal chiefs. She might also have mentioned the North African Barbary slavers who for centuries kidnapped and enslaved an estimated one million Europeans from Mediterranean countries, plus England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Iceland. She praises Edinburgh University, but its 'cancellation' of David Hume, based largely on one brief and understandable reference (if untypically poorly researched) among all his numerous writings, was unwise and simplistic. Sir Peter Mathieson, the principal, says 'we cannot have a selective memory about our past', but as Ms Goring writes, he seems selective about the present (Re China). Likewise, Edinburgh City Council is selective in its Melville Monument plaque in St Andrew Square. I admired the late Professor of Brewing, Sir Geoff Palmer, but he and his panel did not apply a historian's rigour to their choice of wording, which is certainly not comprehensive or impartial, but gives a misleading, distorted and false view of history to its readers, both locals and tourists, about Melville's role in the slave trade's abolition – as many historians have asserted. But the university leadership's silence lends it regrettable credence. Finally, the Race Review, overseen also by Sir Geoff for the university, refers to Britain's 'genocide' of colonised people, and condemns former PM and Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour for his role in creating today's Palestine and the Middle East. Both these points are partial and misleading. Balfour was maybe naive, but his 1917 Declaration was clear that a national home for the Jews in Palestine must not prejudice the rights of its existing non-Jews. Arguably, Germany set the scene for modern Palestine by bringing the Ottoman Empire into the First World War as its ally, leading to the defeat of both, and by the Nazi atrocities in the Second World War. John Birkett, St Andrews. Letters: Racism and prejudice are rapidly becoming the norm Letters: Middle East arms sales morally wrong Letters: Salmond and Sturgeon have torn the nation apart Oliver's army I RECENTLY predicted the collapse of the UK economy and society, and the hope that some benevolent, omniscient Cromwell-type figure would take over, sort everything out, then hand it back to Parliament. The nearest thing we have to this is what President Trump is doing in the US, and on the world stage. Toby Young, the founder of the Free Speech Union, suggested Trump should become a UK Citizen, take over Reform UK and stand against Keir Starmer's Labour in the next general election. Clearly he was making a point rather than a serious proposal, but apart from his opposition to Net Zero and woke ideology, Nigel Farage has neither the policies, people around him, nor guile and ruthlessness to remake the UK. So it will take someone like Trump to withstand what Young referred to as a radical, reforming government being "met on day one by an institutional intifada" and "seen off by the closed ranks of the Establishment". Even a year ago I wouldn't have imagined writing the above, but you only have to look at the surreal rearguard action against UK gender laws taking place in NHS Fife and elsewhere, Ed Miliband, Anas Sarwar and John Swinney's trashing of oil and gas, and the windmill obsession. Also, the impossibility of controlling both legitimate and illegal immigration, and the benefits bill that is engulfing our finances to realise the enormity of the challenge and the need for leadership and brutal reality that doesn't currently exist in the UK Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven. Gold-hearted rich AS a postscript to my letter responding to Neil Mackay's recent opinion piece ('Us vs them: why the rich like Musk and Bezos are destroying our world', The Herald, August 7), I would like to add a thought that suggests that there is another side to this coin, of which, perhaps, a lot of the population are unaware. First, Bill Gates has created a philanthropical foundation that supports many causes throughout the world. Second, in Britain there is the Patriotic Millionaires network, who lobby the government about accepting a nominal percentage of their wealth as a form of taxation; the object being to redistribute this to where it would benefit the country. There may well be others who do much more than is known; this may be where the problem lies. Perhaps a form of 'quiet' publicity would raise awareness and challenge the incumbent government to acknowledge that this cohort does in fact do more than many are aware of. If we, the public, and Neil Mackay, draw conclusions that are wrong, who is to blame? However, the present available information leads to the conclusion drawn by myself, Mr Mackay, and many others . A balance of the scales is needed, otherwise the perception of the need for a 21st century 'Robin Hood' will remain, and actions be demanded from our politicians. There is no doubt that something needs to be done, and to be see to be done. Ian Gray, Croftamie. Keeping economy afloat What an inspiring sight I saw from Kirkcaldy Esplanade the other day. Seven large ships all headed up the Forth. Whether they were bound for Leith or Rosyth, Hound Point, Braefoot Bay, or even Grangemouth, they represent the trade on which we all depend. Wouldn't it be something to have a Scottish government that focused on growing our economy, so that there were twice, or three times as many ships in the Forth? Reform UK, perhaps? Otto Inglis, Fife. Pipe dreams ELLE Duffy's weekly log from Rum is enthusiastically read every Saturday. My memories of the island date from a trip there in 1975, on a tandem laden with wife, three-year-old son and even bagpipes. Elle's writing would be more easily digested, however, if she would rid her copy of such ghastly Americanisms as 'gotten' and trees 'laying' down. Gordon Casely, Kincardineshire. Dynamism and tight deadlines are the key to solving a crossword, it seems. Fast times I JOIN Ian McNair (Letters, August 8) in being irritated by Scottish Government spokespersons claiming to be working 'at pace'. I am leaving no stone unturned and attempting to be dynamic and resilient under the tight deadline I have set myself for completion of the Wee Stinker. In my determination and resolution, I shall stop at nothing. David Miller, Milngavie.
