A recent article by The New York Times has sparked outrage for its use of the term “non-transgender women” when referring to biological females, drawing criticism from former sports icons, media personalities, and conservative lawmakers alike. Among the most vocal detractors was tennis legend Martina Navratilova, who didn’t mince words in expressing her frustration. The backlash highlights a growing tension over language and definitions, particularly in discussions surrounding transgender athletes in women’s sports.
Navratilova, a long-time advocate for women’s sports, blasted the article on social media, calling out the publication for its language choices. Her sharp critique reflected the sentiment of many who believe that calling biological women anything other than “women” diminishes their identity. Her statement comes as The Times delves into the drama unfolding within the San Jose State University Spartans women’s volleyball team, which is entangled in a legal and social battle over a transgender athlete’s eligibility to compete.
The controversy centers on a lawsuit filed by a senior co-captain of the Spartans and an assistant coach, aiming to block the transgender athlete from participating in an upcoming conference tournament. The suit claims the athlete’s inclusion violates Title IX protections for gender equity. They were joined by ten other female volleyball players from opposing teams, underscoring the broad concern over fairness in competition. According to The Times, the dispute has caused significant friction among teammates, with some no longer speaking to one another or even to their head coach, who supports the inclusion of the transgender player.
Compounding the issue was the language used in the article by Times reporter Juliet Macur, who referred to biological women as “non-transgender women” and, at other points, as “athletes assigned female at birth.” Macur also cited NCAA guidelines allowing trans athletes to compete if their testosterone levels fall below 10 nanomoles per liter—a threshold that, critics argue, is significantly higher than what is typical for biological women and falls within the range for adult males. The language and framing of the article ignited a firestorm on social media, with many accusing the publication of erasing the identity of women in favor of ideological compliance.
British Olympian Sharron Davies added her voice to the backlash, calling the terminology a blatant affront to women’s rights. She framed the situation as part of a broader assault on female identity, safeguards, and opportunities in sports. For Davies and others, the issue isn’t just about athletics—it’s a fight for the fundamental recognition and respect that women deserve. As debates over gender, identity, and fairness continue to escalate, the controversy surrounding The New York Times article serves as a flashpoint in a larger cultural battle that shows no signs of cooling down.
