On with Kara Swisher - Martina Navratilova on Transgender Athletes, Pay Equity and Trump

Episode Date: November 30, 2023

Tennis legend Martina Navratilova is no stranger to controversy. But the battle she’s picked these days, which has pit her against inclusion of trans women in professional sports – has put her at odds with many in the LGBTQ community that considers her an icon, and made her strange bedfellows with Republicans with whom she’s otherwise on (Twitter) war footing. We explore why she’s chosen to plant this flag, talk about the continued pay inequity in tennis, and brainstorm what she’ll do next (hint: it could involve Elon).  Questions? Comments? Email us at [e-mail] or find us on social media. We’re on Instagram/Threads as @karaswisher and @nayeemaraza Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Do you feel like your leads never lead anywhere? And you're making content that no one sees, and it takes forever to build a campaign? Well, that's why we built HubSpot. It's an AI-powered customer platform that builds campaigns for you, tells you which leads are worth knowing, and makes writing blogs, creating videos, and posting on social a breeze. So now, it's easier than ever to be a marketer.

Get started at HubSpot.com slash marketers. Support for this podcast comes from Anthropic. It's not always easy to harness the power and potential of AI. For all the talk around its revolutionary potential, a lot of AI systems feel like they're designed for specific tasks performed by a select few. Well, Claude by Anthropic is AI for everyone. The latest model, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, offers groundbreaking intelligence at an everyday price.

Claude Sonnet can generate code, help with writing, and reason through hard problems better than any model before. You can discover how Clalawed can transform your business at anthropic.com slash clawed. Hi, everyone from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. This is On with Kara Swisher, and I'm Kara Swisher. And I'm Naima Raza. Today, we're going to continue our sports week on On. Yes.

After our conversation with South African runner Kastor Semenya about differences in sex development, we wanted to talk to tennis legend Martina Navratilova. She's someone who's been a champion for equity and inclusion in sports when it comes to women. And Kara, I know she's been a longtime idol of yours, right? Yeah. I think she's an astonishing tennis player. She was obviously an icon. She changed the game of tennis and made it more athletic. And it was sort of, you know, white skirts and adorableness. And she changed it to a real athletic event through her training. Obviously, her coming out was fraught for a lot of people to watch that happen. And she definitely paid the price for it at the time. But she was the leading, I would say, pioneer

in that area. And just the athleticism and the championships are really quite impressive. Yeah, she won her first Wimbledon at age 21. She dominated the court throughout the 1980s. She won her last US Open mixed doubles in 2006, just shy of her 50th birthday. So she is an athletic hero. And she's, as you said, someone who's been this real champion for equity and inclusion in sports. She's really, I think, also been someone who's championed the LGB rights, but not so much for the T, the trans community. Yeah, yeah. She's shifted her opinions on this quite substantively.

And it's the one thing when there was a really wonderful article recently about her relationship with Chris Everett. In the Washington Post, yeah. She's shifted her opinions on this quite substantively. And it's the one thing when there was a really wonderful article recently about her relationship with Chris Everett. In the Washington Post, yeah. Which was sort of this great rivalry, this sort of blonde straight girl and the gay muscly girl. And they've turned out to be very close friends. They both had cancer. And it was a really beautiful story by Sally Jenkins, who's one of my favorite sports writers. And it was a really beautiful story by Sally Jenkins, who's one of my favorite sports writers. But when I praised it, which was a great story about a friendship that developed over time,

I got a lot of pushback from people because of Martina's, I would say, controversial opinions about transgender athletes. She's called them cheats, etc. And I wanted to hear from her. Someone I really respect. I got lots of letters from people who were mad that I praised her. Someone I really respect. I got lots of letters from people who were mad that I praised her. I don't think this is a black and white issue. I think it's a complex issue. Here's an athlete that has herself been accused of being too muscly, is she taking hormones, et cetera, et cetera. Yeah, people ask about her testosterone levels, which pisses her off, rightly. Yeah, it does indeed. And so I wanted to really talk to her about it because someone I really admire and I do not agree with, but I want to understand it. I'm confused and I want to hear from her. How do you reconcile that someone that you admire and someone who has? You don't.

I don't. But you will hopefully after this interview. what she's saying. And I do too. It makes me uncomfortable. And at the same time, I want to hear athletes have their opinions. Different athletes have handled it differently, women athletes. I have great respect for Kastor Semenya. I think what an athlete, but it creates all kinds of issues. And again, it also focuses on women over men. And that sort of makes me nervous. Martina has been called on Twitter, et cetera, a TERF, a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. This is a term that has been used against J.K. Rowling, against Pamela Paul from the New York Times. All of them have been called this.

And Martina's point, I want to let her explain it, but it's really, it seems as she articulates it, rooted in fairness. It seems as she articulates it rooted in fairness. All men want to play as women because they can win more medals as women, which is, I would say, really taking it down a slippery slope that it isn't at yet. But also there's a language thing here because in the UK, a lot of people are called TERFs and they're really feminists who want to protect the language of women's rights, like women's health care. And if you start calling it people with womb health care, it becomes very, they think, difficult to organize a movement.

Yeah. And we'll see. I want to hear her point of view and where she comes out. She's someone who is much admired. And at the same time, it makes me very nervous to hear her say this, especially because the right wing is attacking not just trans youth, but gay and lesbian youth all across the country. And I think inclusion has been one of the most important parts of at least my politics. And so it makes me nervous because it plays into right-wing tropes about people. And the people who suffer are typically transgender people. And she is, Martina, someone so outspoken about the right wing, so outspoken about Trump.

And for her to share this kind of bedfellow in them is an oddity. And also, I think, begs the question of all the issues that face women's sports, all the issues of equity, pay, discrimination, visibility. Why is this the issue that Martina wants to champion? Well, let's have her tell us. And we do want to talk about all those issues too, because she is a legend and she has done a lot for pay equity and women in sports. Yes, indeed.

And one of the reasons we wanted to do this interview is that our former colleague, Blake Neshek, really wanted to do this interview. She was definitely the sportiest gal in our crew for the last few years by a mile. She passed away, as many of you know, but I know we talked to her a lot about Martina. Absolutely. All right, let's take a quick break and we'll be back with Martina Navratilova.

Fox Creative. This is advertiser content from Zelle. When you picture an online scammer, what do you see? For the longest time, we have these images of somebody sitting crouched over their computer with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away in the middle of the night. And honestly, that's not what it is anymore. That's Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter. These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates than individual con artists. And they're making bank.

Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion. It's mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure that's been built to facilitate scamming at scale. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scam centers all around the world. These are very savvy business people. These are organized criminal rings. And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem, we can protect people better.

One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed to discuss what happened to them. But Ian says one of our best defenses is simple. We need to talk to each other. We need to have those awkward conversations around what do you do if you have text messages you don't recognize? What do you do if you start getting asked to send information that's more sensitive? Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness, a smaller dollar scam, but he fell victim. And we have these conversations all the time. So we are all at risk and we all need to work together to protect each other. Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com slash Zelle. And when using digital payment platforms,

remember to only send money to people you know and trust. on the day-to-day, the personnel, and the finances, marketing is the last thing on your mind. But if customers don't know about you, the rest of it doesn't really matter. Luckily, there's Constant Contact. Constant Contact's award-winning marketing platform can help your businesses stand out, stay top of mind, and see big results. Sell more, raise more, and build more genuine relationships with your audience through a suite of digital marketing tools made to fast track your growth. With Constant Contact, you can get email marketing that helps you create and send the perfect email to every customer, and create, promote, and manage your events with ease, all in one place. Get all the automation, Manage your events with ease, all in one place.

Get all the automation, integration, and reporting tools that get your marketing running seamlessly. All backed by Constant Contact's expert live customer support. Ready, set, grow. Go to ConstantContact.ca and start your free trial today. Go to ConstantContact.ca for your free trial. Constantcontact.ca. Martina, thank you for being here. I'm so excited. You know, I've been like haranguing you on Twitter on DMs to come on this thing for a while. Huge fan, obviously. We never met in person, I don't believe, have we? No, we haven't. In any case, I've wanted to do this for lots of reasons. You're in the news quite a bit. And I want to start off, you've won 59 major titles and singles doubles and mixed doubles, the most of

anyone in the open era. But I want to congratulate you on a different win. You just finished treatment for two kinds of cancer, throat and breast. How are you feeling? Well, you know, good. Much, much better. The taste is still not 100%, but it's a lot better. The biggest loss is I really can't enjoy wine at the moment. You know, really good wine tastes terrible. So, yeah, I have my Cosmos instead.

But all in all, it's really good. I can't complain. I got lucky in that, you know, we caught both cancers early. I'm still not sure why I am getting all these cancers. And I've had now three bouts with two different breast cancers, but I still have both breasts. So I'm among the lucky ones. So here we are. When this happened to you, did it change your life? I, of course, had a stroke many years ago. It definitely changed my life. And recently I had heart surgery to fix the hole in the heart that I had, which was easy, actually.

It's changed quite a bit. But it definitely changed my perspective on things. Did it do that for you, or is it just like, oh, this sucks? Well, it was this sucks, certainly, especially when I found out I had two different cancers and it just got really complicated trying to figure out the treatment. But my first bout was 13 14 years ago now um like this this time the second time i got diagnosed it was a holy shit you know i could die in a year or less because the original doctor said it could

be in my lungs or my you know my my kidneys or or liver which would mean it could also be in your brain so before i knew exactly where it was i was terrified that this could be a death sentence. And once I found out it wasn't, prognosis is very good, but still, it puts things in perspective, no doubt about it. As you know, when your health is at a crossroads like that, everything else takes second place. First, you have to get healthy. And I just learned to really cut the chaff, you know, stay away from people that don't give me the energy, that suck it out of me. At the same time, I try to give the energy to people, but, you know, it needs to be a symbiotic situation, not a one-way ticket.

So I've stepped away from the one-way people. And whenever there is a stressful thing happening, like we were late going to the US Open for a live show, that was horrible traffic at Midtown Tunnel. It was, yeah. And, you know, normally it takes half an hour. It took us an hour and a half to get there. I was going to be late.

Nothing I can do. So I just learned to not stress over stuff that really doesn't matter. And you've been a health-conscious person. You've sort of been at the forefront of fitness. You know, you were one of the first athletes to really push that idea of staying fit and focusing on your body and training. Yeah, I was on the forefront on the tennis tour for sure.

I mean, there have been some people that had done some training, but I think nothing as comprehensive as what I was trying to do at the time, what we knew, the knowledge we had. Of course, the knowledge is much greater now, 40 years later. But I just try to cover all the bases, the fitness, the training on and off the court, and of course, the nutrition, which, you know, you can't give Ferrari 85 grade gasoline. So, yeah, my father said, oh, it doesn't matter how much you weigh as long as, you know, you're not too heavy. I'm like, no, no, no, it's the quality of the weight that matters as well. And so I,

you know, I, I kind of started that and then other people caught up and now it's a must. Absolutely. The way the athletes train, it's, you know. Yeah, absolutely. So push that ball forward. Yeah. You absolutely did. So I, I obviously love the Sally Jenkins article in the post about you and rival Chris Everett, to whom you now bring eggs from your chickens. Yeah.

I tweeted that it made me cry and and you called me a crybaby. Thank you for that. But I want you to talk about rivalry and why you think that relationship captivates people 40 to 50 years later, enough that you're making a documentary about it. Well, you said it. By the way, I called you crybaby because I was kidding, because I'm a crybaby too.

I cry at the drop of a hat. I'm not a crybaby in any way. No, not a crybaby. Empathetic is more like it. By the way, I called you crybaby because I was kidding because I'm a crybaby too. I cry at the drop of a hat. I'm not a crybaby in any way. No, not a crybaby. Empathetic is more like it. I was giving you a hard time. Yeah, yeah. I was giving you a hard time. But anyway, yeah, you know, that relationship of friendship, rivalry just evolved because it was over such a long period of time.

The contrast in styles, contrasts in everything our background our upbringing and then defecting and then coming here and the styles in play chris always played everything close to her best you know she was called an ice maiden because you couldn't tell what she was feeling even though inside she was boiling with me you could see the boiling it was very much on the outside so So the contrast in everything definitely made people pick one side. You know, you couldn't really be neutral. But I think as they saw, as our career developed and even the friendship developed, maybe people were more like just appreciating us as athletes and as competitors rather than taking a side. You know, it was

pretty special because it just came out of nowhere, sort of. And it just kept going and kept going. And little did we know. At the beginning, they really did put you as, I'm not going to say villain, but the idea of people attacked your Czech heritage, commented on your muscular build, you're being gay, obviously. What was that like at the time? Because it really, I felt it myself as a viewer, like as a fan, maybe because I thought about myself being gay and everything else. And it was this trope about what women were supposed to look like and be. than being gay, which was definitely against the norm back then. I came out in 81. So most of the rivalry, I was out. And that didn't help overall.

I think part of it was phobia, Slavic phobia. I think that's still alive. And yes, it was good versus evil. I was portrayed as the evil one. So that kind of stuff, that was hard. Because back then, we didn't have a chance to speak to the fans directly the way athletes can now through their media and now on tennis you have interviews after the match we only got to speak when you got to the finals as a winner or the runner-up you know you thank the sponsors thank the ball kids and that was that so you didn't

really have a chance to speak directly to the fans so you know you know, people had an idea of what I looked like. And based on that, they just assumed that's what I was like. When in fact, you know, I was the softy and Chris was the hard one. Yeah. But we both are now pretty much on the same page. You are. And you actually did develop. I want to get to that development in a second.

But one of the things you said in a terrific interview in 1985 with Nora Ephron, someone I knew very well. If Chris and I did the same thing, I'd be criticized. She'd come off smelling like a rose. Ephron said it hurt your feelings. Did it? Or was being the underdog motivating for you? No, because by then I was number one at that point. But Nora was kind of goading me into saying, oh, you're the victim. And I said, yeah, it hurts. And then she made me look a lot worse than I actually felt. But, yeah, it hurt. I literally asked Chris, what do you do with your fan mail?

Because no matter what I did, the fans were cheering for her. You know, Chris, the girl next door versus the communist, capitalist, muscle, lesbian. Right, right, right. So I really didn't have a chance. But I asked her, what do you do with your fan mail? She just kind of did this. She chucks it into the trash. And I'm like, great. I'm answering all these letters, sending people photos and posters and everything. I can't win them over no matter what. So I think at that point, I just kind of gave up trying to please others and just say, okay, you know what, either you like me for who I am or you don't. I cannot change. I cannot do anything. And that was that. But it was frustrating.

So it wasn't just about the fans, about the money. When you were out in 1981, I think it was, sponsors turned away from you. You did make a mint in winnings, $10 million by 1986, more than any other tennis player, man or woman at that point. Was there a financial cost? And when did it shift for you? So I didn't really have any deals outside of shoes, rackets and clothing. But even though I was number 178, 79 before I was out, and then when I did start dominate the tour, I still didn't get any deals in the States outside of that, outside of the shoes, rackets and clothing, any kind of endorsements went to somebody else.

I got deals in Europe. I got deals in Japan, but not in America. You know, you didn't see any commercials. They didn't put me on the cover of Wheaties. Let's put it that way. And my agent back then said, you know, when I'm in a meeting at Madison Avenue with all these advertisers and we throw in different names and the people get excited,

oh, we can put this one in this campaign and this one in this campaign. And when not bringing up your name, the room just goes silent. So nobody said no, but nobody said yes either. Yes. So I cannot say how much money I lost by being out, but it is in the millions. There's no doubt about that. So contrasted to the world we're in now, because maybe there's sometimes a financial premium for diverse talent, especially when it behooves corporations, pride months. How do you look at how that's changed?

I'm thinking of Megan Rapinoe, many others. Has it changed from your perspective or not? Oh, of course it's changed. That's what I've been fighting for, for it not to be an issue at all, one way or the other. It's not a plus nor a minus, it just is. And that's what I've been, you know, fighting for for 40 years. So I'm happy that that's the case. For me, I actually got a deal because I am a lesbian with Olivia Cruises. This is back in the, like 20 years ago in the 2000s. But other than that, I don't think it's been a plus or minus one way or the other maybe now maybe you know i'm too political to be embraced um yeah by by madison avenue which is fine with me you know i've always been political just by being a lesbian that's a political

statement too apparently and coming from a communist country so i never had a chance one way or the other on madison avenue and that's okay but what does bother me is that really there's so few former athletes female athletes that are on tv commercials you see a lot of guys a lot of guys uh but the women it's pretty it's pretty small field i would love to do a commercial for for luggage with chris you know it's like we're perfect for our home exercise uh equipment you know, it's like, we're perfect for our home exercise equipment, you know, something. We are perfect because we're both in good shape. And it's actually, we would be the proper demographic for people that buy that stuff for their home. But anyway, we have not gotten a deal, but yeah, I think I need a new agent or a different agent. My agent

is fantastic. She gets me speeches, but this is not her cup of tea. But let's talk more about money. You've been an advocate for women's sports for a half a century, including pushing for gender pay equity in tennis. There's a huge pay gap. It actually continues today for other sports. It's been 50 years since the US Open started awarding equal prize money for men and women. In June, the Women's Tennis Association negotiated an agreement for money for the next level of women's tournaments in line with men, but it won't be fully in effect for a decade. I'd love your thoughts on this.

What's taking so long, and should they have fought for more sooner? Well, we've been fighting that fight always. When a woman's endeavor fails, it's because it was women doing it and you're done forever. Whether it's in business or sports or entertainment, women can't afford to fail. And so if things don't go perfectly, you know, you lose the sponsorship, you lose the endorsements, whatever. And then it's hard to find new ones. Whereas with male sports, they're lining up at the door. Why? Because corporations are owned by men.

They would rather give the money to other men athletes than women athletes. So it's been a battle for decades that it's taking way too long to get that equity. But we keep fighting. At least we have it in the majors. But now the tours, you know, there are countries where women can't even compete. And so the guys have a much bigger playing field, and it's been more difficult for us to get that equal prize money. So the WTA and the ATP, the Association of Tennis Professionals,

basically the men's side, are reportedly discussing a merger. This has been on the table for years. You've supported it in the past. Do you think this is the right move, and why or why not? Well, why? think this is the right move and why or why not i i well why to get more leverage against the majors the the grand slams uh so that we when we go there we get a higher uh percentage of the of the prize money than what they're taking in so i think it would be good for the majors i don't know how it good it would be for the tour itself because there's still too many men says we don't want to

share the pie but we have so many tournaments now there are both men and women playing at the same time the mixed tournaments there's so many more of them and that's what makes them great because we're there at the same time which means we should be compensated equally but it's that's not the case so i think overall it would be a good idea yeah yeah like in soccer but oh you know we have two separate tours i think it would be a good idea. Yeah, like in soccer. But we have two separate tours. I think it would be a good idea to go together for all the tennis players and then the tournaments are in another side. Right now, the way the WTA is structured is that the tournaments and players are in the same boat, in the same organization.

And I don't think it's quite working the way we wanted it to work. So let's be clear. Part of the reason the deal is back on the table is the Saudis, correct? And their aggressive moves from the PGA Live golf merger, still pending, I think, to buying up Newcastle in the Premier League, to setting up the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix. Is fending off Saudi influence a good enough reason for a merger? I want to get into this a little bit because Billie Jean King said she supported the WA talking to Saudis about having a tournament there. She said, I don't think you really change

unless you engage. Basically, making the argument playing in Saudi could help improve women's rights there. I'd love to know your take on this. Engage, absolutely, but don't give them the tournament until they prove that they actually are making changes. So yes, engage, talk, and give some guidelines. This is what we want to see before we go and actually are making changes. So yes, engage, talk, and give some guidelines. This is what we want to see before we go and actually are in the country. Once you're in the country, you lose all leverage. And they just keep saying, oh, yeah, we'll get to it. It just takes time.

It takes time. I think we need to see the changes much bigger than what they are right now. Women still cannot divorce a man in Saudi. Men can just say, I divorce you, and they're done. And a woman has to come in front of a panel and be approved for the divorce by other men. So, you know, the inequity there is very glaring, never mind the horrible homosexual laws that still exist,

that are still in the books. So I think they need to change that first before we go and actually compete there. The changes need to come first. That's my take on it. So you would wait till when? Show me a good will. Say this is what you need to change right now before we go,

and that would be the gay laws as well as women being able to divorce, for starters. I don't think people don't vote there. Islam does allow divorce. It's how they're divorcing, correct? Exactly. Yeah, the women don't have equal rights Islam does allow divorce. It's how they're divorcing, correct? Exactly, yeah. The women don't have equal rights to divorce as men do. And is it more

the gay rights issue or women's issue overwhelming? Both. Women is bigger than gay rights, obviously, because it's half the population. So that should come first. And then the gay rights as well. I know it's a tough battle when religion comes into play, but people need to evolve on that issue,

and it needs to happen sooner rather than later. And again, that needs to happen first before we go there. Is it difficult to be outspoken about this, given how much money the Saudis are pouring into all kinds of sports, and everyone seems to be taking them? It's happening in Silicon Valley too with investments and everything else. The money is enormous. It's happening in Silicon Valley, too, with investments and everything else.

The money is enormous. I mean, Aramco posted like $34 billion profit in one quarter. So it's hard to fight that kind of money. I've spoken against sport washing, how countries are just buying these sporting events and making them look better than they actually are. Where do you draw the line? I don't know. But I do know that Saudi Arabia at the moment is not acceptable. But yeah, I think it's inevitable that the money will buy everybody eventually. It's just a matter of when, not if. We'll be back in a minute. Thank you. with over 350 million global monthly visitors, according to Indeed data, and a matching engine that helps you find quality candidates fast.

Listeners of this show can get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash podcast. Just go to Indeed.com slash podcast right now and say you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? You need Indeed.

Support for this podcast comes from Klaviyo. You know that feeling when your favorite brand really gets you. Deliver that feeling to your customers every time. Klaviyo turns your customer data into real-time connections across AI-powered email, SMS, and more, making every moment count. Over 100,000 brands

trust Klaviyo's unified data and marketing platform to build smarter digital relationships with their customers during Black Friday, Cyber Monday, and beyond. Make every moment count

with Klaviyo. Learn more at klaviyo.com slash BFCM. So I do want to pivot to issues around transgender, where you also have been very outspoken. I have to say, after I complimented you on that, Chris, everything, I've never gotten more letters decrying that, that I complimented you, that I admired you. And I have to say, I'd love you to explain your perspective on trans rights. You've called to bar transgender athletes participating in women's sports. I was surprised.

And I'll be honest with you, confused. And I don't quite understand your perspective. So I'd love to get, because you've been on ahead of the curve on gender equity. I'd love you to explain your perspective here, because very upset people, disappointed by you, because you've been so behind inclusion, definitely made me confused. I think that's probably the best way to put it. So I came at this about four or five years ago. I made some comments about male athletes in women's sports. I'm like, that can't be right.

Because, of course, I come from way back in the 70s when Renee Richards was the first transsexual to sue for the right to compete in women's tennis and won. And, in fact, I played doubles with her, I played singles against her. And then she ended up being my coach and a friend. And we're still friends. And she is on the same side with me on this in that she now says, I don't think I should have been allowed to compete because the advantage is too big. The only reason Renee didn't win back then was because she was in her forts and out of shape. Had she been

in her 20s and in shape, she would have wiped the floor with us. So I'm coming at it completely. Let me just quote, you wrote about Renee Richard in an op-ed, which I'll talk about later. I supported Renee Richards when she wanted to play on the women's tour in the 70s because I thought she was a one-off. I would not have supported her if she had dominated the tour. Yeah, well, I think it would have been hard to support somebody that was not even top 100 in the men, and then she comes on the women's tour and starts winning, which shows that it's not fair for male bodies to compete against women. And I'm all for trans rights on a civil level, 100%, every which way. And this is not against trans athletes. This is against male bodies competing as women. If they identify as women, many sports, they don't even have any

mitigation, any allowance for lowering the testosterone level, etc. But what has been proven, even when you do take those testosterone blockers or hormone therapy, even after 15 years, male bodies still retain physical advantage over women athletes. So we are not against trans athletes. We are for women athletes to compete in as little playing field as possible, which means the males who now identify as women should compete in a male category. And women who identify as men but don't take testosterone can't compete as women because there is still no advantage physically

over other women athletes. That's all that's about. So two things. To be clear, you did beat Renee Richards. You won your last Grand Slam, just shy of 50. But it kind of feels like you're saying I'm fine with transgender women playing as long as they aren't real competition, as long as they lose, or as long as there's not

too many. No, no, there are too many winning podiums across the level, across the sports, all different sports, and they should not be competing at all. Whether they win or lose doesn't matter. They can certainly compete, but in the male category, not the female category. It's simply not fair. They're taller, their bone density, their lung capacity, skin is thicker, the lineup of the body, the skeletal structure, even their airwave is larger than women. It's just the advantages are numerous. I get that. Unobvious.

I'm going to push you on the scale thing. Is it really the crisis? And I will get to Republicans in a second, because they're using it as a cudgel against trans people. And I want to talk about that dichotomy for you. But is it a scale problem? Is it a true scale problem? Absolutely. It's just a matter of time before it is getting more and more. Because right now, anybody that wants to identify as a woman can compete in women's sports in many different fields, many different sports. And there's over, just this year, over 100 podiums by like 90 different athletes that took away podium places at the top. These are winners, not just on the podium, one, two, three.

This is people that won competitions in many different national levels as well as local events that took away those spots from women athletes. And women, what they're doing now, they're self-excluding. They're either not competing or they're just walking away from that particular competition or they quit the sport altogether. And I just don't see how that's fair. competing, or they're just walking away from that particular competition, or they quit the sport altogether. So let me ask you, when you got to this point, as someone who's obviously faced a lot of bigotry and sexism and speculation, I do remember when I was watching you, it killed me when one of my relatives said, look at that dude playing. It's not fair for Chrissy Everett to play her. And I was devastated. I had to be quiet. I was younger.

I don't think we're that far apart in age, but I was about seven years younger than you. And I remember being devastated when they talked about you like that. Do you feel empathy for the broader cause? Do you understand how controversial this moves you into a very controversial space? So let me go back to where I was. I became a part of this women's sports policy working group. And if you go on our website, you see where we stand. We went at this completely. We're trying to figure out a way to include trans women, males that identify as women in women's sports. Can it be advantage be mitigated so they can compete. Can we do some kind of a handicapping system or take hormones for this long, as long as the testosterone is here?

And we found that it's literally impossible to do it. Some sports, physical strength doesn't matter, but in most sports, there is a big advantage and it's just not possible to get there. So we came to the conclusion that either you have to have three categories for non-binary, male, three categories for non-binary, male, female, and non-binary, or you have an open category for everybody and then just females.

That's the only way to go forward that's fair. So you see there's no solution that's fair. It's a word you use a lot. You can't make it fair. You cannot make it fair. Male bodies, once they go through puberty, five inches taller on average. You just can't take that away. And if you put your arm up, that's about seven inches reach advantage. It's just not possible to level the playing field. And people say, well, nobody has a level playing field or they use Michael Phelps' body. It's an exceptional body. but every male body if you really leave it as is and leave it open eventually there will be no female bodies on the podium it's heading that way

so speaking of Michael Phelps is something that was brought up I just interviewed Catherine Semenya and I want to ask about the South African Olympic runner who brought up the exact argument we had on the podcast recently and in 2019 after a governed body required her to take hormone therapy and focused on certain distances, you wrote about Castor in a Sunday Times op-ed saying, quote,

leaving out sprints and longer distance seems to me a clear case of discrimination by targeting Semenya. And can it be right to order athletes to take medication? What if the long-term effects proved harmful? Semenya's case will come up tomorrow in the Court of Arbitration for Sport. I hope she wins. But in a tweet just a few weeks ago, this was years ago, you called her disingenuous. You commented she knows she has a male body. She knows her testosterone makes a difference. Explain the shift here. And this is a more difficult case because she's not trans. This

is how she was born. Yeah, well, she is a physical male without descended testicles. And I did not know enough about her physical insights when I wrote that piece, you know, years ago. I thought this is a one-off and it's unfair for us to say you have to take drugs, but also you are a biological male. So regardless of how she was brought up or what she believes, what she identifies as, what she feels like, the facts are she's got an XY chromosome. She's a, what's it, sexual dimorphism. She's a biological male. And so it's, and at the 2016.

Well, she's not. She is a biological male. But go ahead. Go ahead. Well, she's not a She is a biological male, but go ahead. Well, she's not a female, right? Well, she identifies as female. Yeah, but people with DSD are different from trans people, obviously. And at the Rio Olympics, the 800 meters, all three winners on the podium were DSD athletes. So as exceptional as that physiological situation is,

trans thing is much more numerous, obviously. So when you think about that, one of the points that Kester is making is that maybe Michael Phelps has unusual biology, like longer arms, less lactic acid, et cetera. But you don't feel like you certainly would have not wanted to be tested for your testosterone levels or anything else. And I know people ask you about that on Twitter. What, me? My testosterone was just fine since I had, you know.

No, I get it. But I'm saying that's quite a slippery slope to start deciding. In Castor's case, it is biological. It makes it very difficult, let's just say. In Kastor's case, it is biological. It makes it very difficult, let's just say. Well, she's got testosterone available to her because she's got a male body on the inside. Maybe not on the outside, but on the inside.

It is a male body. And she's got testosterone available that women do not have. There's no overlap in testosterone between female and male bodies. Females finish at about, the highest one is about 2.5 nanomoles per liter, whereas men start pretty much at like 15 plus. So the advantage is massive. But if a female shows up with that much testosterone, they're disqualified because clearly they're taking drugs. So when you think about that, though, how do you create policies around that? Because as you said, there's no answer. You were on this policy board. Policing, it seems to be a little crazy. OBGYN exams for women athletes are just the ones.

No, no, no, no, no, no. No OBGYN exams are necessary. Just a cheek swap. We used to do that in the 80s, just a bar body test. Cheek swap, simple. So say for USTA junior team, you did that for drugs. You do that once. No, you do this cheek swap once in your lifetime.

If there's any question about your sex, you do that cheek swab and that stays. It doesn't change. It doesn't ever change. That's the point. So right away, you know whether you can compete or not. So, but the policing seems, does that create too much of a policing state, especially because this is not around men. This is around women. No, there's, yeah, there's no policing.

I mean, if there's a doubt, again, the cheek swap done once and you're done. And then as an athlete, when you're competing at the higher levels, you get drug tested and the testosterone level would show up. If it's off the charts, it would show up right away. And then there would be questions. You know, why is it that much higher than the average or even the highest level of female testosterone? This is five times more, ten times more. Why is that? And then so you would be found out right away,

which is how it happened with Castor, I believe. So how do you then put this into practice? I'd love to understand how you create a system. You were talking an open group versus a men's area, a women's area, and an open. How do you have people with differences like Castor compete in elite sports? Well, they would need to compete in the male category. Or what other? There's other proposals. Or if you have a third category, then that means, you know, I think some races,

they have the non-binary category, and it's mostly male bodies that, again, collect those prizes, but not too many sign up for that. Maybe the third category is it. Again, not too many female bodies would be at the podium in the third category, which is why it seems the fairest way is females here. which is why it seems the fairest way is females here and everybody else. However, if you want to not identify as a female or you want to identify as a female, but you're actually a male body, you need to compete in the proper biological category. Sports has always been divided by biological sex, and it's the only way forward. There's no doubt in my mind on that front. In your mind, how would that be financed?

I'd love to get into the technical ideas because this is obviously a controversial idea. How does that get financed and looked at in sports? Well, if they want to do a third category, yeah, you get a sponsor for that third category. Again, that's how that would work. But again, technically, you would be giving more money to non-female bodies than because it wouldn't be a 50-50 proposition, because there would be more male bodies that are winning in the third category. But I, you know, I don't have the solutions. I'm saying these are the possibilities of doing it either open and female or male, female, and then open kind of non-binary, whoever wants to be in that third category.

But basically keep male bodies out of female sports is the idea, because then it's definitely not a level playing field. It's not a fair field. So let me ask you, do you have worries about what this does to trans people? I mean, I know this sounds like a crazy hypothetical, but you put enormous amounts of hard work, all the exercise, the hours, hitting balls all the time. If they had tried to seclude you for being gay, how would you have, do you see it as the same thing? No, of course not.

Being gay doesn't give me an advantage on the tennis court. There's no advantage. I'm a biological female. Let me tell you something. I lost many matches because I got my period. And I got it every single month, every 28 days. There I go. For one or two days, I was absolutely out of it.

And at one point, I was trying to take a birth control pill so I would know when my period would come so that it wouldn't get in the way of playing Wimbledon or the US Open. But then it made me sick to my stomach. So I stopped. That lasted about, I don't know, a month and I had to stop. So, you know, I had no advantage. Being gay doesn't give you an advantage in sports. Being gay doesn't hit the tennis ball. But being male hits the tennis ball. But you understand where it leads to, the dangers for trans people. But what dangers?

What dangers are there if they compete in the proper biological sex? They can still compete. All right, this is a group of people, as you well know, has higher levels of depression, suicide, targeting, exclusion. The laws, Republicans and Donald Trump have used it as a wedge issue, trans sports. I'm just curious, it was problematic for you to enter the picture here,

or do you feel like it's separate from what the Republicans are doing across the country, which is targeting trans people? I think we agree on that, correct or not? I agree 100%. Republicans are anti-trans. We are pro-women. There is a big difference. And Republicans are just using it as an excuse. And it's, oh, look, we're protecting women. No, you're not protecting women. You don't give a damn about women. Look at Roe v. Wade. So don't talk to me about women's rights because you don't care about that. You're just against trans people because you don't like them. And so there is a massive difference in that. And again, on a civil level, trans people have to have all the rights. You cannot be fired because you're trans, just like you shouldn't be able to be fired because you're gay. Either you do the job

or you don't. But when it comes to sports and women's sex-based spaces, it needs to be segregated by sex. So when you went into this, did you realize how much controversy it would cause for you? Obviously you saw what happened to J.K. Rowling, etc. Although it wasn't sports for her, it was other things. It was more dealing with... Sex-based basis. No, sex-based basis only,

nothing else. But no, I did not know, but you know, there's trans people that are being called transphobic. Or they have self-hatred, or they're too old to know better, which is kind of ironic. Somebody, you know, there's trans people that are being called transphobic. Or they say, oh, they have self-hatred or they're too old to know better, which is kind of ironic. Somebody like Renee Richards, who's lived as a woman for years now, and she doesn't know what she's talking about when it comes to things trans. Buck Angel, a woman who identifies as a man, looks, you know,

she's got big muscles, tattoos. And he says trans males should not be allowed in women's sports, and he gets called transphobic. So anybody that's against trans people in sports is apparently transphobic and a bigot, and you know, I've been called all kinds of horrible names, but clearly that's not the issue. We are pro-trans, but we're also pro-women, and you can be both. You can be both. Let me ask you then, when you published this op-ed about transgender athletes, you did it in a publication called Genspect, which defines itself as gender critical and advocates for laws to prohibit transgender kids for hormone treatment,

which are conservative policies. You are not against transgender kids with the cooperation of parents and doctors for treatment? I'm not clear because this is a publication. No, as long as parents are in on it, you know, that's a family issue. I would not tell them one way or the other. I know I would try to talk my kids out of it until they're adults before they can figure it out for sure.

But it's absolutely between the parents and the doctors and the kids. I would not step on that at all. And by the way, it was published in Genspect because New York Times, Washington Post, that said no. They said no to you. They did not want to publish it. They said no.

They said no to the article. They said it's too similar to what I wrote before or this is not the time to write that. So that's why it ended up in Genspect. It was not written with the idea to give it to Genspect first. They came because they published it. More liberal publications, they don't want to touch it. They don't want to go there.

And not because it was too similar, but because it was too unpopular, in other words. No, I don't know. I don't know. It just gave me different reasons. But bottom line was they did not publish. So that's why I ended up in Genspect. And then the last question on this, when you are thinking about this,

when you are, because one of the things you are very clearly is political on Twitter, especially anti-Donald Trump, anti-GOP, I would say. Is it strange to you to be in the same political space as this group, which is obviously using it for cynical purposes? Does that worry you? You know, even a stop clock is right twice a day, right? Again, the reason why we agree are two completely different reasons. So I don't know what to say other than I am a bleeding heart liberal. I admire people that go against the grain. But my North Star is fairness and male bodies and women's sports is not fair. And that's my North Star. And I cannot budge from that. All right. Another thing you are is you are you love Twitter. You do you do a lot of political stuff.

What has prompted you to do that? And I'd love to do a lightning round on some of your thoughts. You really are quite political on something. So is Mark Hamill. So is Stephen King. People that have surprised me. Why is that? And Twitter particularly.

Yeah, well, I left my country because I couldn't speak my mind. That was one of the reasons. I wanted to be free to say what I want. And then I get here and then I say what I want and then I get excoriated for it for different reasons. Welcome to America. Welcome to America. But, you know, Twitter gives you the opportunity to speak your mind without being censored

because all the interviews that I've ever done, it was through the lens of that writer. And then they cut out half the stuff that I say. This is a chance to have no filter and no censorship. I only got on Twitter when I was on Dancing with the Stars. And they said, oh, you need to be on Twitter. And then I realized this is a great way to read the news and make a comment. That's how it started. Then I got more and more political as Trump started running, etc.

And now, actually, I'm taking a step back. And I was really getting into conversations with people. And now it's just become so toxic with Elon Musk allowing everybody on there that I'm taking a step back and I'm going back to just posting stuff that I like or have a comment on and say something. And I'm not reading the comments anymore because it was too toxic for me. I had to step away. Yeah, I closed mine off because I don't really like people calling me names all day long.

But I'd love to do a round with you about politics and where you are. Go for it. House Speaker Mike Johnson, what do you make of his obsession with homosexuality? Don't make me spit out my coffee. Actually, I was just drinking water. Oh, he's horrible. He's just horrible. I mean, he literally said that we don't know.

We are confused about separation of church and state. I'm like, no, no, no. We're not the ones that are confused about that. You are. So, I mean, it's kind of Christian version of a Sharia law that maybe not as drastic a Sharia law, but they certainly want to impose Christian values or beliefs on everybody, regardless of our values or beliefs. And, you know, I think he's horrible. He's smiling. He looks cute and harmless, but, you know, he'll still go after you.

And I think he's horrible. Yeah, his history of anti-gay stuff is quite extensive. It got me back to the 80s. He's quite obsessed. And when you're that obsessed, hello. There's way too many closet cases, so I'm not going to say he is. No comment. He dresses nicely.

All right. Trump, you've called a second Trump presidency Fascism 2.0. You know from fascism. What do you think is the most fascist and how do you feel about his presidency? Well, we are now, latest iteration is we are called vermin. So you and I are vermin. So you look up vermin in the dictionary, it's not so nice.

I mean, it's totally echoing the Mein Kampf and the rhetoric that came from fascists, including presses the enemy of the people. And he's just magnifying it. So, yeah, I mean, the similarities, I just finished reading, actually, I haven't quite finished reading Prequel by Rachel Maddow about fascism in the 20s and 30s in America. Fascinating. America first. The similarities are off the charts, off the charts. Off the charts.

Off the charts. Vivek Ramaswamy, how do you look upon him? Confused. That guy needs to take a Valium and slow down. But he's got some seriously bad ideas. What is it? Odd number on your social security? You're out of the government?

Okay, that'll go over really well. I just think he's a charlatan. That's how I like it. He reminds me of every tech bro I've ever met. All their worst qualities and they mash them together. That guy. That's him. Yeah, he's scary.

Yeah, with less talent, obviously. Because you want to like him, but you can't. Yeah. Nikki Haley? Same. I want to like her, but she's scary, except she wears heels. She's less threatening, but I think her rhetoric and her ideas are just as dangerous as Ramaswamy and Trump. Maybe not as bad as Trump, but close second.

Close second. All right. Any Republicans you would vote for? Do you see any out there? It would have been Mitt Romney. I mean, look, I didn't even really, you know, until George W. Bush won, that was like really, that's when I started getting Romney. I mean, look, I didn't even really, you know, until George W. Bush won, that was like really, that's when I started getting more involved. But before, it didn't seem to me that big a difference between Democrats and Republicans. It was doable. It was manageable. You know, you didn't despair if a Republican was elected.

But now it's just become so polarized. And I just don't see that the Democrats moved that far left. They maybe moved maybe 10% to the left from where they were 20 years ago. But the Republicans, oh my God, to the right of Genghis Khan. But so now Democrats look much more severe as liberals, but they're not. I just don't see that they move that much. And so I really got thrown into it because it became so polarized. And you have to, if you want to make a difference, you have to speak up. Silence is deadly, as we know.

Yeah, silence is deadly. So do you think President Biden has a shot? Are you a fan of his? Well, you know, he does look much more beat up physically. He looks feeble. I wish there was somebody younger running, but he's done a fantastic job. So I look at what he's done rather than what he looks like. His brain is 100%.

He's still there. He's just slowed down, and who wouldn't? I cannot imagine having the job at my age, and I'm 20 years younger almost. I think he's done a phenomenal job. Are you worried about this election? I am worried. I am very worried. When you see the polls, it's a lot closer than it was. Although I think

before, I think people were in the closet about being for Trump. Now they're not in the closet about it. So I'm not sure what the numbers are. I don't know if they're polling a wide swath. As we know, the young people need to vote. I mean, please vote. If you care about your future, vote. For me, I'm people need to vote. I mean, please vote. If you care about your future, vote. You know, for me, I'm not going to be affected one way or the other.

But we're fighting like hell because we see what's going to happen 20 years down the road, 40 years down the road. So I just would implore the younger generation to get involved and vote if they want to have a better future. I have two last questions. Would you ever run for office? You're quite political. I am. I've been asked many times, but I think truth doesn't work in politics. You know, I speak my mind way too much.

I think maybe as a guy you can get away with it, but as a woman, I just don't know. But I think I'm too old for that. 20 years ago, I wish I, if I was 20 years younger, I would run. But I think I don't have the energy for it now. Yeah. And the skin, really.

It's just too nasty. I think you have the skin. When you think about what you're going to do next then, what does the next chapter of your life look like? That's my last question. Well, our girls, we have an empty nest just recently, so I was busy raising a family. Now, I'm not really sure. Again, with the cancer bout, I was busy raising a family. Now, I'm not really sure. Again, with the cancer bout, you know, I really want to guard my time and try to figure out where best to put my energies. Tweeting is not it. No, no. But neither is golfing.

I don't know. But neither is golfing. You could have more kids like me. You could have more kids. Yeah, well, Julia wouldn't mind having another kid, but I don't know. We'll see what happens on that front. Is there no job you would like to do? I'd like to be an astronaut. An astronaut. So you will have to hang out with Elon then. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no.

That's not going to happen. Not buying a Tesla, not going in SpaceX, not going anywhere near him. No, no, no, no. Especially not the way he's going at it. So an astronaut. All right. Martina, thank you so much. All right.

Thanks, Cara. Encore career for Martina. SpaceX with Elon and a rocket with Elon. She hates Elon, yeah. I know. She should be CEO of Twitter. She's kind of like, I mean, she disagrees with everybody on at least something, probably, which is maybe a good qualification for that job. Well, I think one of the hallmarks of Martina Navratilova, which I do not agree with her, the things she's saying about transit, I don't like where she published that. This is her opinion.

And I think that's one of the things that's gotten her into trouble over the years, including being emotional, outspoken. And this is what she thinks. This is what she feels. But I do think she probably isn't seeing the implications elsewhere, where it leaks to, which is a Republican attack on trans people, which has been appalling. Yeah. I mean, she doesn't want to be an enabler of that cause. She wants to be pro something. She wants to be pro women's sports. And I agree with you. She's very clear on where she stands. If I had to say one thing is she could be kinder about it. I've seen other athletes handle this in a way they're clearly problematic,

and yet they want to come to solutions. She feels probably there isn't a solution. Maybe that is the case. And creating a third category is the only answer. And so, but I don't know what you do with cases like Castor or others. It's not quite as easy. There's no easy answers here for sure. Creating a third category is a little like kicking the can down the road. I think it gets into a real,

when you get into the details, she's like, I don't know, but I think that those details really do matter where you're going to. Yeah, I might say a little less, but I see why she can't. She's an elite athlete. She has a point of view. So I definitely think it's being used by the right in a really heinous way. And so, I don't know.

I just feel like you're playing into their terrible game. Part of what makes her, you know, really interesting is she's so strong-willed and so she sounds so authoritative. And when she's talking about things like Castor Semenya's biology, which of course she's not an expert on. But that becomes, it becomes a little hard to remind yourself, okay, this is an opinion. This is one person's opinion who played a sport, but this is not an authoritative conclusion on the science, right? No, of course not. But she's an elite athlete, so certainly listening to her, she knows what it takes to get ahead and everything else. So that's how I do respect her.

But at some point, I think she'll probably even shift again. Yeah, it was interesting to hear her talk about the business of sports moving on. I think the merger in Saudi were interesting. I think the merger and Saudi were interesting. I should clarify, by the way, that Islam was the first religion to allow women inheritance and give them the ability to divorce without the permission of their husband. But there is a misconception and, like, abuse by states, including the Saudis. Right. I think she was talking about how they're handled, how the divorces are handled in those countries. Attention towards women's rights is not the high on the list of that particular country. Yes, obviously states have their own corrupt abuses of that.

But they're making a lot of headway in sports and trying to get in. That's because they have money. And soft power. They have money. That's all it is. In New York City, they came and the Saudi Philharmonic played at the Met Opera. They had women without headscarves. Everyone in New York was there, making a big push on soft power in the states.

Well, they have money. They're rich. They got to put it somewhere as eventually we shift away from oil. Yes. They will need to clean themselves up, sports wash themselves. That's just another way. True. All right.

Last thing, speaking of money, commercials. I thought that was so interesting. I do not know. What is Olivia Cruises? Please explain. Oh, it's a lesbian cruise. Oh, what happens? Just like they have gay cruises.

Like a matchmaking cruise? No, no, no, no. They just have, they have gay men cruises. They have all kinds of, they have senior cruises. They've got intellectual cruises. Cruises are very niche and it was a, it's a cruise line. That was her focus point on the money, right? There should be more commercials, which is about visibility economics.

I think they should do a commercial with her and Chrissy Everett. Wasn't that smart? I would buy that Ramoa. Yeah. Yeah, they should do a commercial with her and Chrissy Everett. Wasn't that smart? I would buy that Ramona. Yeah. Yeah, they're adorable. They are so adorable. That picture in the Washington Post was so beautiful of the two of them. And I stand by my, it made me cry.

I know several people who wrote me who are trans were disappointed. I'm trying to understand this person that I do admire and at the same time disagree with quite a bit on some of her viewpoints. Yeah, and I think it's important that we do that. I mean, part of what we're trying to do on the show is hear from different viewpoints. Do you think if she and Caster, we could get them in the same room? Oh, my God, that's a lot of personality. They both are, what I like about it is they've got a lot of points of view, and I appreciate they do share, as do many elite athletes, determination, persistence, aggression in a really good way.

I think they might like each other. I would like to hear them debate. I know. I think they might. They're a lot the same. They might find more common cause than they, yeah. But that's what it takes to be a great athlete, that kind of grit. And they share that.

And conviction. Grit, really, is what they have. And just excellence, overall athletic excellence. But we have grit. No athletics. We're not athletes. I don't have grit. Do you have grit? No, I don't. You don't have grit? Okay. That's surprising for me to hear you say that. I hate that word.

Okay. All right. You have no grit. You want to read us out? Yes. Today's show is produced by Naeem Araza, Christian Castro Rossell, Kateri Yoakum, Megan Burney, and Michael McDowell. Special thanks to Andrea Lopez Cruzado and Lindsey Krauss. Our engineers are Fernando Arruda and Rick Kwan. Our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following this show, you get free tickets on an Olivia Cruz, but you have to be a straight white man.

If not, you just have grit. Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for On With Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On With Kara Swisher from New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network. And us, we'll be back on Monday with more. Do you feel like your leads never lead anywhere? And you're making content that no one sees. And it takes forever to build a campaign? Well, that's why we built HubSpot. It's an AI-powered customer platform that builds campaigns for you.

Tells you which leads are worth knowing. And makes writing blogs, creating videos videos and posting on social a breeze. So now it's easier than ever to be a marketer. Get started at HubSpot.com slash marketers. Support for this podcast comes from Klaviyo. You know that feeling when your favorite brand really gets you. Deliver that feeling to your customers every time. Klaviyo turns your customer data into real-time connections across AI-powered email, SMS, and more, making every moment count.

Over 100,000 brands trust Klaviyo's unified data and marketing platform to build smarter digital relationships with their customers during Black Friday, Cyber Monday, and beyond. Make every moment count with Klaviyo. Learn more at klaviyo.com slash BFCM.