Latest
Martina Navratilova says Billie Jean King’s trans-athlete stance ‘doesn’t square’ with her own words
Martina Navratilova wants Billie Jean King to explain herself.
King is one of the most important figures in the history of women’s sports, a tennis icon who helped build the modern women’s game and spent decades fighting for equal opportunity, equal pay and respect for female athletes.
But King has also publicly supported trans-identifying biological male athletes competing in girls’ and women’s sports.
In a 2025 interview with The Telegraph ahead of Wimbledon, King called the broader transgender-athlete debate in sports “a nightmare” and said people should listen to transgender people’s stories and make them feel included.
ZERO BS. JUST DAKICH. TAKE THE DON’T @ ME PODCAST ON THE ROAD. DOWNLOAD NOW!
That position has frustrated Navratilova, another tennis legend and longtime advocate of gay rights and women’s sports, because King has also publicly acknowledged the physical differences between men and women.
Asked how King could reconcile those two positions, Navratilova said the contradiction is obvious.
“I honestly don’t know because it doesn’t square,” Navratilova told OutKick.
Navratilova was responding to a clip of King discussing the obvious physical differences between men and women. In the clip, King said men are generally bigger and stronger, have different skeletal systems and bigger hearts, and that women never claimed they were physically the same as men.
That’s the entire reason women’s sports exist in the first place.
In 2020, King joined nearly 200 athletes in supporting a friend-of-the-court brief against an Idaho law that barred trans-identifying male athletes from competing in girls’ and women’s sports.
“There is no place in any sport for discrimination of any kind,” King said at the time. “I’m proud to support all transgender athletes who simply want the access and opportunity to compete in the sport they love.”
That’s the gap Navratilova is pressing.
“I think she thinks that they play fair and square, meaning males identify as women, take all the hormones and do everything, like Renée Richards did 50 years ago,” Navratilova said. “And that it’s just nice to include everybody.”
But Navratilova said the issue can’t be reduced to kindness or inclusion.
TENNIS STAR ARYNA SABALENKA SAYS FEMALE ATHLETES FACING TRANS COMPETITORS ‘JUST NOT FAIR TO WOMEN’
She offered a hypothetical scenario: a high school boys basketball team holds tryouts, 10 boys make the team, and five boys who don’t make the boys team then try out for the girls team. If they make it, which they almost certainly would, five girls lose their spots.
“That’s not equality,” Navratilova said. “That’s a total takeover.”
And it’s not just about who wins, she said. It’s about roster spots, podium spots, awards, prize money, privacy, safety and the entire purpose of female-only categories.
For Navratilova, the answer starts with keeping sex-based boundaries intact.
“The solution is obvious,” she told OutKick. “No male bodies in women’s sports and no male bodies in women’s sex-based spaces for many different reasons, not the least of which is women’s rights to safety, dignity and fairness and privacy.”
Navratilova said her private conversations with King have made King’s public position even more frustrating.
“Billie Jean has repeatedly told me over the last four or five years that she would love to talk to me about it, that she defers to me because I know a lot more about it than she does,” Navratilova said.
But Navratilova said the conversations she expected, never really happened.
“Without talking to me really and listening to what my points were, she just went her way and put out the statement by her and the Women’s Sports Foundation about inclusion and all this stuff,” Navratilova said.
That, Navratilova said, is what surprised her most.
“I don’t think she really has heard the other side of the debate, so to speak,” Navratilova said.
Navratilova said she wants King to answer the question directly.
“Please get Billie Jean on record,” Navratilova said. “I’d like to know how she explains it because she hasn’t been able to explain it to me.”
OutKick contacted King and the Women’s Sports Foundation seeking comment and offering King an interview. Neither responded.
And Navratilova is not alone.
Nancy Hogshead, a three-time Olympic gold medalist swimmer, civil rights lawyer and former Women’s Sports Foundation president, went even further.
Asked whether King’s comments on male advantages suggested she was starting to come around, Hogshead rejected that premise.
“Oh no, she’s always known that,” Hogshead told OutKick. “She’s a hypocrite, she’s a total hypocrite.”
Hogshead said she could understand confusion several years ago, before more research and high-profile cases brought the issue to the forefront.
Her own view, Hogshead said, was not always what it is now.
“I was in favor of it too,” Hogshead said. “I thought this was about inclusion and nondiscrimination. I thought it was fair.”
That has changed.
“I was wrong,” Hogshead said. “I was dead wrong.”
Hogshead pointed to sex-eligibility disputes involving Caster Semenya, the Lia Thomas case and research on male puberty and athletic performance as part of what caused her to rethink her position.
She said the same evidence should matter for King.
“She knows, but she hasn’t made the connection,” Hogshead said. “As she says, men are faster, stronger, bigger lungs structurally, but hasn’t made the connection of like, oh, so that’s unfair to the girls to have to compete with that.”
Hogshead said her frustration with King and the Women’s Sports Foundation predates the transgender-athlete debate.
“I wouldn’t say I left,” Hogshead said of her 2014 departure from WSF. “I would say I got fired because I would not sign a contract.”
Hogshead alleged the contract would have restricted her from speaking publicly about sexual abuse and harassment involving athletes.
Asked why she believed a women’s sports organization would want to limit her ability to speak on that issue, Hogshead pointed to what she described as King’s aversion to backlash.
“Because Billie Jean didn’t want to go into any room and face hostility or having somebody be against her,” Hogshead said.
Hogshead connected that episode to the current fight over transgender athletes in women’s sports.
“I think it’s more political for the same reason, for the exact same reason that she didn’t wanna be involved in the sexual abuse issue or she didn’t want the Women’s Sports Foundation to be involved,” Hogshead said. “It’s hard to be the tip of the spear.”
To Hogshead, both fights come back to the same issue: whether women’s sports leaders are willing to take unpopular stands when women and girls need defending.
OutKick separately asked the Women’s Sports Foundation whether Hogshead’s role ended because she refused to sign a contract restricting her from speaking publicly about sexual abuse in sports and whether King was involved in or aware of that contract decision. WSF did not respond before publication.
That leaves a central question unanswered.
If men have physical advantages over women, and King says they do, then why should biological males who identify as women be allowed into female categories?
Navratilova’s position is especially notable because she has personal history with Renée Richards, the transgender tennis player who sued to compete in the women’s draw at the 1977 U.S. Open.
Richards later coached Navratilova.
That history matters because Navratilova didn’t come to the issue as an opponent of inclusion.
“Because of Renée, I was completely all-in for inclusion,” Navratilova said. “Most of us welcomed Renée into the fold.”
CHRIS EVERT DEFENDS MARTINA NAVRATILOVA ON TRANS ATHLETES: ‘SCIENCE DOESN’T LIE’
But Navratilova said Richards competed at a very different moment and under very different circumstances.
Richards was 43 and not in peak playing shape when competing against women, Navratilova said. At the time, Richards was essentially a one-off case.
“It was only one because she won the right to compete in a court of law,” Navratilova said. “There were no others. Even if there were other transgender people, they would have to sue for the right to compete.”
That has changed.
In recent years, trans-identifying biological male athletes have competed in women’s and girls’ sports across the country, from high school track and field to college and junior college volleyball to cycling, swimming and other sports.
Navratilova said the change forced her to reconsider the issue in a way she did not have to when Richards was the only example. But, more importantly, Richards also has a new perspective on the issue.
“Renée herself now says she should not have been able to compete,” Navratilova said. “She realizes now she had an advantage.”
Richards made a similar argument in a 2024 position paper published by Sports Illustrated in 2025. “I believe that having gone through male puberty disqualifies transgender women from the female category in sports,” Richards wrote, adding that a “retained physical advantage persists” even after testosterone reduction
That’s why Navratilova says it’s no longer enough to rely on the language of inclusion without answering the competitive question.
“Boys are faster, stronger, quicker than girls,” Navratilova said. “And so, if it doesn’t matter who wins, why do they have to compete as a girl? If they feel like a girl, they can still compete with the boys if they don’t care where they end up. Why is it the girls that need to suck it up?”
Navratilova came out publicly as a lesbian in 1981 and became one of the most prominent openly gay athletes in the world.
That’s part of what makes the backlash against her so striking.
Navratilova has been called homophobic, transphobic, bigoted and worse for her position on women’s sports. She told OutKick the attacks are especially frustrating because many of the people attacking her don’t know what it was like for gay athletes when she came out.
Asked what she makes of being called homophobic, Navratilova dismissed the idea.
“It’s just stupid,” Navratilova said. “I came out before they were born, so they don’t know what it was like.”
Navratilova said the criticism from within the LGBTQ advocacy world has been painful because she still believes in equal rights.
“I respect everybody’s right to human rights, equal rights everywhere,” Navratilova said.
But she said equal rights do not include the right for male-bodied athletes to enter female sports or female-only spaces.
“You do not have a right to come into my space,” Navratilova said.
That doesn’t mean the verbal attacks haven’t stung.
“What does it make me feel like? Just sad,” Navratilova said. “Just really sad that they would just name-call rather than have a discussion and totally discount what I went through and twist it around.”
King’s legacy in women’s sports is undeniable.
She fought for women to have opportunities, respect, prize money and a professional tour of their own. She famously beat Bobby Riggs in the “Battle of the Sexes,” a moment that became larger than tennis and helped cement King as a symbol of women’s equality.
But that history is exactly why Navratilova and Hogshead say King’s current position deserves scrutiny.
Women’s sports were not created because women lacked talent, discipline or courage. They were created because biological sex matters in athletics.
King knows that. She has said so herself.
That’s why Navratilova wants an answer.
How does King square a lifetime spent fighting for women’s sports with a position that allows biological males to compete against females?
So far, King hasn’t answered that question for OutKick. And according to Navratilova, she hasn’t answered it for her, either.
Latest
Tucker Carlson Officially Makes Shock Announcement — He’s Out
A growing divide within the conservative movement is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore, as longtime commentator Tucker Carlson declared that he no longer considers himself a Republican, citing frustration with what he sees as the party’s abandonment of its America First roots.
Carlson made the remarks during a podcast appearance with hosts Travis Dhanraj and Karman Wong, where the discussion turned to the political landscape ahead of the upcoming midterm elections and whether voters remain satisfied with the direction of the Republican Party.
While Carlson made clear that he remains aligned with many conservative principles, he argued that some Republican leaders have drifted away from the priorities that helped fuel President Donald Trump’s rise and transformed the GOP into the dominant force it is today.
“I’m out,” Carlson said during the interview.
“And if I’m out, then I think a lot of other people are out.”
Carlson’s comments came as he discussed polling data and voter sentiment ahead of the next election cycle.
“I would not support the Republican party. There’s no chance I would support the Republican party,” he said.
The former Fox News host argued that certain Republican lawmakers had betrayed their voters by supporting policies he believes put foreign interests ahead of American priorities.
“How could I or any American voter support a political party that’s not loyal to the United States? That puts the interests of a foreign country above those of its own citizens?
“It’s not possible to vote for people like that, and I’m not going to.”
Carlson’s remarks highlight a growing debate inside conservative circles over the future direction of the Republican Party.
At the center of the disagreement is not President Trump himself, but rather how some Republicans have approached foreign policy, military intervention, and America’s role overseas.
Trump built his political movement on the promise of putting American interests first, securing the border, rebuilding the economy, restoring energy independence, and avoiding the endless foreign conflicts that frustrated many voters for decades.
Many of Trump’s supporters continue to view the America First agenda as one of the defining achievements of his political movement.
Carlson suggested that some Republicans have lost sight of those principles.
“I think I’ve voted Republican my entire life,” Carlson said.
“I’ve been a consistent defender for 35 years, of the Republican party. I mean, a very consistent defender.”
“But there’s no defending this because it’s immoral and it’s exactly the opposite of what a political party in a democracy is charged with doing — which is representing its own voters, its own citizens, its own nation.”
“And they’re not doing that,” Carlson concluded.
The comments come amid an ongoing debate among conservatives regarding foreign policy, particularly following recent tensions involving Iran and the broader Middle East.
Carlson has been one of the most vocal advocates of a non-interventionist approach that emphasizes American interests above foreign entanglements. Other conservatives, including commentators and lawmakers aligned with a more traditional hawkish worldview, have argued that a strong American presence abroad remains necessary to protect national security.
The disagreement intensified after military operations involving Iran earlier this year, with Carlson and several other prominent voices warning against policies they believe could lead to deeper involvement in overseas conflicts.
Despite those disagreements, Carlson has generally continued to support many of Trump’s domestic policies, including border security, immigration enforcement, energy production, and efforts to prioritize American workers and taxpayers.
The broader divide illustrates the ongoing evolution of the Republican Party under Trump’s influence.
For decades, the GOP was largely defined by traditional establishment conservatives who favored aggressive foreign policy and intervention abroad. Trump’s rise fundamentally reshaped that coalition, bringing millions of working-class voters, independents, and populist conservatives into the party.
Today, debates like the one Carlson has raised reflect a larger question facing Republicans: how closely the party will adhere to the America First principles that helped fuel Trump’s political success.
Whether Carlson ultimately returns to the Republican fold remains to be seen. But his comments underscore a reality that many political observers have noted in recent years: the future of the conservative movement is increasingly being shaped by debates over foreign policy, national sovereignty, and what it truly means to put America first.
As those discussions continue, one thing remains clear: the America First movement that transformed Republican politics is still driving much of the conversation inside the conservative movement today.
Latest
Top Fox News Host Suffers Deranged Meltdown On LIVE TV — Doesn’t End Well…
A growing divide within the conservative movement spilled into public view this weekend as Fox News host Mark Levin launched a blistering attack on President Donald Trump’s Iran strategy, accusing the administration of pressuring Israel while pursuing a diplomatic agreement designed to permanently prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
The dispute comes as the Trump administration continues negotiations with Tehran following a series of devastating military strikes that crippled Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, eliminated key regime leaders, and left the Islamic Republic in one of the weakest positions it has faced in decades.
President Trump and Vice President JD Vance have argued that the administration is negotiating from a position of overwhelming strength after demonstrating a willingness to use military force when necessary. Their goal, they say, is simple: ensure Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon while avoiding another endless war in the Middle East.
Levin, however, remains deeply skeptical.
During a fiery monologue that lasted more than 17 minutes on Saturday, the longtime conservative commentator accused members of the administration of unfairly targeting Israel while becoming too optimistic about Iran’s intentions.
“I want to say to people in and out of the administration: stop trashing, smearing, bullying the little state of Israel. Stop cozying up to and telling us that the enemy regime in Iran is now more rational, more moderate, and a regime that we can deal with,” Levin demanded. “When just a few months ago they slaughtered 50,000 people, they’re still hanging young people today and, if they had a nuclear missile today, they’d fire it into our country as sure as I’m alive.”
Levin also rejected any suggestion that Israel should allow outside governments to dictate its security decisions.
“I don’t know what’s going on, but if people think they can bully a little country, Israel — a people that have existed 4,000 years through the Babylonians and the Persians, through the Romans and the Third Reich — into surrendering their defense and their decision on how to secure their country, they get another thing coming,” Levin continued. “I think it’s outrageous.”
The criticism did not stop there.
Levin also used social media to question several administration policies, including reports surrounding a Boeing 747 gifted by Qatar and modified for use supporting presidential airlift operations.
“If it’s legal and other countries do it so be it. Do you think wealthy countries should be able to lavish gifts on our government?” Levin wrote.
His sharpest criticism, however, focused on the administration’s efforts to secure a broader peace agreement with Iran and its proxies.
“Item #1 in the MOU provides there’s an immediate and permanent end to the war and that includes Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran is Hezbollah,” Levin posted. “What’s the enforcement mechanism? Nothing. Israel defends itself after constant attacks from Hezbollah and is admonished for it. Its interests are not aligned with ours, we’re told. It’s endangering the peace deal. This is beyond nuts.”
In another post, Levin argued that current ceasefire efforts were coming at Israel’s expense.
“Apparently as long as Israeli soldiers are killed the ceasefire is holding,” Levin claimed.
The administration has strongly rejected suggestions that it is abandoning Israel or weakening its support for America’s closest ally in the Middle East.
President Trump responded directly Sunday with a warning aimed squarely at Iran and its regional proxies.
“Iran must immediately stop their highly paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble. If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again, just like we did last week, only harder!!!” Trump posted on Truth Social.
For supporters of the administration, that message demonstrates exactly why they remain confident in Trump’s approach. They argue that no modern president has shown a greater willingness to confront Iran militarily while simultaneously seeking a diplomatic resolution that serves American interests.
Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have both emphasized that any final agreement would require Iran to permanently abandon its nuclear ambitions, submit to extensive inspections, and comply with strict verification requirements before receiving any economic benefits.
Administration officials also note that no sanctions have been lifted, no frozen assets have been released, and no direct payments have been authorized.
Instead, they argue that Trump has successfully put Iran in a position where the regime must choose between compliance and continued isolation.
The disagreement highlights a broader debate that has been developing inside the Republican Party for years.
Traditional foreign-policy hawks often favor maintaining maximum military pressure and remain deeply skeptical of negotiations with hostile regimes.
Trump’s America First coalition generally supports overwhelming military strength but prefers leveraging that strength into favorable deals that avoid long-term military entanglements.
Supporters of the president argue that Trump’s strategy reflects the same formula that has defined much of his foreign policy: peace through strength.
Strike hard when necessary. Demonstrate unquestionable resolve. Negotiate from a position of power. And avoid the costly nation-building efforts and endless conflicts that frustrated many Americans for decades.
As negotiations continue, the debate between Levin and the Trump administration reflects a larger question facing conservatives: how best to secure American interests abroad while staying true to the America First principles that have reshaped the Republican Party.
For now, President Trump appears committed to proving that military strength and diplomacy are not opposing strategies—but complementary tools for achieving lasting peace and protecting America’s national security.
Latest
It’s Over! The House Votes 396-13 — Trump Just Won!
In a rare display of bipartisan cooperation, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the amended 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act this week, advancing a package of reforms designed to tackle America’s housing affordability crisis while delivering on several key priorities championed by President Donald Trump.
The legislation passed by a decisive 396-13 vote, reflecting broad agreement that soaring housing costs, rising rents, and limited inventory have pushed homeownership out of reach for millions of Americans.
Supporters say the bill addresses one of the country’s most pressing economic challenges by cutting red tape, increasing housing supply, strengthening lending opportunities, and helping ensure that American families—not large corporations—have a fair shot at buying homes.
The legislation combines elements of previous House and Senate proposals and seeks to address housing shortages that have contributed to record-high home prices in many parts of the country.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill praised the measure as a practical, results-oriented solution focused on expanding opportunities for working Americans.
“This bill prioritizes American families by expanding homeownership, enhancing affordability, reducing burdensome regulations that drive up costs, and increasing housing supply nationwide,” Chairman Hill stated.
“Importantly, it delivers on President Trump’s call to limit institutional investors from competing with the American people as they seek to purchase a home,” Hill added.
The legislation includes a variety of reforms aimed at accelerating housing construction and reducing barriers that have slowed development for years.
Among its key provisions, the bill streamlines federal permitting requirements, reduces lengthy environmental review processes for certain redevelopment and infill housing projects, and encourages innovative housing solutions such as modular and manufactured homes.
The measure also provides grants to local governments willing to modernize zoning laws and remove restrictions that limit new construction.
Supporters argue that restrictive zoning policies, excessive permitting delays, and government bureaucracy have significantly contributed to America’s housing shortage.
Rather than relying on massive new federal spending programs, the legislation focuses on empowering local communities, encouraging private-sector investment, and removing obstacles that make housing more expensive.
The bill also raises loan limits for multifamily housing developments, creating incentives for apartment construction and expanding options for renters and first-time buyers alike.
Additional provisions strengthen rural housing initiatives, expand support for veterans seeking housing, modernize financing for smaller mortgage loans, and increase the role community banks can play in local lending markets.
Community banks have long argued that excessive regulations have made it more difficult for them to serve homebuyers and construction projects in their local communities.
Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters acknowledged the seriousness of the housing crisis despite broader political disagreements.
“America is in the middle of a full-blown affordable housing and homelessness crisis, and working families are burdened by skyrocketing rents and a housing market that is pushing homeownership further out of reach,” Waters said.
One of the most notable aspects of the legislation is its effort to curb the growing influence of large institutional investors in the housing market.
For years, investment firms and corporate landlords have purchased thousands of single-family homes, often outbidding families and first-time homebuyers. Critics argue that this trend has driven up prices while transforming communities into rental markets dominated by large corporations.
The legislation includes targeted restrictions designed to discourage large institutional investors from acquiring additional single-family homes.
That approach aligns closely with President Trump’s housing agenda.
Throughout his second administration, Trump has repeatedly argued that homeownership should remain a cornerstone of the American Dream and that government policies should prioritize families over Wall Street investors.
In his National Homeownership Month proclamation earlier this month, Trump emphasized the importance of restoring affordability and expanding opportunities for future homeowners.
“During National Homeownership Month, my Administration recommits to making housing more affordable so that young Americans and hardworking families can raise children, build memories, and create a future in a home of their own,” Trump said.
The president has frequently blamed the housing crisis on “reckless spending, burdensome regulations, and failed housing policies” implemented under previous administrations, as well as “mass illegal immigration and large institutional investors” that have increased pressure on housing supply.
Trump has also taken executive actions aimed at reducing institutional ownership of single-family homes, lowering mortgage costs, and strengthening federal housing programs.
“Under my leadership, America will be a Nation where homes belong to families — not corporations,” Trump said.
At the same time, Trump has emphasized the importance of protecting the value of homes already owned by millions of Americans.
“I don’t want to drive housing prices down. I want to drive housing prices up for people that own their homes. Existing housing, people who own their homes, we’re going to keep them wealthy. We’re going to keep those prices up. We’re not going to destroy the value of their homes so that somebody that didn’t work very hard can buy a home,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting earlier this year.
He has also repeatedly summarized his housing philosophy with a simple message:
“Homes are built for people, not for corporations, and America will not become a nation of renters.”
With overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and growing concern over affordability nationwide, supporters hope the legislation will mark a significant step toward restoring homeownership opportunities and ensuring that the American Dream remains within reach for future generations.
-
Economy4 months agoVance Leaves Meeting, Looks Straight Into Camera, Announces Stunning Arrest
-
Economy4 months agoAdam Schiff Facing 30 Years In Prison After Bank Records Leak
-
Economy4 months agoSupreme Curt Sides With Trump — He Can Remove The All
-
Economy4 months agoAll Hell Breaks Loose On Fox When Jesse Watters Asks Fetterman One Question
-
Economy2 months agoPrayers Pour In After Fox Host Dies: ‘Senseless Murder’
-
Economy4 months agoNBC Stops LIVE Broadcast — Breaks Big Trump News
-
Economy4 months agoTrump Pulls Off Miracle Of A Lifetime — It’s Permanently Open
-
Economy4 months agoSwalwell Facing Jail Time After Sickening New Video Leaks




