Wimbledon, surely one of the greatest virtue-signalling events among a crowded field, ticks many woke boxes. Some better than others. But there is one glaring omission to which we will come below.
Two years ago we had the standing ovation for the developer of the AstraZeneca vaccine, which was somewhat premature given that the vaccine was a disaster and rapidly withdrawn. Still, Wimbledon had to play its part in promoting the Covid narrative, and did so with aplomb. Masks were in pride of place, and post-match interviews with the BBC were conducted with a generous helping of social distancing. Inexplicably, now that the deadly virus has been defeated, interviews are still being conducted at the same distance in 2023. Given the reputation of BBC presenters for grooming and exploitation, the players are clearly not taking any chances. Covid-wise, a fair bit of criticism was levelled at anti-vaxxer Novak Djokovic by arch-misery and pro-vaxxer Andy Murray. Remarkably, it is Djokovic who now looks as fit as a Serbian fiddle, while Murray looks increasingly decrepit. Murray is out and, at the time of writing, Djokovic is still in.
The Ukraine war provided a prime opportunity for Wimbledon to make its contribution to world peace. Last year, they banned Russian players (much, I hear, to the detriment of Vladimir Putin’s sleep). This year, while the Russians have been readmitted, their country is not being displayed on the electronic scoreboard. That ought to be a great comfort to the people of Ukraine as the next Russian missile plunges into an apartment block. The crowd at Wimbledon even booed a Belarusian female player, clearly unaware that Belarus is not part of Russia. They may be woke, but they aren’t too clever.
Andy Murray makes another appearance on the woke scoreboard as he declared that he supported Just Stop Oil, but not their tactics. Just Stop Oil is nothing but tactics; they have no coherent arguments to offer so there is nothing to agree with. If you support Just Stop Oil, you support the disruption of ordinary people’s lives; just not your tennis championship. To ‘do its bit’ for climate change, Wimbledon has eschewed the obvious step of banning any players who arrive in private jets, deciding instead to use its staple strawberries and cream to virtue signal. They now offer the option of ‘plant-based cream’ and serve the whole ghastly concoction in a flimsy cardboard box with a wooden spoon. Some self-righteous luvvies claimed to be ‘really enjoying it’ on screen before, I imagine, tipping the lot into the nearest bin.
These are some recent examples, but tennis has always been virtuous. It was one of the earliest sports to openly welcome gay players; well, female gay players. Everyone knows about Martina Navratilova and Billy Jean King, but who can name any more? There was another lesbian in the early 1990s, although not especially famous, and there are a couple of gay men whose names have never graced the scoreboard at Wimbledon. There was one brave openly gay chap, Bill Tiden, who seemed quite famous, but died in 1953. I am sure that Wimbledon would welcome more gay players, and the committee is probably disappointed that, while there are rumours of other gay male players, they have not come out of the locker room, so to speak.
Wimbledon remains remarkably white; so much so that everyone can remember nearly all the black players. Arthur Ashe pioneered and even won Wimbledon, the only black man to do so. There was French player Jo-Wilfred Tsonga and, of course, the incredibly successful Williams sisters. This year a chap called Chris Eubanks is still in while I write, and the lovely Coco Gauff is also still in the doubles. And that’s about it. But, while the players of colour probably do not agree and see ‘white privilege’ wherever they look, Wimbledon specifically and world tennis in general seems to have no problem with racism. Of course, there will be ‘institutional racism’ as that is rife in every organisation, and you can be sure that the All England Lawn Tennis & Croquet Club is shining the proverbial spotlight into every corner of the organisation looking for it.
But there is an elephant in the room, the ‘glaring omission’ to which I referred above. Of course, I am highlighting the complete lack of trans players. Martina Navratilova has let it be known that she would not welcome transgender women (ie men) in the women’s game, but, so far, it has not been an issue. There is only one recorded trans tennis player, Renée Richards, who seems to have been more famous for his transgenderism than for his tennis. Chris Evert played him six times and won each encounter, although she struggled to do so. It should be noted that Richards was playing at an age when most tennis players would have retired and, while Evert is kind about him, she is clear on the advantage that he had, having been born male, going through puberty and, let’s face it, still being male. He was also useless as a male tennis player.
At least Renée Richards, or Richard Raskin as he was known, had the decency to transition (in those days it was probably still called a ‘sex change’ operation). But what we all want to see (or is it just me) is some great hulk of a man, with hairy legs and a crotch like a Browning automatic pistol turn up among the women at Wimbledon, having ‘self-identified as a woman’. The sheer comedy value of hearing what the other female players had to say, and listening to the wokerati of BBC Sports performing intellectual somersaults to justify the inclusion of a trans woman at Wimbledon would be sublime. So, bring them on; let’s have Fred(a), William(ina) and Sam(antha) on the card at Wimbledon. God knows, it would inject a little humour into two of the most humourless weeks in the British sporting calendar.
Roger Watson is a retired academic, editor and writer. He is a columnist with Unity News Network and writes regularly for a range of conservative journals including The Salisbury Review and The European Conservative. He has travelled and worked extensively in the Far East and the Middle East. He lives in Kingston upon Hull, UK.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
Thanks for an amusing read (and I don’t even follow tennis).
The lack of out male tennis players is something of a condemnation of the Sport. Why can’t they ‘come out of the locker room’?) There must be at least a few at the elite level, say top 500, not to mention coaches and tennis pundits etc. Is it still not a wise move, because of the effect on endorsements, the perceived lack of support from the Tennis establishment and Tennis fans? This has hardly ever been spoken about, which is suspicious. Even some footballers have come out, which is a more problematic arena. Tennis in general and the LTA in particular are not nearly as right on as they present themselves.The LTA board comprises of white, middle-class straight men.Perhaps they should step down and put their actions where their Woke virtue-signalling is. I would also add that the commentating on the Eubanks match was appallingly biased and patronising. The whole tone wreaked of commentators trying to do outdo themselves in celebrating his success in the tournament, while at the same time saying next to nothing positive about Medvedev. The crowd were just as bad, cheering every point won by Eubanks and groaning when Medvedev won one. The subdued atmosphere when Medvedev predictably showed his class by romping away with the 5th Set was pathetic.
Pingback: The Frank Report LX - The New Conservative