Best Of

It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.

Treat all people with dignity and respect.

When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.

However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.

If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.

Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.

But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.

So we're not there yet.

There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.

If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".

They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.

What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.

That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.

I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.

I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.

If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.

Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.

However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?

And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.

There is no law AFAIK preventing either the WI or Girlguiding to allow men or boys into their organisations if they choose to do so.

I have a friend whose daughter is in the Scouts, not the Guides.

That they choose to be women's-only organisations is their choice.

The weird thing is they are making the choice whilst saying they don't agree with it. Trying to claim they are being forced by the law.

The Guides one is, if anything, stranger given that girls have been allowed in the Cubs and Scouts for over 30 years (and were also when the Scouts was first formed 1907 until the Guides were founded in 1910).

The guides I think realised they had a problem with things like camping trips which get much more complicated with a mixed sex cohort - if you're not allowed to believe it is an undifferentiated single gender.

Yet the Scouts don't have this problem?

Nope:
TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF **YOUNG PEOPLE** IN ACHIEVING THEIR FULL PHYSICAL, INTELLECTUAL, SOCIAL AND SPIRITUAL POTENTIALS AS INDIVIDUALS, AS RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS AND AS MEMBERS OF THEIR LOCAL, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITIES

No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.

Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.

But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.

Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.

Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?

If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.

The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.

It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.

It's notable how 'we must start a war to overthrow the regime for the sake of the Iranian people' has so easily morphed into it's fine to target civilians, whatever the law says.

This is approaching Russian logic.

Yup, Vladimir Putin's could have written Bart's posts this morning.

It reinforces the point I have been making, plenty of the Iranian population and the wider diaspora think this war isn't about regime change but bombing Iran back into the stone age.

Except I am right.

As Richard Tyndall also said too, the targeting of energy facilities has been consistently done over time, under the claim of military necessity.

It is one of those irregular verbs again.

I know people on here don’t like facts but I thought this link was interesting (haven’t read it in full yet). It draws a distinction between Putin’s targeting of civilian infrastructure in Ukraine and Ukraine’s targeting of oil facilities in Russia.

I don’t know enough of the detail to form a view on which side of the line Iran is, but suffice to say that there is a line and Ukraine and Russia are on different sides of it

Ukraine has also directly targeted thermal power plants in Russia and occupied Ukraine. I think they've done so on the same basis that the British used chemical weapons in WWI - the enemy had done so first, and as a deterrent against Russia escalating such attacks.

(Also, I can't see a link in your comment)

No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.

Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.

But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.

Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.

Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?

If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.

The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.

It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.

It's notable how 'we must start a war to overthrow the regime for the sake of the Iranian people' has so easily morphed into it's fine to target civilians, whatever the law says.

This is approaching Russian logic.

Yup, Vladimir Putin's could have written Bart's posts this morning.

It reinforces the point I have been making, plenty of the Iranian population and the wider diaspora think this war isn't about regime change but bombing Iran back into the stone age.

Except I am right.

As Richard Tyndall also said too, the targeting of energy facilities has been consistently done over time, under the claim of military necessity.

It is one of those irregular verbs again.

I know people on here don’t like facts but I thought this link was interesting (haven’t read it in full yet). It draws a distinction between Putin’s targeting of civilian infrastructure in Ukraine and Ukraine’s targeting of oil facilities in Russia.

I don’t know enough of the detail to form a view on which side of the line Iran is, but suffice to say that there is a line and Ukraine and Russia are on different sides of it

Ahem:

https://www.publicinternationallawandpolicygroup.org/lawyering-justice-blog/2025/11/3/international-humanitarian-law-in-focus-russias-violations-and-ukraines-legitimate-use-of-force-against-energy-targets

It seems the Iranians are claiming the Straits of Hormuz are open to all ships except those "linked to Iran's enemies". Now, that seems a pretty broad statement - does that include the registry of the ship or simply where it's going?

Trump continues to thrash and threaten - it's a long while since I was in that state but he sounds more like an angry early teenage boy some days. It's my experience some people, as they get older, revert to a more child like state - I warned Mrs Stodge about that and drew the inevitable rejoinder she wouldn't notice the difference and then sent me upstairs without any supper.

The one thing all this uncertainty won't do is help oil prices (unless you like having high oil prices as a major oil producer who doesn't need the Gulf like, oh I don't know, America or Russia).

I am told by those who have more knowledge of this than I (which is almost anyone on almost anything), petrol supplies are fine but diesel might become an issue - I've literally no clue.

IF I were a bluff old cynic with childlike tendencies, I'd suggest the current situation could almost be contrived to hurt Europe and China at the expense of America and Russia but that would be wrong, wouldn't it?

The only thing I'll say about that is that, because oil is priced worldwide (if I'm right) in US Dollars, then prices in the States and Russia will also rise, even though local market forces would suggest they won't.

And because of the two people in charge of the United States and Russia, I can guarantee that this increased 'state' [1] revenue will NOT trickle down to the average Russian or American. So for them, prices will go up too, and state benefits not increase to compensate.

[1] By State I mean the Louis XIV view of the 'State', so Trump and Putin personally.

Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.

I get the kneejerk "support America" notion. Ordinarily that would have been the way forward for a Conservative leader.

But Gilead isn't America. It used to be, but isn't. And backing the paedo king is not a long term strategy...

I don't get it, and it shouldn't be the reflexive action for a conservative leader, regardless of who is running the US. As a matter of fact, ruinous foreign conflicts that cause chaos and have no plausible off-ramp are not a unique feature of Trump's US - they are the norm for that country.

However, the attention is now going to switch to the domestic impact of the war, and here the Tories are on far safer ground, because they are on the record opposing loony Net Zero policies and supporting drilling the North Sea. Unless Sir Useless does another very big u-turn here, it is going to get very messy for him.

Hang on, the "loony net zero policies" are Tory policies. Leader after leader after leader. On the day Liz Truss blew up her government it was an opposition debate on Fracking and the SofS stood there are the dispatch lauding their policies on net zero and renewables.

So they're not "loony net zero". They are the established and consensual policies of both parties.