Best Of

The toilets thing is unfortunate and seems to have been extended beyond the Supreme Court judgment by the EHRC. In practice, it creates the requirement for trans men and trans women to ‘out’ themselves at work, in restaurants, and just about anywhere really by forcing them to use the ‘wrong’ facilities (including disabled toilets with no disability).

No, it does not.

Plenty of people use the gender-neutral disabled toilets for a plethora of reasons and anyway not all disabilities are visible.

Having adequate provision of gender-neutral toilets that can be used by the disabled or anyone else who requires them is a reasonable compromise that protects everyone.

Actually, it can be difficult. I need a disabled toilet, because I am, and I find that often in smaller 'listed' buildings there are no no such toilets, the excuse being that the alterations necessary are not possible when complying with the requirements of whatever the listed buildings regulations are called.

Indeed and that is a major problem, for yourself and anyone else who requires it.

Rather than trying to argue people don't need the facilities, ensuring the facilities do exist for anyone who does need it, would be a better objective.

If the end-point safe and dignified facilities for the disabled, for trans individuals and for women then that is a win/win, is it not?

You are always free with other people's cash. We have more pressing needs that separate toilets for a miniscule percentage of the population. If they have block and tackle they should be in the gents , otherwise use the ladies, fairly simple.

And the disabled? 🤔

Gender-neutral disabled facilities done well serve many purposes. In many places they dual as baby changing facilities too. And if they exist, no reason why they can't be used by trans individuals or anyone else who requires privacy.

There should be disabled toilets anywhere possible if not everywhere for sure.

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.

Quite eye opening that you seem to see the determined minority as the anti-trans

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.

And yet they were, repeatedly.

In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries.
The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder.
More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.

I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.

I'm not sure if I follow this argument. Does it come down to "dealing drugs is illegal, but people still do it, so..."?

I think we'd all agree that the world would be a better place if such conventions were abided by. There are times when they don't survive contact with 21st century reality - human rights/refugees, and must be reformed - and others when they must be suspended because an aggressor would use them to their advantage otherwise. We should clearly state when this is the case.

I think a justifiable action against Iran would be a total economic blockage - stop them exporting oil to China/India, in the same way they are doing that to the Gulf States for Europe. Destroying their domestic energy/water is entirely different.

I think my point is that we have never even tried to abide by these rules. If the UN itself was ignoring these rules and if we are condoning Ukraine attacking Russian oil refineries today then it seems rather hypocritical to be calling out this one specific element of the Israeli/US actions. All the more so when the basic idea of the war, to my mind, is unjustified and counter to international law.

Has there actually been a war the West has been involved in since WW2 where we have not attacked energy infrastructure if present?

Isn't the Ukraine difference that they were subject to unprovoked aggression and their own energy infrastructure has been extensively targeted?

Ukraine is facing an existential threat. In such circumstances, Just War Theory goes out the window.

In the current conflict, it is Iran that is facing an existential threat, not the US. The US should be following the rules of war, but there's more of a case for Iran do target whatever it can in order to survive.

Israel is facing an existential threat too.

Iran is an existential threat to Israel, especially if it acquires nukes.

Many critics of this war have said that they think if the regime survives this war then its now more likely to acquire nukes.

QED regime change in Iran is existential for Israel.

Israel under this twat puts itself under unnecessary threat.

The whole ethos of Netanyahu is war.

Israel is the aggressor

Absolutely. The US and Israel lure the Iranians into a negotiation on their nuclear capability and while negotiations are ongoing they decide to bomb them.

The driver now for Iran to get a Nuke, if they do, is because of the US and Israel’s recent actions. QED indeed.

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.

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.

And yet they were, repeatedly.

In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries.
The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder.
More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.

I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.

The Korean War killed around 10% of the civilian population.
Are we up for that ?

Barty might be...

Is 10% enough !!

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.

And yet they were, repeatedly.

In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries.
The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder.
More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.

I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.

I'm not sure if I follow this argument. Does it come down to "dealing drugs is illegal, but people still do it, so..."?

I think we'd all agree that the world would be a better place if such conventions were abided by. There are times when they don't survive contact with 21st century reality - human rights/refugees, and must be reformed - and others when they must be suspended because an aggressor would use them to their advantage otherwise. We should clearly state when this is the case.

I think a justifiable action against Iran would be a total economic blockage - stop them exporting oil to China/India, in the same way they are doing that to the Gulf States for Europe. Destroying their domestic energy/water is entirely different.

I think my point is that we have never even tried to abide by these rules. If the UN itself was ignoring these rules and if we are condoning Ukraine attacking Russian oil refineries today then it seems rather hypocritical to be calling out this one specific element of the Israeli/US actions. All the more so when the basic idea of the war, to my mind, is unjustified and counter to international law.

Has there actually been a war the West has been involved in since WW2 where we have not attacked energy infrastructure if present?

Isn't the Ukraine difference that they were subject to unprovoked aggression and their own energy infrastructure has been extensively targeted?