Hypocrisy and violent revenge

 The recent and possibly continuing war between Israel and Iran exposes all the worst aspects of human nature. Israel is allowed to develop nuclear weapons and in fact it was helped by western powers to do so. Iran for good reason is not allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Iran is a state that wishes to destroy Israel and this cannot be allowed to happen. However, it is apparent that world leaders cannot see all of the reasons why Israel and Iran want to possess nuclear weapons: both nations a re frightened of one another so frightened that they fear annihilation at the hands of one another. 

Nuclear weapon proliferation is based upon fear. India developed nuclear weapons because it feared China. Pakistan fear India so it too developed nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapon proliferation must be addressed all nations should be prepared to disarm to achieve this.

The first nuclear weapons were developed and tested and then deployed and used by the United States. During the second world war there was a fear that a maniacal Hitler would be the first to develop and then deploy atom bombs. The US then felt obliged to to produce nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Once the nuclear bombs were used the Soviet Union fearing a nuclear attack decided to produced nuclear bombs too. Then Britain and France followed suit. For many years this was the status quo until China decided that the other nuclear  powers were being hypocritical by trying to prevent them from becoming a nuclear armed nation. This was when nuclear proliferation really got going.

Nuclear states can bully their neighbours and can invade other non-nuclear armed countries almost with impunity; the threat of nuclear violence ensures military domination.

Over the years Iran has been threatened with destruction an Iraq armed with chemical weapons. Iraq was also trying to obtain a nuclear weapon arsenal. Iraq was goaded into attacking Iran by western nations, so is it any wonder that they seek to possess the ultimate doomsday weapon just to defend themselves. There is no doubt in my mind that if Iran did produce a nuclear arsenal they would probably use it to try to destroy Israel and if so Israel would reply in kind; for violent revenge is in the crazy minds of both countries senior politicians.

This situation of  violent revenge is extant in all nations that possess nuclear weapons because they are fearful of their neighbours. It is time to stop this attitude as the future of the human race looks bleak. It is time to stop the hypocrisy and the desire for violent revenge.

Transgender - Not So Simple – but don’t get confused

 

Transgender - Not So Simple – but don’t get confused

Unfortunately, for transgender people, politicians, and the public are completely confused about this issue and it is my contention that they have formed the opinion that there are only two sexes. They are very wrong. There are in fact at least three sexes: female, male and intersex male or female - or sometimes both. Most people fall into the binary version of birth sex.

Since the Supreme Court Ruling on the 16^th April 2025 there has been a political furore and rightly so. The court judged that for the purposes of the 2010 Equality Act a person can only be identified as being a man or woman if it was recorded as such on their birth certificate and that their current sex matches their sex at birth. Up until the Supreme Court Ruling a  transgender woman or man with a Gender Registration Certificate could claim to be a real man or woman, even if they were originally recorded on their birth certificate as the opposite sex. Transgender people were also allowed to change their birth certificate. The upshot of the ruling means that transgender people cannot use single sex facilities such as toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards unless their gender matches their original biological sex. The same would apply to intersex people. The ruling only adversely affects transgender women - in most cases. It is worth reading the House of Commons Guidance as follows:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk › research-briefings › cbp-10259

The case was raised by” For Women Scotland” (FWS), against the Scottish Home Office ministry. FWS contend that transgender women are in fact men and should be excluded from single sex facilities.

Part of the Supreme Court ruling:

The court said that the EA 2010 seeks to reduce inequality and to protect people with protected characteristics against discrimination. The act recognises women as having the protected characteristic of sex and “transsexual” people (the term used in the act) as having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

The court found that as a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination could only be interpreted as referring to biological sex. For example, the provisions relating to pregnancy and maternity are based on the fact that only biological women can become pregnant.

It also found that a certificated sex interpretation would cause confusion and impracticability in relation to other parts of the EA 2010, such as the provision of single and separate sex services, and could undermine the protection given to those with the protected characteristic of sexual orientation.

Overall, it concluded that any interpretation other than one based on biological sex would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate. Therefore, the guidance issued by the Scottish Ministers, which FWS was challenging, was incorrect.

 

 The ruling is black and white clear but does not consider the fact that some XY people who are genetically male could appear to be physical women. Equally some XX genetically female could appear to be physical men. This would mean that a transgender man should be allowed to use female only single sex facilities. It is obvious that the Supreme Court and” For Women Scotland” have got things wrong.

Some of the lesbians jumping up and down in celebration of victory in the courts could quite easily be genetic XY men without realising it, so does this make their lesbian partners heterosexuals: a bitter irony indeed. There is confusion all around but not in my mind. There is no confusion in my mind that this ruling has serious consequences for transgender women and men who could suffer abuse of their human rights.

Those people who are born with XX chromosomes and have the full complement of female sexual organs are female. They are, therefore recorded as female on their birth certificate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4nng2j42xro

Likewise, people who are born with XY chromosomes and have the full complement of male sexual organs are male. They are, therefore, recorded as male on their birth certificate.

Most children grow up as either “normal” males or females and have no difficulty identifying with their genetic and physical sex or gender.

Some children grow up feeling that they identify with the opposite sex and feel that they are psychologically in the wrong sexual body, but more of that later.

Intersex people are born with physical features which do not entirely match their Karyotypic or Genotypic make up.

 It is possible, in nature, for a child to be born with XX (female) chromosomes but to have acquired male physical characteristics. Thus, they may look like a boy when they are born and grow up to be men. This is often called the de la Chapelle syndrome. It occurs when, during fertilisation, a male SRY gene is transferred from the Y chromosome of the father to the one of the X chromosomes of the mother, which make up the female genotype. Some children with the de la Chapelle syndrome grow up not knowing that genetically they are “females”; neither do their families; they look and feel like men. These types of intersex individuals are usually sterile, and they only find out that they are intersex when they try and fail to make their fertile- female partners pregnant.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10693380/

 

https://academic.oup.com/jcemcr/article/3/Supplement_1/luae218.037/7984227?login=false

It is also possible, for a child to be born with XY (male) chromosomes but to have acquired female physical characteristics. Thus, they may look like a girl when they are born and grow up to be women. This is often known as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) which can be complete or partial.  Individuals with complete AIS can grow up to be almost completely female from a physical point of view.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22199-androgen-insensitivity-syndrome

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome

There is another condition, Swyer Syndrome which has similar results as for AIS. XY individuals with XY AIS or Swyer syndrome are usually infertile.

The number of Intersex individuals is very small perhaps less then 0.1 percent of the population, but this means that globally there are thousands of individuals who are Intersex, it should be noted that these syndromes are perfectly normal results of genetic mutations and hormonal anomalies. It should also be noted that many Intersex individuals have mixed male and female physical attributes. Some Intersex females have internal testes which produce sperm and can father children by artificial insemination even though their female bodies are infertile and may lack a uterus or ovaries. Nature is very variable indeed.

Hanne-Gaby-Odiele is a Belgian model who is a self-declared Intersex female with “male” XY chromosomes. She looks completely feminine and is married to a man although she is infertile. When she was young, she had an operation without her consent to remove internal testes, which doctors claimed could become cancerous. She campaigns for Intersex individuals’ rights. She is married to a man. Does that make her husband a homosexual? I don’t think so.    Hanne looks exactly like a woman. She should not dare to go into a male sex facility for fear of either ridicule or assault from thugs. Would “For Women Scotland welcome her into there single sex facilities or would they claim she was a man, if they knew her circumstances, and exclude her?

So, let’s look at the case for transgender women who could now be legally excluded from female single sex facilities if FWS have their way. Transgender women are in the unfortunate position of being classified at birth as males and having this recorded on their birth certificate. They have XY chromosomes and some or all the physical attributes of men, and they can even father children. However, transgender women feel that they are women trapped in a man’s body. Attempts to persuade them otherwise usually fail. If they can be persuaded to have psychotherapy to treat their condition, they often end up being traumatised. Many transgender women undergo surgery and hormone treatment to make their bodies fit in with the perception of their gender. No-one would undergo such medical treatment to make their perceived gender opposite to their birth” sex” without serious consideration, as they are not doing it just for fun or fashion. The law allows them to obtain Gender Reassignment Certificates to prove that they have changed their gender, and they can change their “sex” at birth on their birth certificates.

There is some scientific evidence that the internal structure of the transgender brain is ever so slightly different for a cisgender brain. It could be the case that a transgender woman’s brain is structurally more feminine than the brain of a cisgender man and this is why transgender women feel that they are in fact women in men’s bodies. This is all part of the natural variation in human biology. A similar reasoning applies to transgender men. These are the reasons why transgender people are prepared to accept severe medical procedures to re-assign their gender; such individuals deserve the respect of the cisgender society and deserve to have their human rights respected.

https://studyfinds.org/study-shows-differences-brain-structure-transgender-cisgender/

Laverne Cox of Netflix fame is a transgender woman: does she deserve to be treated as a man? To me is she fully female and deserves the right to be treated as such.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1209545/

Should this lady be forced to use the single sex spaces for men rather than ciswomen, such an opinion would be absurd?

There was no need to change the guidelines, as the Equality Act already catered for the protection of ciswomen by excluding transgender women, from single sex areas, where it was both proportionate and appropriate. Let’s not trample on the human rights of one minority group to protect another. Let’s exercise a little bit of tolerance for a small minority of people who are stuck in the middles of an ambiguous sexuality.

The supreme court ruling is being taken to the ECHR who hopefully will overturn an unjust decision.

Transgender and Intersex Irrationality

 I would never have thought that the UK supreme court would act irrationally. Their decision to say that a woman can only be classified as a woman unless it says so on her birth certificate is irrational and just plain wrong It did not recognise that a woman who possesses a Gender Recognition Certificate is a "real" woman. The court decided that sex based protections, derived from the Equalities Act, only apply to women who are seen to be born as women because they are registered as such on their birth certificate. They did not take into account the possibility that some people who are born with XX chromosomes, and who are genotypically women, can be phenotypically men. Some XX children are born with male genitals and grow up to be men, albeit sterile, and they may not know that they are genetically women. Likewise some male children who have XY chromosomes are born with female genitalia and grow up to be women, albeit sterile , and they may not know that genetically they are men. Some children are born with a mix of male and female genitalia and it is uncertain what sex they are from their physical appearance. Nature is not as clear cut as supreme court judges would like it to be.   Some of the people born with an Intersex  condition  have surgery to assert their gender. Only a very small proportion of children are born with indeterminate sex, the figure is around 1%. Most people will therefore never meet an intersex individual or a transgender person for that matter.

Probably there is a some femininity in all men from a genetic and hormonal point of view, and likewise there is  probably some masculinity in all women from a genetic and hormonal point of view. However sometimes nature cannot give us a clear cut phenotype, but this is perfectly normal.  Every person is slightly different to another person, but in general we are all from the same species and thus, genetically, extremely similar to one another. 

Only the most ignorant right wing populist  politician would argue that there is a clear cut difference between a man  and a woman: they have got it wrong, and now, so it seems, have the supreme court judges even though their lordships mostly have  liberal attitudes. The transgender issue should not be seen as a black or white decision as intersex conditions apply equally to these unfortunate individuals, who feel that they are living in the wrong phenotypical body, despite their genetic make up.

I was disturbed by the actions of  some the vehement feminists who celebrated the ruling outside the supreme court in a frenzy of triumphalism. For centuries women have been denied some of the most basic rights by chauvinistic men; and they have still not achieved full equality. I think that they should show some sympathy for their fellow human beings and some tolerance.

Some men who were recorded as being males on their birth certificate want to re-assign their gender by having medical and surgical procedures to change their bodies from being a phenotypical man to  woman. The decision to do this could not be an easy one and it is probably filled with anguish. Once the medical procedures are over, surely they are entitled to official recognition by obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate, and from then on be treated as if they were born a woman. Likewise the same reasoning should apply to transgender men who feel that they are men trapped in a woman's body. All of the problems faced by men or women that want to change gender are also faced by intersex people who are born with genitals not related to their genetic sex. 

A transgender woman is highly unlikely to ever want to sexually assault or rape any other  woman and would not be a danger to society in general. What is the problem of transgender women being allowed to share single sex changing rooms, toilets, hospital wards, women's refuges or prison cells with other so called normal women.  It would impinge upon the rights of transgender women to be be forced to share men only facilities as there would be a danger of them being assaulted  by full on brutal and  "red blooded" males.

What is wrong with transgender women being allowed to compete in women's sports as they would have been treated to reduce the  testosterone in their blood. Intersex athletes who are recognised as women are unable to challenge full bodied men on an equal footing, regarding strength or times.. There are too few transgender and intersex athletes to support a separate category of competitors.

Whilst most of the problems related to transgender people concern "transgender women", there are transgender men, who undergone surgical and hormone treatment to change their gender. Should transgender men be forced to use woman only facilities such as toilets, changing rooms and hospital wards etc? All of the problems faced by men or women that want to change gender are also faced by intersex people who are born with genitals not related to their genetic sex. 

Everything surrounding gender changes is fraught with difficulty. What would happen if a transgender "man" asserted his right to use women's changing facilities or toilets because his birth certificate says that he was born a woman. How would the real women react if an individual who looked a bit like a man used their space or even violated a real woman.

Most facilities cater for people on the basis of whether you are a man or woman, so should there be facilities for transgender people alone which they are forced to use? Some people may be embarrassed to be exposed as being transgender, so why should they suffer being outed? This would be an expensive and unnecessary option given the small numbers of transgender and intersex people.

I feel that the supreme court decision has opened a can of legal and social worms. There is no doubt in my mind that someone somewhere will resort to the law to make single sex facilities exclude transgender and intersex people. Thus hospitals, hotels, prisons and gymnasiums  etc.  may ask their clients to prove their birth sex: this might be interpreted as an abuse of privacy and may force transgender people to use the law to try to assert their rights to privacy and equality. Women's rights advocates might start demonstrating on the streets with transgender advocates counter demonstrating. Some chauvinistic men might start demonstrating to exclude transgender and intersex men form male only facilities. What a mess: probably cases will end up in the European Court of Human Rights!

The law should now be changed to give transgender people the same rights as so called normal people. There is no reason why an individual should not be given a Gender Recognition Certificate provided two doctors approve it along with a magistrate. Gender Recognition Certificates should then allow holders to change their passports and  birth certificates."Real men" who disguise themselves as women  to gain access to women only facilities for the purposes of assaulting or violating occupants should be charged with impersonation  and imprisoned if found guilty. This social mess can be resolved by appropriate legislation and then politicians would not be frightened to reveal their true opinions.

I asked my wife what she thought of this issue . She said that like me she had hardly ever met a recognisable  transgender woman. My wife believes in human rights for all especially women but she won't go out on the streets to support feminist triumphalism over the supreme court ruling. She believes that no-one should be traduced because they have changed gender. When I suggested that some of the triumphant feminists, who demonstrated outside the courts, could be genetic men without realising it, she smiled in agreement. When I suggested that some of the lesbians might be involved with genetic men without realising it her smile broadened  - but so what.

None of this is really a laughing matter,  so spare a thought for the intersex individuals who have grown up with both male and female exterior genitals, and are still debating whether they go for surgery and hormone treatment or not. This issue is not so simple and deserves sensitive consideration, without prejudice, rather than just  shouting slogans. What happened to tolerance, can't we bring it back please.

Britain left the EU partly because it believed it would achieve absolute sovereignty

 In the 2006  referendum EU leave politicians appealed to the British electorate with promises of absolute sovereignty, claiming that the European Commission and Court push Britain around and tell the country what to do. None of this was true, as the EU is a co-operative venture that does not impinge upon the powers of the individual state.

We pooled our  sovereignty in the EU for the common good. It is time to contrast this with our relationship with the United States. Recently we have seen the US tell Britain that it cannot share military intelligence with the Ukraine to that state's chagrin. 

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24982912.donald-trump-bans-uk-sharing-us-intelligence-ukraine/

The US has also made it clear that Britain and other Nato states must spend more on defence and of course Britain is complying. 

The US also has  reservations about Britain's decision to restore sovereignty of the Chagos islands to Mauritius. The US has a military base on the islands and it wishes to maintain sovereignty over the base. The British Foreign Secretary has indicated that the US has a veto of the Chagos islands agreement if it does not meet US military requirements in the Indian Ocean.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yxxjr8v2vo

So much for British sovereignty; we are looking in the wrong direction. The US dominates the UK as it has both the military and economic might to do so.

It is about time the British people grew up and faced the reality that our nation does not have the power to defy or even disagree with the US. The US is a friendly state but we cannot expect them to defend us or support us economically. Britain needs the power to act without the approval of the US on the odd occasion where our interests differ. We were able to do this to a certain extent when we were members of the EU, now we cannot. The EU also has to reassess its military power and spending because it cannot defend Western Europe from an adversary such as Russia without US  support. The changed political situation in the US, which has now returned to isolationism, means that the EU and the UK need to act together. The closer the UK gets to the EU the better for Europe in general. The UK should start by entering into a security treaty with the EU and then re-join the EU single market and customs union: objections to "so called free movement " will have to be set aside. It was a mistake for the UK to leave the EU; we should be big enough to admit our mistake. A strong Europe which can afford to pay its way regarding security and military development will eventually benefit the "Free World" even the US will be better off as they won't have to fund us anymore. We will then have a much better relationship with our friends and erstwhile enemies.

Don't delude yourself: Britain has not "punched above its weight" for decades and will continue in this vein

 The British prime minister has promised peace keeping forces to guard Ukraine if there is a peace settlement. This morning, on the news broadcasts, UK military and foreign affairs  experts explained that the UK could hardly muster up 5,000 troops and equip them properly; that is just about the strength of a brigade. The UK could not even supply a well equipped division of peace keeping forces.  It would probably take an army corp of 10 divisions or more to assist Ukrainian forces  in keeping the peace and the Russian army at bay. Britain has nowhere near the ground, air and naval forces to challenge Russia.  Even a whole European effort would require the support of the US. If there is a military confrontation Britain would not have enough forces to prosecute a long term war and British armed personnel would have their lives put at risk. Our military personnel did not volunteer for this, and why should we expect them to die for a lost cause. Britain and Europe are not strong enough to resist a much stronger enemy.

Britain could not stand alone against a substantial military power; an army of the strength of Israel could easily defeat ill equipped UK forces. Let's not delude ourselves, the only way we could "punch above our weight" would be in co-operation with other European forces as we cannot rely upon the US any longer.

British politicians of all colours have chosen to confuse the UK public in asserting  that somehow Britain is a first class military and economic power. We have chosen to withdraw from the EU and weaken it, but the EU was key to assuring our independence as a sovereign country. We are a nation that has allowed misplaced national pride to jeopardise our future, surely we should wise up and forget the delusions of the past and re-unite with our friends. I fear that this hope is in vain.

Britain becoming the sickman of Europe again?

 In the early 1970's and before the UK joined the EU, or EC as it was called then, Britain was described as the sick man of Europe,. Productivity was low, inflation was high, the economy was stagnating, the pound was in danger. Now, if we are not careful we could be returning to those bad times which I remember so well.

https://www.ft.com/content/508dee91-f42f-4662-892c-bb7219f02401

Things improved economically when the we joined the EC/EU in 1973 and that is why the nation voted to stay in the EC/EU in a referendum held in 1975. However, Britain did not fully capitalise on its membership, so productivity and competitiveness lagged behind the likes of the rest of the EC/EU, the USA and Canada etc. This remains the case today, when global economic winds blow cold Britain is the first to freeze and remains frozen longer than our competitors. It is now becoming increasingly more expensive for the UK to borrow from financial markets to fund an economic recovery and our schools and the NHS.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62zpregm2mo

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/08/why-rising-bond-yields-are-rattling-rachel-reeves

Some bold action is now required to set the economy straight and provide for the future:

The government needs to level with the British people and admit that leaving the EU was a mistake , the country is floating around aimlessly and needs a strategic plan and an economic goal.

Economic ministers need to stop thinking like glorified bookkeepers to prevent the treasury and business ministers from planning the use of the nation's money and investment potential to improve productivity and competitiveness. There is no problem in borrowing money to invest in useful and productive projects.

The nation is ready for this; a majority of the population now agree that it was a mistake to leave the European Single Market and Customs Union,so we should publicly state our intention to re-join , but without a divisive referendum.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/47997-britons-support-rejoining-the-single-market-even-if-it-means-free-movement

Leaving the EU damaged our economy and it also damaged the economy of the EU. To re-join the economic wings of the EU will improve matters for everyone concerned, we do not need to re-join the political wing of the EU: yet.

Let us see a sense of adventure and boldness from our political leadership, we cannot carry on as we are now: however, I fear that we will and to our detriment.