Keira Bell transitioned from a woman into a man at age 16-but now regrets her gender change and wants to sue the authorities
Keira Bell-a trans teen, wishes she had not decided to become a boy. Keira wishes she was still Keira, but after receiving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones when she was only 16-she is now male in all but genitalia.
Fast forward 9 years and she feels very different-although she did only have her breasts removed only 3 years ago. Now a 23 year old-her feelings about her sex change are widely different to how she felt during puberty.
Making Decisions at 16
16 is not the age to be making life-changing decisions that are largely irreversible. But this was the situation Keira faced when unsure about herself, her place in society and her gender. She thought changing her gender would be the answer to her depression and unease for the connotations her gender was born into. She changed the way she looked, but she did not change her genitalia. It suggests Keira was okay with her sex, but not her gender.
And this is it-is it the sex people are born with, or the gender they are born into-that is the problem? Sex is one thing, and gender is another. The sex is all the physical features of a woman or a man-and the brain that goes with that. The gender means you are born into a set of societal norms that do not necessarily fit who you are.
Are People Changing Sex Because They Do Not Feel Accepted Otherwise?
Everyone knows a tom boy-but does that mean you are willing to change your sex based on your experience so far of who you are?
Note that Keira is asked about changing her ‘gender’. Not her sex.
“I think it’s more of a problem society had, rather than what I had, looking back on it”
There are still major stereotypes associated with being a male or a female.The ‘princess’ or the ‘lad’ are still about town and prevailing. I like to flit with the notions myself but they are claustrophobic and self-limiting. I think there is a period for everyone in which they compare oneself to another, and gender roles are a large part of the comparison. We are only now facing the gender pay gap head on in 2020.
And women are still thought to live in pink. I used to hate the colour. But then I moved to Thailand-the most feminine country you could possibly find yourself surrounded in. Being highly influential and surrounded by pink-I fell in love with the colour and changed my ways. And this shows you how influential culture is.
The pressure to fit into a set of norms is strong. Nobody does this better than American culture-they would categorise alien life if they could. Are you the geek or the jock, the prom queen or the preppy? It goes on and as tiresome as it sounds-this is excruciatingly threatening for young teens trying to find a place in the world, and not having one to hand.
At one point the interviewer asks Keira if society had been more accepting-would she not have had a problem? And Keira agrees to this.
‘Live Naturally And How You Are‘
Sound advice from a person who has had to face the most debilitating journey of self-worth, and who still now fights for her individuality. Keira says she is “accepting of my sex-which is female and taking each day as it comes”. She accepts she is female in sex, but it appears it is the gender stereotypes that have made her unsure of who she is. To live naturally as a premise for all human beings is a beautiful way to sum up her experience.
To be accepting of how you come into this world must be the first port of call for practitioners. Unfortunately, it seems the NHS clinic Keira attended (one of the only gender-changing clinics in the UK), relied heavily upon the gender change as the answer, rather than deep therapy. Keira received only three 1 hour one on one sessions during the assessment period when deciding her suitability to change gender.
Many People Take Their Own Lives When Unable To Change Gender
In defence of the clinic, it appears the service saves many lives. Many individuals would take their own life if it were not for the sex change service. As stipulated in defence by the gender identity charity ‘Mermaids’ within the BBC article.
Although this may be true, a sex change is only the answer for seldom few individuals. At age 16, you are only entering adulthood and still live life as a child-the brain does not fully develop until age 25. This is the logical pre-frontal cortex which is responsible for decision making. A teen is far from being in the position to make such a mind-altering change. But this was the reality for Keira.
It is fair to say that entering such a decision must only be taken after receiving years of therapy. I can understand the stance of the charity-they will look to protect lives first but it is not a pill to be taken. And questions as to why these individuals feel this way come first and foremost.
“When you are that young, you don’t really want to listen to anyone”
(Keira Bell, interviewed by the BBC)
When you are that young, you need an adult to to make the decisions.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine: Will more states seek to acquire Nuclear weapons?
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is prompting many states around the world to reconsider their national defence strategies. Governments have privately and openly voiced their apprehension about the growing fragility of the post-WWII international order, especially the utter inability of the UN and its Security Council to prevent powerful hegemonic nations, such as Russia, from attacking and occupying and annexing large territories of less powerful neighbours, such as Ukraine.
Some leaders and diplomats have warned that, in light of the clear impotence of the UN in tackling the Ukrainian crisis, and in the absence of a nuclear deterrent of their own, some vulnerable non-nuclear states will be forced to either acquire Nuclear weapons to achieve a semblance of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) vis-à-vis potential predators or seek a military alliance with some established nuclear powers for the same purpose.
Zelensky: “Ukraine will be like a Big Israel”
Speaking to reporters a few days ago, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told reporters that post-war Ukraine would be like “a big Israel.”
He didn’t clarify what he exactly meant by drawing the Israeli analogy.
However, it was amply clear that he was alluding to the contemplated acquisition of a sizeable Nuclear weapon, like that of Israel, in order to deter a future possible Russian invasion. Ukraine had given up its Nuclear weapons to Russia following the downfall of the former Soviet Union.
However, experts argue that Ukraine could fairly quickly renew its Nuclear weapon since the country already possesses the technical and scientific infrastructure which it inherited from the Soviet era.
Hence, Ukraine wouldn’t have to begin from scratch in case it decided to renew its nuclear weapon program. Moreover, Ukraine could start producing enriched uranium for military purposes in a few days, depending on the decision of the political leadership. Shortly after the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine 11 months ago, Ukraine’s defence officials voiced their deep remorse for having given up their former nuclear arsenal. In light, it is almost certain that the current leadership in Kyiv will decide to revive the nuclear option as soon as an opportune time arises.
Medvedev: Russian defeat in Ukraine would trigger a nuclear war
This weak, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev warned NATO of nuclear war if Russia was defeated in Ukraine.
Medvedev, an ally of Kremlin chief Vladimir Putin, warned that a Russian defeat in Ukraine could trigger a nuclear war. “The defeat of a nuclear power in a conventional war may trigger a nuclear war,” Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of Putin’s powerful security council, reportedly said in a post on the Telegraph.
“Nuclear powers have never lost major conflicts on which their fate depends,”.
Warning should be taken seriously
Undoubtedly, Medvedev’s warnings contain an important element of rhetorical sabre-rattling and psychological warfare. However, this writer believes the West ought to take the warnings quite seriously.
There are sufficient reasons that should make us think twice before dismissing the above doomsday warnings as hot air. Indeed, a Russian defeat in Ukraine would have far-reaching global consequences and ramifications.
Indeed, a decisive and humiliating Russian defeat in Ukraine would very likely be the most important strategic international game-changer not only since the collapse of the former Soviet Union in 1989 but also since the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Russia would morph into a boiling cauldron of anger and furious indignation.
Thus, the demand for the use of nuclear weapons to avert a possible Russian defeat in Ukraine would gain massive popularity throughout Russia. The galvanization of Russia’s 145 million population would be the penultimate step leading to the kremlin’s decision to press the nuclear button.
Nuclear is futile if not used when needed
After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Advocates for the nuclear option would convincingly argue that nuclear weapons would lose their raison detre if they failed to protect the possessor country, the motherland, when needed most, e.g., when the country faces the prospect of defeat and humiliation in war. The question of who is the aggressor and who is the victim would be almost irrelevant in such an atmosphere. Moreover, the US, which used the first ever and last nuclear weapon against Japan in 1945, would not be in a moral position to lecture Russia on the evils of using nuclear weapons.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine: Gigantic Dilemma
A Russian victory or defeat in Ukraine would cause the current international order, instated after WWII, to collapse. A decisive Russian defeat in Ukraine, which seems unlikely at least now, would likely irreversibly paralyze or effectively terminate the UN and its Security Council. The UN would virtually become completely at the US beck and call.
On the other hand, a decisive Russian victory, which is also unlikely, would turn the international order upside down and transform the world into a real jungle.
A Russian victory would probably encourage certain states to emulate Russia and carry out naked aggressions of their own against militarily weaker foes or neighbouring states. Certain possible scenarios come to the mind in this regard.
China might be emboldened to invade and occupy Taiwan if Russia emerged as winner.
Israel might well decide to seize the opportunity and wage an all-out war on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for the purpose of liquidating the Palestinian issue once and for all. In the process, Israel might carry out huge massacres of Palestinians and embark on the demolition of Islamic holy places in Jerusalem especially the Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock. Moreover, Israel might also decide to carry out massive airstrikes on Iranian cities or even drop nuclear bombs under the rubric of destroying the Iranian nuclear program and preventing the recurrence of the Holocaust!
Other possible scenarios would probably include a possible all-out war by North Korea against South Korea, and a naked aggression by Russian-backed Serbia against Bosnia and Kosovo.
I am not a prophet of doom and gloom, but it is always safer to assume that the worse could happen. There is no doubt that a new world order would appear after the end of the Russian invasion of Ukraine regardless of the outcome of the war . There is also little doubt that the post-Ukraine war will witness more military and strategic polarization than ever. However, the gravest problem facing the post-war world order would, almost certainly, take the form of many states seeking actively to acquire nuclear weapons for their own national defence. Therefore, the nuclear proliferation issue would be the number-1 problem facing the world, with the chances of a nuclear accident or miscalculation reaching terrifying levels. (end)
BBC’s Modi Documentary Rattles Modi Government
BCC recently released a documentary on India’s controversial right-wing Prime Minister Narendra Modi rattling Modi and his ruling party Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The documentary’s first episode titled “India: The Modi Question” which was released in the UK on 17th January drew a sharp reaction from the Modi government.
Modi Government Blocks the Documentary in India
The Modi government moved swiftly to block the documentary in India. Proving right the critics of IT Rules, 2021, the Modi government’s Ministry of Information & Broadcasting invoked emergency powers under the IT Rules, 2021 to order YouTube to take down all the videos that had published the first episode of the documentary. Orders were also issued to Twitter to take down all the tweets that had posted the link to the documentary. Both YouTube and Twitter complied with the orders, removing all the posts and videos flagged by the government.
The government alleged that the documentary was found to be “undermining sovereignty and integrity of India, and having the potential to adversely impact India’s friendly relations with foreign states”, which allowed for the invocation of the emergency powers under the IT Rules, 2021. The government also alleged that the documentary questions the credibility of the Supreme Court of India and attempts to sow divisions among different communities while also making unsubstantiated allegations regarding the activities of foreign governments in India.
Earlier India’s External Affairs Ministry spokesperson dismissed the documentary as a “propaganda piece that lacks objectivity and reflects colonial mindset”. The spokesperson also questioned the timings of the release of the documentary.
The documentary’s first episode produced by the BBC tracks Modi’s “first steps into politics”- his association with the right-wing Hindu extremist organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), his rise through the ranks of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and further his appointment as Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat in 2001 till 2014. As the Chief Minister of Gujarat, Modi’s involvement in and his response to a series of communal riots in 2002 remains a source of controversy.
The documentary highlights a previously unpublished report, obtained by the BBC from the British Foreign Office, which raises questions about Modi’s actions during the religious riots. The report claims that Modi was “directly responsible” for the “climate of impunity” that enabled the violence.
The report cited by the BCC was part of an inquiry ordered by the then foreign secretary Jack Straw. The reports say that “the extent of violence was much greater than reported” and “the aim of the riots was to purge Muslims from Hindu areas”.
Jack Straw is heard in the documentary saying, “these were very serious claims that Mr Modi had played a proactive part in pulling back police and in tacitly encouraging the Hindu extremists. That was a particularly egregious example of political involvement to prevent police from doing their job to protect the Hindus and the Muslims.”
Modi’s Role in Gujarat Riots of 2002
It is the documentary’s highlight of the Gujarat riots of 2002 that has rattled the Modi government.
The Gujarat riots of 2002 claimed the lives of more than 1,000 people. Most of those killed were Muslims. Modi is alleged to have instigated the riots and further prevented the police and the army from taking any action to stop the riots. Most of the reports published on the Gujarat riots by the Indian media as well as the international media point out Modi’s direct role in facilitating the riots. It has been claimed that Modi gave a free hand to Hindu extremists to kill Muslims and the aim was to purge Hindu localities of Muslims.
Modi has rejected these accusations. Further, in 2013 an investigation approved by the Indian Supreme Court absolved Mr. Modi of complicity in the rioting. Based on that finding, a court in the state of Gujarat found that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him.
Action Taken by Foreign Countries against Modi
Like the above-cited British Foreign Office report, there were many countries that were convinced of Modi’s role in the killing of Muslims during the riots. Concerned countries acted against Modi at different levels.
Modi was banned entry into the U.S. for more than a decade for his role in the riots. In 2005, Modi became the only person ever to be denied a U.S. visa under the 1998 law on violations of religious freedom. The U.S. State Department invoked a little-known U.S. law passed in 1998 that makes foreign officials responsible for “severe violations of religious freedom” ineligible for visas. The ban on Modi’s travel to the U.S. was revoked by the Obama administration in 2014 after he became the prime minister of India.
A Permanent Stain on Modi’s Career
Modi may have achieved great things in his political career, but the stain of the Gujarat riots is permanent on his career.
Modi loves the camera. He loves advertising and branding himself. Modi puts his picture on everything. He loves hearing his voice. However, ever since he became the prime minister of India, he has never given an unscripted interview to the media. He has also never held a press conference in India or abroad. It has been claimed that Modi does not want difficult questions about his attitude towards the Muslim minority of India thrown at him.
When Modi became the prime minister of India, Indian liberals were hopeful that Modi had changed. They were wrong in their assessment that Modi as a prime minister would be inclusive. However, after Modi’s eight years as a prime minister now, he has not changed his attitude towards Muslims. As of now, Muslims are increasingly persecuted by his government.
This author highly recommends that you watch the BBC documentary on Modi. Its first episode has been released here (if you are outside the UK watch it here or use VPN). The next episode will be available on Tuesday, January 24, 2023, at 21:00.
19.4 Million Afghan Women Struggling to Survive Under Taliban
Women banned from schools and colleges. Women flogged in markets with dozens of spectators. Girls, as young as 15, mandated to wear complete body covering: These are the horrifying reality Afghan women are forced to live in every day.
Rules of Sharia on Every Moment
Women’s freedom of movement and access to their bodies continue to be restricted in Taliban-run Afghanistan. The draconian group imposed huge barriers on women’s even basic needs: health, education, migration, and expression, depriving thousands of many of their right to earn a livelihood.
Women in Afghanistan have already suffered the most significant losses due to the war and militarization. However, with the control of the Taliban over the nation, the future and dreams of Afghan women are collapsing drastically.
Afghan Women: The Future Looks Dark
The Taliban treat women and girls brutally, and they are forbidden from attending secondary and higher education. Migration and independent travel for women is prohibited. They are not even permitted to migrate or travel without a male chaperone. Girls as young as 13 are forced into marriage.
The Taliban administration has abolished the Ministry of Women Affairs in Afghanistan due to its extreme depravity. There are now no female cabinet members in the Afghan government, thereby ending political participation of 50% of the population.
Following the takeover of Afghanistan, the schools and colleges were forcibly compelled to enact new regulations. It includes gender-apartheid entrances and classrooms. Only female professors or older men can instruct female students. Additionally, the authorities closed the Madressa that solely taught female students.
The future of Afghan women appears bleak with such harsh restrictions and draconian rules. The local women have various aspirations. Young girls want to finish their education and pursue careers in large corporations. But at the moment, it looks gloomy and almost impossible for Afghan women.
Lost Careers & Starving Families
Women-founded business is facing the worst time under Taliban.
Women investors have left their positions or hired males to do their business Women entrepreneurs claim they have invested thousands of Afghanis in the previous government but are currently compelled to close their firms.
The current environment prevents women from freely engaging in small-scale business or employment. Even when women are the only source of income for their families, Afghan women no longer dare to start their businesses.
If these conditions persist, many Afghan families will go hungry.
In Afghanistan, the handicraft industry thrived before the Taliban’s leadership, giving thousands of women jobs. Clothing, goods, and handicraft products were exported to Australia and New Zealand.
However, after the Taliban seized control, the industry went bankrupt due to a policy that discriminated against women and flying restrictions that reduced trade and affected the business adversely.
Afghan Women’s Lives at risk
The women’s crisis in Afghanistan keeps escalating — the restrictions, limitations, and dictatorship have gone too far ahead.
Due to a shortage of healthcare services, Afghan women face significant difficulties. They are restricted from visiting doctors without a male companion, and in some cities, women are not allowed to visit male doctors while the number of female physicians in the nation is closing to nil.
Additionally, women and girls are denied access to healthcare, and reports even imply that they are subjected to assault with no means of fleeing.
The restriction of female students from secondary and higher education violates their right to education and limits female students from reaching their full potential.
Banning female students from getting an education increases child marriages, early pregnancy, abuse, and violence.
Almost every house headed or led by women has lacked sufficient food due to the rise in fuel, food prices, and no source of income. The situation has worsened due to the drought and the war in Ukraine. It is difficult to see women becoming beggars along with their children.
The current situation of Afghan women is deteriorating in the virtual prisoner environment. Taliban restrictions have made women’s financial hardships worse. The lives of Afghan women are seriously at stake, and many women feel it would be better if they had died in the war.
The Silver Line But a Long Way Ahead
UNICEF and NGOs are defending Afghan women and trying to help them as much as possible. The United Nations has repeatedly emphasized that it is committed to carrying out its mission in Afghanistan and promoting the rights of women and girls in the region.
UNFPA is enhancing its existence and helping women through Afghanistan socialism and is collaborating with national partners. UNICEF assumes responsibility for paying the teachers’ monthly salaries and providing them with the necessities for survival. UNFPA is also contributing its share to expand the provision of sexual and reproductive health services, again, for women in rural areas.
But it’s not enough, especially with Taliban banning female NGO employees from coming to work.
To rescue innocent women and children from this catastrophe, more social organizations must advance in light of their responsibility and the current state of Afghan women.
The Taliban should be put under pressure by international organizations and governments to fully implement gender equality and defend the human rights of all Afghan women and girls.
Organizations must quickly realize that women should be given the reins for recovery, peace, stability, and basic rights. Unless that is, the lives of Afghan women continue to deteriorate, and their dreams continue to collapse EVERY SINGLE DAY!
Featured2 months ago
Israel is Hiding Crucial Demographic Facts About Palestinians
Featured3 years ago
The Unfortunate Correlation between Race and Covid 19
Featured3 years ago
Practical Ways to Fight Depression in Islam
Featured2 years ago
“Do Not Waste Water Even If You Were at a Running Stream” Prophet Muhammad
Featured1 month ago
Argentina wins the World Cup; are there any other winners?
Featured2 years ago
The Connection Between Muslim Prayers (Namaz/Salah) and Yoga Poses
Featured2 years ago
Forget About Terrorism, Have You Met Cybercrime?
Featured6 months ago
World Leaders Remain Silent Over Human Rights Violations in the UAE