Finnish Trans Woman Speaks Out on Transgender Rights in Sports

In the United States, one of Donald Trump’s goals is to ban trans women from women’s sports. The issue is real, as demonstrated by last summer’s boxing matches at the Paris Olympics, where men won two women’s Olympic gold medals.

In this context, it was interesting to notice that a Finnish trans woman and former national-level high jumper, Jade Nyström, has taken a stand on the matter. And it has nothing to do with DEI or wokeness.

Nyström stated, “I fully support the idea that, in my opinion, biological men who are trans women should not compete in women’s categories... There’s a very clear advantage they gain. Hormone therapy alone does not change the entire person, especially if they’ve gone through puberty in their biological sex. It’s not fair to switch competition categories at that stage. This is not about discrimination or taking away rights – it’s more about realism.”

He also expressed a wish: “At the very least, I hope this moves in a direction where the sports of biological women are not ruined. This is not about discriminating against or taking rights away from trans women; it’s more about thinking rationally... I’m not going to switch to the women’s category because I think it would be unfair, and it wouldn’t feel right for me personally.”

It would be wonderful if the perspective of this Finnish athlete gained worldwide recognition. And if its inherent wisdom were understood by international sports leaders, including those at the International Olympic Committee.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Homosexual Rape Underscores the Need for Change in Immigration Policy
Everyone has the right
Mistreatment of Women at the Olympics?

The Fairness of Climate Funding: Just Another 60 Million Euros?

According to Finland's public broadcaster Yle, the financing of climate action is increasingly shifting onto the shoulders of EU countries. This is because the Trump administration is unlikely to be enthusiastic about participating in the whole effort, while China and former developing countries enriched by oil want to continue as recipients of funds rather than contributors.

China and the G77 group of developing countries have also proposed a new target for climate financing. According to their proposal made in Baku, Azerbaijan, a staggering $1.3 billion should be allocated.

It remains to be seen how the EU will respond to this emerging situation. Will it continue humbly to keep its purse open, or will it declare the situation unfair and therefore unfeasible?

In any case, Finland’s government has already decided to reduce its contribution to the green climate fund from 100 million euros to 60 million euros. As a Finnish taxpayer, I believe that if China and the G77 continue along the line they've currently set, that amount should be further reduced by another 60 million euros and the saved funds used to curb the national debt, even though that, too, may be but a drop in the ocean.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Russia Pays the Price for Its Foolishness
Correct minister, ridiculous facts
Advice to participants of the COP27 climate implementation summit

Rising Trade Tensions Between the EU and China

It is well known that China has in recent years conquered global markets by generously supporting its own industry. As a result, it has brought, for example, the European automotive industry almost to its knees, and some of it has already been relocated to China.

However, now the European Union member states are planning to impose permanent tariffs on electric cars manufactured in China. This would increase the cost of importing cars from China to Europe by five to ten thousand euros at current prices, depending on the manufacturer, assuming the tariffs are passed directly onto the prices.

It remains to be seen what will happen if the decision is implemented. It is likely that at least some sort of trade war will break out, unless a miracle happens and a fair agreement is reached on the level of state subsidies.

This would, of course, require that China understands the reason why the EU is imposing tariffs and accepts the principle of fairness, which would include mutual respect. However, this is probably too much to expect, at least until enough damage has been done to both parties' economies through mutual squabbling.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
China uses Western universities to educate its youth
China is betting on scientific excellence
Does China prove the superiority of market economy?

Fair policy will build a strong Union

EU Commission is planning to decide on legally binding nature restoration targets. Those targets include restoration of at least 70% of drained peatlands and protecting 30% of land and 30% of sea in the EU. 

Those demands would have a major negative effect in Finland, where forest industry is extremely important by producing 18.1 % of exported goods and bringing a tax revenue of 2,7 billion euros. Such an economic benefit has been possible due to the extremely efficient management of - mostly privately owned - forests in the country. 

It should be noted that Finnish forests were not converted to other use - like in most of Europe - despite demands during the 19th century. In contrast, Finnish forests fortunately got economic value due to the developing industry which saved them from being destroyed. 

To ensure the raw material for saws and the pulp and paper mills, many actions were made during the 20th century to ensure forest growth. Tree production sustainability was reached in 1970´s, and thereafter forests have grown every year more than they have been used - although also the production of forest industry has increased. 

Furthermore, during recent decades many voluntary actions have been made by forest owners to save the biodiversity, which already has turned the previously highly negative development more positive. And therefore, Finnish forests are today remarkable carbon sinks, important source of raw materials and on their way of reaching ecological sustainability.

Finland rarely looks for its own benefit in the Union. Accordingly, the Finnish Government´s decision of nature restoration followed those tracks until the last week. And that was a huge difference to Sweden - exerting almost as sustainable forestry - which noted that the Union has no justification in forest issues. 

However, the Commission plans were noted by the Finnish forest industry, forest owners and professionals as well as ordinary countryside people, who put a pressure on politicians. And finally, they were heard in the national Parliament, where the big opposition parties - Conservatives and True Finns - challenged Government´s earlier decision to support the EU decree on restoration. 

And as a result, also Parliament members of Social democrats, Center party and Swedish people´s party joined the opposition. Only ultimate left of the government - Left alliance and Green party - kept their original position as supporters of the Commission´s arrogant plans.

It remains to be seen, how Finland´s changed view affects EU policy. It would, however, be a benefit for the whole EU to change it to become fairer. For Finland the current plans would be roughly equal if Germany was demanded to reduce its car industry by 30% or Netherlands was forced to return 30% of its dried sea coasts back to a seabed. 

Actually, the leader of EU Commission´s current environmental policy - Frans Timmermans - should understand that only fair policy towards all member states will build a strong Union capable to respond to challenges posed by other economic great powers USA and China. And therefore, even small members should be respected instead of making efforts to destroy their preconditions of living.  

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Share of EU recovery funds will turn attitudes more negative
A new justification is needed for environmental activists
Finnish parties agreed on actions against the climatic change