Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

International

Even the UK’s radical Labour Party leader admits the reality of biological sex

Published

7 minute read

Sir Keir Starmer speaking to the Labour Party Conference in 2021

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

The backlash to gender ideology in the U.K. has been so effective that even leader Keir Starmer has now conceded that biology is, in fact, a real thing.

If the polls are right – and I suspect they are – the U.K. Tory party is set for a historic shellacking that could reduce them to a mere handful of seats. After a shambolic, rollicking ride through twelve years and five utterly forgettable prime ministers, the British public appears to be out for blood. Nigel Farage’s new Reform U.K. party is surging, and the Labour Party’s Keir Starmer seems poised for a landslide victory. 

It may seem like a small thing, but it is worth noting that despite the radical progressivism of the Labour Party, the backlash to gender ideology in the U.K. has been so effective that even Starmer has now conceded that biology is, in fact, a real thing. This recent headline from The Independent highlights both how insane our culture has become and the silver (sliver?) lining of sanity that may be returning to the debate: 

Blair right that a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis, Starmer says 

The subtitle is equally magnificent: “The Labour leader has hardened his position on biological sex.” I do wonder how the editors and headline writers got through all that without dissolving helplessly into giggles, or if any veteran journalist stared bug-eyed at the sorts of things once-venerable publications are reduced to covering. But either way, it is unfortunately significant that the man who is likely going to be the U.K.’s next prime minister does, in fact, acknowledge that women have vaginas and men have penises. 

Previously, the Independent noted with solemnity, “Sir Keir” has “previously said that ’99.9% of women’ do not have a penis.” Since then, he has come to the epiphany that no women do, an affirmation that has deeply offended a clutch of delusional men in dresses who are quite certain that they are women, penises notwithstanding. Of course, neither the former Labour PM nor the next one oppose sex change surgeries – they’ve just been forced to admit the obvious. 

Former prime minister Tony Blair made his comments in recent interview with Holyrood magazine, noting: I don’t know how politics got itself into this muddle. What is a woman? Well, it’s not a very hard thing for me to answer really. I’m definitely of the school that says, biologically, a woman is with a vagina and a man is with a penis. We can say that quite clearly.”  

Blair went on: “The point is this: if people want to reassign their gender and say, ‘OK I may be born biologically a male but I want to reassign as female’, that’s absolutely fine and people should be entitled to do that. And there is no doubt at all there are people who genuinely feel that they are in the wrong body. I know this, I’ve dealt with it over the years. I was actually, I think, the first MP [who] ever had a full set of meetings with transgender people. So, I completely get it.” 

Obviously, Blair is being somewhat disingenuous here. As an extraordinarily talented and very slippery politician, he knows quite well “how politics got into this muddle”: because the LGBT movement effectively captured the entire left-wing of the political spectrum as well as much of the right and demanded that their premises be implemented in law and that society be restructured to suit them.  

But that aside, Starmer was clearly relieved to have Sir Tony weigh in. “Yes, Tony is right about that, he put it very well,” he told reporters. “I saw it reported, I’m not quite sure when he said it, but I agree with him on that.” Previously, Starmer had stated that Labour MP Rosie Duffield – a woman – was “not right” for saying that “only women have a cervix,” but apparently when Tony Blair says it, “he put it very well.”  

Of course, it was Tony Blair’s government that passed the Gender Recognition Act back in 2004, legally granting trans-identifying people the right to change their “legal gender.” Blair embraced the premises; he rejects the conclusion. So, for the moment, does Starmer. It may not seem like much, but in the U.K. in 2024, it’s not nothing.  

Featured Image

He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

Google Doesn’t Want You To Know The Truth About Heat Waves And ‘Climate Change’

Published on

From Heartland Daily News

By Issues & Insights Editorial Board

Last week, we published an editorial arguing that government data didn’t support various claims about climate change. And we predicted Google would demonetize it. We were right. (See: Heat Wave Sets Off New Round Of ‘Climate Crisis’ Lies.)

Shortly after that article was published, Google’s AdSense informed us that it had “disabled ad serving” on that page because the article contained “unreliable and harmful claims.” (We have one spot on our pages for AdSense ads, mostly to track Google’s efforts to demonetize content. See the list of related editorials below.)

So what was “unreliable” or “harmful” about that editorial? Google doesn’t say. It just says we have to “fix” it if we want their ads to run on that page.

What we can say is that Google has effectively labeled official government data as “unreliable and harmful,” since all the evidence we provided was from official sources.

The editorial pointed out that claims about more frequent heat waves, tornadoes, hurricanes, and wildfires – claims that get repeated ad nauseam by the mainstream press and by climate activists – are not supported by the official data.

We included charts and cited the sources of the data – sources such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Interagency Fire Center, the government-run GlobalChange.gov, etc.

Here’s how Google defines “unreliable and harmful.”

It’s the last line that Google uses to censor any content that doesn’t toe the climate “crisis” line.

Anything that “contradicts authoritative scientific consensus” just means whatever the climate change fanatics say it means, since there is in truth no “consensus” about many of the claims made about global warming.

In truth, the very notion of an “authoritative scientific consensus” violates the basic principle of science.

“Doubt in science is a feature, not a bug,” notes an article in Scientific American. “Indeed, the paradox is that science, when properly functioning, questions accepted facts and yields both new knowledge and new questions — not certainty,”

Imagine if Google had been around when Einstein contradicted the “authoritative scientific consensus” about Newtonian physics.

Or when Copernicus contradicted the “authoritative scientific consensus” that the Sun revolved around Earth.

Or when, in 1543, Andreas Vesalius challenged the “authoritative scientific consensus” about human anatomy that had been in place for 1,300 years.

What Google is doing here (supposedly on behalf of advertisers who use its ad network) isn’t protecting the public against false information – it is attacking true information that undermines climate change dogma.

It is, in other words, just a thinly veiled attempt to enforce a pseudo-religious orthodoxy. Google is nothing more than a 21st-century version of the Spanish Inquisition.

The Issues and Insights Editorial Board has decades of experience in journalism, commentary and public policy.

Originally published by Issues & Insights. Republished with permission.

Continue Reading

Economy

Can Hawaii afford climate change lawsuit settlement?

Published on

From The Center Square

By

Hawaii recently entered into a settlement in a first-of-its-kind lawsuit that requires the state to implement climate change initiatives by court order, setting forth a potential template for lawsuits in other states.

Thirteen young people, at least one as young as nine, filed the lawsuit against the Hawaii Department of Transportation in June 2022. They said the state DOT needed to do more to protect the state and their future from climate change.

The state spent $3 million settling the lawsuit, money the attorney general’s office said was “well-spent” to avoid a trial that would have started June 24.

The settlement provides a road map of tasks the DOT must do per the court order. These include creating a greenhouse gas reduction plan for the Hawaii Department of Transportation that could cost the state more. Only one price tag is included in the plan—$40 million for public electric charging stations and charging infrastructure for all state and county vehicles by 2030.

The agreement includes a dispute-resolution component that could keep differences out of court. But, the First Circuit of Hawaii will oversee the settlement until 2045 if Hawaii has not met its zero-emission goals.

The Hawaii Department of Transportation must receive “sufficient appropriations” from the Hawaii Legislature, but the settlement does not include a specific amount for the other requirements.

Gov. Josh Green admitted it would not be inexpensive or easy. He said the court order would help him when he had to go to the Legislature and say, “Look, we have to do this.”

“We have these policies in mind but we don’t have the resources that come from the Legislature,” Green said. “We don’t often have the absolute insistence of the courts to do certain things so having a settlement like this creates some guarantees.”

For two years, the governor has pushed for a $25 tourist fee that has not passed the Legislature.

“We have 10 million individuals that come to Hawaii every year,” Green said. “Can you imagine only for a moment if we successfully were humbly asking people to pay $25 when they came to the state? That would be $250 million every single year to pay for the bikeways, extra to bring very advanced analytics to what our carbon impact is from any of the technologies we use, money to get bond to navigate major protections against erosion of the coastline.”

Thomas Yamachika, president of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii, told The Center Square, “There’s going to be some pain,” when finding money to implement the settlement’s initiatives. The Legislature passed tax breaks this year to increase the standard income tax deduction in odd years and lower tax rates for all brackets in even years. It’s possible those tax cuts could be “walked back,” Yamachika said.

Truth in Accounting, which does an annual financial analysis of the 50 states, told The Center Square that Hawaii is already $11 billion in debt.

“The state doesn’t have money sitting around that can be used for settlements like this,” said Sheila A. Weinberg, founder and CEO of Truth in Accounting. “To pay for this settlement, taxes will have to be raised or services and benefits will have to be cut. The other option is to even underfund the pension and retiree health care benefits even more.”

Hawaii is the first to settle a climate change lawsuit, but it may not be the last. The case may set a precedent in other states where young people have filed lawsuits over climate concerns, according to an op-ed written by Cara Horowitz, executive director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the institute’s communications director, Evan George.

“Many defendants facing climate lawsuits — notably including Hawaii officials in the earlier stages of this case — often protest that climate change policy should be made by legislatures, not judges,” Horowitz and George said in the op-ed  published in the Los Angeles Times. “This landmark settlement demonstrates that the courts can hold decision-makers accountable if they fail to live up to their promises.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X