Connect with us

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

International

Pope Francis’ body on display at the Vatican until Friday

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Michael Haynes, Snr. Vatican Correspondent

Visitors are invited to pray before the late pontiff’s coffin inside the basilica through Friday evening ahead of Saturday’s funeral.

Pope Francis’ remains were translated into St. Peter’s Basilica this morning, where they will now be on display for the faithful to pay their respects until Friday evening.

In a ceremony replete with Gregorian Chant throughout the procession, the bodily remains of Pope Francis were brought into the Vatican basilica from the chapel of the Casa Santa Martha guesthouse, where they had been lying in state on Tuesday.

Faithful and others wishing to view the late pope’s remains will now have a chance to do so prior to his funeral on Saturday:

  • Wednesday 23 April: 11:00 a.m. until midnight.
  • Thursday 24 April: 7:00 a.m. until midnight.
  • Friday 25 April: 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.

At 8 p.m. on Friday evening, Cardinal Kevin Farrell, the Papal Camerlengo, will preside over the right of closing of the pope’s coffin in readiness for his funeral the next morning.

Francis died at 7:35 a.m. on Monday morning, and his death was announced to the world a little over two hours later. In accordance with ecclesial law, his death was certified by the camerlengo that day and the papal apartments he used sealed – not to be opened again until the arrival of the new pontiff.

On Tuesday his remains lay in state in the chapel of the Casa Santa Martha guesthouse, which he had made his home for the duration of his 12-year reign rather than the Apostolic Palace and the papal apartments.

His death has triggered an outpouring of statements from world leaders expressing their sympathies, with many now due to be in attendance at Saturday’s funeral. Figures such as Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky, Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, and Prince William are expected at the Vatican this coming weekend.

Pope Francis’ coffin enters the Vatican, April 23, 2025. ©MichaelHaynes
©MichaelHaynes
Pope Francis is transferred into the Basilica at St Peter’s Square on April 23, 2025 in Vatican City, Vatican. ©Getty Images/Mario Tama

In addition, many thousands of pilgrims who had been due to attend the now cancelled canonization of Blessed Carlo Acutis are also expected to attend the funeral.

Pre-conclave General Congregation meetings have already started as of Tuesday morning, with the second taking place on Wednesday afternoon. These events provide an opportunity for cardinals to get to know one another, as well as to formalize practical details regarding the conclave.

Following the funeral, though, such meetings will take on an increasingly serious nature as cardinals look among themselves for a suitable candidate to become pope.

Continue Reading

International

New York Times publishes chilling new justification for assisted suicide

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Even happy, healthy lives without major issues can warrant needless ending if they are ‘complete.’

Notorious secular “ethicist” Peter Singer has co-authored an opinion piece in The New York Times positing a chilling new rationale for assisted suicide: the determination that one’s life is simply “complete.”

Princeton psychologist Daniel Kahneman died in March 2024 at age 90. His cause of death was not disclosed at the time, but a year later, The Wall Street Journal revealed that Kahneman had emailed friends the day before to tell them he was traveling to Switzerland to avail himself of the country’s legal physician-assisted suicide.

“I think Danny wanted, above all, to avoid a long decline, to go out on his terms, to own his own death,” WSJ journalist and longtime friend of the deceased Jason Zweig wrote. “Maybe the principles of good decision-making that he had so long espoused — rely on data, don’t trust most intuitions, view the evidence in the broadest possible perspective — had little to do with his decision.”

On April 14, The New York Times published a guest essay by the infamous Singer, a pro-infanticide Princeton bioethics professor, and philosophy professor Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek, who shared that they too knew of Kahneman’s plans and that days before he had told them, “I feel I’ve lived my life well, but it’s a feeling. I’m just reasonably happy with what I’ve done. I would say if there is an objective point of view, then I’m totally irrelevant to it. If you look at the universe and the complexity of the universe, what I do with my day cannot be relevant.”

“I have believed since I was a teenager that the miseries and indignities of the last years of life are superfluous, and I am acting on that belief,” Kahneman reportedly said. “I am still active, enjoying many things in life (except the daily news) and will die a happy man. But my kidneys are on their last legs, the frequency of mental lapses is increasing, and I am 90 years old. It is time to go.”

Singer and de Lazari-Radek argued that this was an eminently reasonable conclusion. “(I)f, after careful reflection, you decide that your life is complete and remain firmly of that view for some time, you are the best judge of what is good for you,” they wrote. “This is especially clear in the case of people who are at an age at which they cannot hope for improvement in their quality of life.”

“(I)f we are to live well to the end, we need to be able to freely discuss when a life is complete, without shame or taboo,” the authors added. “Such a discussion may help people to know what they really want. We may regret their decisions, but we should respect their choices and allow them to end their lives with dignity.”

Pro-lifers have long warned that the euthanasia movement devalues life and preys on the ill and distraught by making serious medical issues (even non-terminal ones) into grounds to end one’s life. But Singer and de Lazari-Radek’s essay marks a new extreme beyond that point by asserting that even happy, healthy lives without major issues can warrant needless ending.

“Instead of seeing every human life as having inherent value and dignity, Singer sees life as transactional: something you are allowed to keep by being happy, able-bodied, and productive — and something to be taken away if you are not,” Cassy Cooke wrote at Live Action News.

Support is available to talk those struggling with suicidal thoughts out of ending their lives. The Suicide & Crisis Lifeline can be reached by calling or texting 988.

Continue Reading

Trending

X