Tony Blair: “A woman has a vagina and a man has a penis.”

[Alben Barkley]

Article Link

He says this is an issue of common sense and also set out three points for how he thinks Labour should address the issue:

1. Protect single-sex spaces for women.

2. Don't refer to women in dehumanizing language (“pregnant people,” “people with cervixes,” etc.)

3. Carefully consider  any irreversible treatments such as puberty blockers.

All while still acknowledging some people genuinely do feel like they’re in the wrong body, even as it remains a biological fact that there are two sexes, male and female, with distinct physical traits.

Needless to say, I completely agree. And let me soapbox a little in an attempt to explain why I do and why after years of trans rights activism, I actually am if anything LESS understanding of the explanations for transgenderism and MORE skeptical of the entire concept than I was years ago, and don’t seem to be alone in that based on polls suggesting the messaging has backfired badly in recent years:

You can only even be “in the wrong body” if you acknowledge there are two sexes and your body isn’t aligned with the sex you feel you should be. It made at least a bit more sense when that was the explanation, but now that biological sex apparently isn’t real anymore, it’s become incoherent, illogical, inconsistent, meaningless, and beyond confusing. If a woman can have a beard and a penis and dress however she wants, then why would any man need to change anything to “be” a woman? He wouldn’t. So then what’s the point of surgeries and hormones and crossdressing? What are you trying to become if a woman doesn’t need a vagina/breasts/a dress? It makes no sense.

There is no way to logically reconcile the ideas “Anyone of any gender can be anything and look any way, biological sex is not real and gender is fluid and arbitrary and people are merely ‘assigned’ to one of two crude categories at birth” and “There are two standard sexes/genders and some people feel/identify as the opposite of the one they were born as so they need to change their bodies and appearance to conform more to that.” They are fundamentally opposing and incompatible ideas, yet the TRAs insist on both at the same time, cherrypicking from both to argue whichever is more convenient for them in the moment, in some sort of bizarre doublethink.

Again, made more sense before. The point back then (by which I mean like 10 years ago) was to pass and conform to “cis” (though that word wasn’t used) as closely as possible. The last thing most trans people wanted was to “identify” as trans or have a loud and proud movement. They wanted to blend in and be invisible, readily accepted as the opposite sex, and were willing to go all the way including a full “sex change” to do so. That I could empathize with (reasoning anyone willing to take such drastic measures must be truly committed) and there was a certain logic to “born with a female brain in a male body” or whatever; even if I didn’t quite buy it, I could accept it if it made people feel more comfortable. This “I changed my pronouns in my Twitter bio to she/they so now I can use any bathroom I want” thing is another story however.

[K.W.R.A.E. 8647]

Certainly a shame that Labour continues to bow to TERFs and validate this nonsensical fearmongering.

Blair should spend 24/7 apologizing for sending people to die in Iraq, not spewing this bullsh**t.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

I actually have it on pretty good authority that Tony Blair doesn't have a penis but he is still a dick.

[7,052,770]

May I suggest also posting interesting and positive content on other matters?

[C r a b c a k e]

"a saddam hussein has a wmd"

[Don't Tread on Me]

Thanks for the tip

[Transgender for Everybody]

I ain't reading all that. Happy for you though.

As much as I'd like to blend in and be an otherwise cisgender woman¹, I'm also 6'0" and have plenty of dead giveaways². Passing as cis isn't exactly an option for me, so it's better to do away with the stigma of being trans³ than to do CAFAB kayfabe to try and uphold cisgenderism. Maybe that makes me a mentally ill freak who deserves death⁴, but Tiny B. Liar is also a war criminal, so that makes us even.

¹I am a lesbian, though, so I'd probably still be "loud and proud" in that sense.
²A deep voice, large hands and feet, androgynous presentation, a reluctance to hide a part of who I am, etc.
³Especially those who are unable (or even unwilling) to fully transition medically, either due to health reasons or financial reasons (as someone who is unable to afford surgery due to financial reasons).
⁴For values of "maybe" that approach "absolutely".

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Article Link

You can only even be “in the wrong body” if you acknowledge there are two sexes and your body isn’t aligned with the sex you feel you should be. It made at least a bit more sense when that was the explanation, but now that biological sex apparently isn’t real anymore, it’s become incoherent, illogical, inconsistent, meaningless, and beyond confusing. If a woman can have a beard and a penis and dress however she wants, then why would any man need to change anything to “be” a woman? He wouldn’t. So then what’s the point of surgeries and hormones and crossdressing? What are you trying to become if a woman doesn’t need a vagina/breasts/a dress? It makes no sense.

There is no way to logically reconcile the ideas “Anyone of any gender can be anything and look any way, biological sex is not real and gender is fluid and arbitrary and people are merely ‘assigned’ to one of two crude categories at birth” and “There are two standard sexes/genders and some people feel/identify as the opposite of the one they were born as so they need to change their bodies and appearance to conform more to that.” They are fundamentally opposing and incompatible ideas, yet the TRAs insist on both at the same time, cherrypicking from both to argue whichever is more convenient for them in the moment, in some sort of bizarre doublethink.

Again, made more sense before. The point back then (by which I mean like 10 years ago) was to pass and conform to “cis” (though that word wasn’t used) as closely as possible. The last thing most trans people wanted was to “identify” as trans or have a loud and proud movement. They wanted to blend in and be invisible, readily accepted as the opposite sex, and were willing to go all the way including a full “sex change” to do so. That I could empathize with (reasoning anyone willing to take such drastic measures must be truly committed) and there was a certain logic to “born with a female brain in a male body” or whatever; even if I didn’t quite buy it, I could accept it if it made people feel more comfortable. This “I changed my pronouns in my Twitter bio to she/they so now I can use any bathroom I want” thing is another story however.

One would expect someone so obsessed with trans issues to have at least a passing familiarity with what pro-trans people actually believe. Just goes to show that expectations are deceiving.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Also the idea that "Single-sex spaces" need to be preserved necessarily requires believing that the minds of men and women are different, which doesn't fit with the "born in the wrong body is inherently ridiculous"("born in the wrong body" is more for ignorant cis people than trans people btw) thing or the trying to define gender based on surface physical traits stuff/

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Why do people care what Tony Blair says? No one cares what George W. Bush says now.

[TheTide]

Why do people care what Tony Blair says? No one cares what George W. Bush says now.

There are many Blairites in the media.

[ponderosa peen 🌲]

Very curious what Liz Truss thinks about this. Does anyone have her email address or phone number so I can ask her myself?

[VBM]

May I suggest also posting interesting and positive content on other matters?

Alben can post whatever threads he wants. If you don’t like the topic, then don’t click on it. No one’s forcing you to read the thread

[Cowboys for Christ]

Brb changing my kid's name from "Tonibler" to "Gordinbron"

[7,052,770]

May I suggest also posting interesting and positive content on other matters?

Alben can post whatever threads he wants. If you don’t like the topic, then don’t click on it. No one’s forcing you to read the thread

Whoosh?

[Annihilation]

war criminal says what?

[CheapDollarEra?]

I agree with the 3
2: Too TERFy
1: I think everybody should have their biological sex in their medical archives, but out of that...

I get that a lot of trans people suffered in their infancy and teen years, but that doesn't mean they should make public policy proposals based on that. The focus should be on combatting bullying.
In general, I think the state should put some limitson how parenrs handle their children in general. Some children have already died thanks to the anti-vax movement.

[Horus]

Blair should spend 24/7 apologizing for sending people to die in Iraq

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

cool story bro

[25 Abril/Aprile Sempre!]

Brb changing my kid's name from "Tonibler" to "Gordinbron"

To be fair I can't imagine Kosovo is a hotbed of trans rights activism...

[Health Over Wealth]

He does have a point, but I'm with the "stfu you irrelevant war criminal" gang here.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Forgot to mention the hilarity of "irreversible treatments such as puberty blockers". Does stopping a game of chess to have lunch irreversibly end it? Does taking a short break irreversibly end the workday? Does brushing your teeth once irreversibly prevent tooth decay? Does not brushing once irreversibly cause it?

Because puberty blockers prevention of puberty is the same level of "irreversible" as all of these.

I get that a lot of trans people suffered in their infancy and teen years, but that doesn't mean they should make public policy proposals based on that. The focus should be on combatting bullying.

The alternatives to puberty blockers, however, are the use of cross sex hormones immediately as natal puberty starts or forcing the kid through puberty. Both of these options have many genuinely irreversible effects. That's the whole reason puberty blockers are used in the first place. Medical providers who are uncomfortable giving a 12 year old cross sex hormones because of the permanent effects but understand that doing nothing will hurt a trans child significantly, use it as a third option when they're pretty confident a child is trans. Many medical systems require jumping through a ridiculous series of hoops for adults(who can get plastic surgery without as much as a doctors note if they have the money) to get non-surgical gender affirming care, which has both massive potential benefits to the patients and a diminutive regret rate, especially for a process with such dramatic changes.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I don't think Blair, at this point in his legacy, is someone you want on your side for anything.

[Clintonopia]

Article Link

He says this is an issue of common sense and also set out three points for how he thinks Labour should address the issue:

1. Protect single-sex spaces for women.

2. Don't refer to women in dehumanizing language (“pregnant people,” “people with cervixes,” etc.)

3. Carefully consider  any irreversible treatments such as puberty blockers.

All while still acknowledging some people genuinely do feel like they’re in the wrong body, even as it remains a biological fact that there are two sexes, male and female, with distinct physical traits.

Needless to say, I completely agree. And let me soapbox a little in an attempt to explain why I do and why after years of trans rights activism, I actually am if anything LESS understanding of the explanations for transgenderism and MORE skeptical of the entire concept than I was years ago, and don’t seem to be alone in that based on polls suggesting the messaging has backfired badly in recent years:

You can only even be “in the wrong body” if you acknowledge there are two sexes and your body isn’t aligned with the sex you feel you should be. It made at least a bit more sense when that was the explanation, but now that biological sex apparently isn’t real anymore, it’s become incoherent, illogical, inconsistent, meaningless, and beyond confusing. If a woman can have a beard and a penis and dress however she wants, then why would any man need to change anything to “be” a woman? He wouldn’t. So then what’s the point of surgeries and hormones and crossdressing? What are you trying to become if a woman doesn’t need a vagina/breasts/a dress? It makes no sense.

There is no way to logically reconcile the ideas “Anyone of any gender can be anything and look any way, biological sex is not real and gender is fluid and arbitrary and people are merely ‘assigned’ to one of two crude categories at birth” and “There are two standard sexes/genders and some people feel/identify as the opposite of the one they were born as so they need to change their bodies and appearance to conform more to that.” They are fundamentally opposing and incompatible ideas, yet the TRAs insist on both at the same time, cherrypicking from both to argue whichever is more convenient for them in the moment, in some sort of bizarre doublethink.

Again, made more sense before. The point back then (by which I mean like 10 years ago) was to pass and conform to “cis” (though that word wasn’t used) as closely as possible. The last thing most trans people wanted was to “identify” as trans or have a loud and proud movement. They wanted to blend in and be invisible, readily accepted as the opposite sex, and were willing to go all the way including a full “sex change” to do so. That I could empathize with (reasoning anyone willing to take such drastic measures must be truly committed) and there was a certain logic to “born with a female brain in a male body” or whatever; even if I didn’t quite buy it, I could accept it if it made people feel more comfortable. This “I changed my pronouns in my Twitter bio to she/they so now I can use any bathroom I want” thing is another story however.

2, and 3 are good.

But his statement is...A biological woman has a vagina, yes. But then what about intersex people? Trans women are women; they have vaginas even if they're not the same as biological vaginas. I think his language is exclusionary.

That said I do hate the demeaning language used for biological women, too.

[Kleine Scheiße]

What are you trying to become if a woman doesn’t need a vagina/breasts/a dress?

Happy, asshole. Whatever box somebody wants to put me in, I don't give a sh**t; the point is being healthier and more well-off for its own sake and it's very clear you are deliberately refusing to understand this. This is about the only time you'll ever see me trot out that old, tired anecdote about the teacher asking the student "what do you want to be when you grow up" and the student replying "happy"—what you are saying is the equivalent of "but 'happy' isn't a job," and I think you're intelligent enough to not need this explained to you. Why you are so fixated with this issue is beyond me.