Sunak stands behind miriam cates and rosie Duffield and takes aim at starmer

Labour can’t say they haven’t been warned this would happen, they just can’t. They will have a shock, just like the SNP and Scottish Labour stance has, come the real campaigning and next election. And it is probably already getting too late for a total reverse, people remember and don’t trust. I will not vote Tory as the mess has been established under their watch, and as a left leaning previous all my life Labour voter, I could not.

That lovely, kind banner at the Scots protest (the one with SNP MPs grinning inanely under 'decapitate women who want equality' banners) recommended raping Sunak.

Not quite couched however in the extreme, stuff of sick imaginings, sexual violence terms that pours over social media in stinking floods towards females who dare to say anything un-enabling.

Can't think why the difference. It's a puzzler.

Cailin66 · Today 13:01
Anyone know why Rishi doesn't get any attacks from TRA's or Stonewall for his clear statement on this?

Isn’t it because Conservatives are considered to be beyond the pale, far-right, and Fascists to the point they aren’t even worth thinking about?

Anyone know why Rishi doesn't get any attacks from TRA's or Stonewall for his clear statement on this?

Ah but those 'safe spaces' protect against hurty feelz, which we all know trumps physical violence and aggression and threats...

Bloody good point.

It's pretty astounding that the people who think they should have safe spaces away from opposing ideas don't think women should be allowed to have safe spaces away from penises.

'safe spaces' usually means spaces where no-one is going to trigger you by talking about biology or any facts whatsoever. Not a good sign.

I've often found that people who weigh it differently than I would have a much different assessment of what the danger under Labour would look like. Often they think that gender ideology will die out in any case.

They sometimes, but not always, also seem to think the LP will be able to do a lot more with the economy and health funding etc, than I think they could accomplish in their wildest dreams.

I'd like to do an answer to that, too. I suspect it will be along the lines of yes, it's important, but not as important as - something else.

Me too. If Sunak does a fraction of what has being suggested this week re schools and health care it will be fantastic (not enough, but showing that the ship is now sailing the way we want). And Labour would not only not do this but would probably walk back any existing protections and slink their collectively misogynistic way to changing legislation to the detriment of women.

I've heard this sentiment over Diane Abbott's letter.

I dismissed it as a little tin foil hat, but it made me wonder. No party would want to be in power now. We've just had a horrifically expensive lockdown on top of an unhealthy set of books, a border crisis, a war in Europe against Russia, a housing and cost of living crisis that's pushed by geopolitical forces, and there's strikes over pay, and protests demanding objectives that cannot be achieved this side of 2040.

Who would want this?

At the risk of being a pedant, the Tories didn't say "vote to leave Europe, we'll all be better off and the money will go to the NHS". The official Conservative position was to remain in the EU.

I don't think it's pedantic in the slightest to correct that post. David Cameron campaigned to remain. '£350 million a week' might forever be associated with Boris Johnson but it was a 'Vote Leave' slogan and they were a cross party group that included - inconvenient as this might be - a small number of Labour MPs.

Lately I've been reminded of David Cameron trying to keep his Eurosceptics under control when I see Keir Starmer flailing around so as not to upset his gender ideologue wing.

Thank you. I hope it is too.

Out of interest are you a younger generation? And this is a genuine question as I really would like to understand.

Do you think that giving away women and girls rights to safe spaces, fair sport, dignity, their own trauma centres, correct data with which to measure equal quotas and pay - will be better for women or worse for women?

Do you think we can get them back later or that once they are gone that is fine?

genuine question.

At the risk of being a pedant, the Tories didn't say "vote to leave Europe, we'll all be better off and the money will go to the NHS". The official Conservative position was to remain in the EU.

Ndd135632 · Today 13:29
MrsSkylerWhite · Today 09:35

Ndd135632 · Yesterday 23:11
Well he has my vote. He just does. Too important for me.”

Regardless of every other policy?
For now yes. This is urgent. If we let this go then women’s rights and protections and safety go back a century. And it will be extremely difficult to reverse. So yes for now this is what I am going to vote to protect. Once this is secured via clarification of the Equality Act then I will go back to voting on other things.”

Thank you. I disagree with you, probably because of my stage in life but I appreciate your considered response. I hope your goal is achieved.

Although I might disagree with Starmers stance, at least he's telling us honestly what he thinks.

Yeah right. If Starmer found himself single and was in the market for a new girlfriend, do you think he'd have trouble knowing whether prospective dates were female? Or would he be happy for the next Mrs Starmer to be a lady with a penis? He knows perfectly well what a woman is.

Not a family member but was a work colleague. Was so entitled, used the female toilets but told everyone they were still intact. Would try having conversations in the toilet about M&S and lipstick just like us ladies do. Certainly did not pass. Ended up being sacked for theft.

This. Its politics, labour chose those adverts, rishi chose these words. At least the words have been spoken. Keir cant even say the words.

If keir actually did say the words, I'm not certain I'd believe him. But hey let him give it a go.

I think the mIrror is running a Labour leaders question time…maybe putting forward a few might help things along…

I can't think of much more divorced from reality than saying 99.9% of women don't have penises.

Why does someone like Eddie Izzard think he has the right to use the female toilets for example? Why? He doesn't even 'identify' as female.

This is where we are now. Arrogant men feel emboldened to do whatever they like. It has to stop now. Enough is enough.

Or exclusion.

To walk in, in full knowledge that as a male when you walk in, some females will have to walk out. And have nothing so that the male can have preferred choice.

No, that's not the actions of a 'lovely' person. Or someone with any fucks to give about women.

Yes i wonder how many on here have ever had an inter action with a trans women, let alone know one personally.

I've met a couple of lovely black bears - very tame, gave them a stroke - but obviously it would be UTTER LUNACY to extrapolate that to just allow ALL black bears in the toilets with me, even the ones I don't know.

I've met quite a few adult transwomen who give out predatory creep vibes, enjoy intimidating women and who, if I saw them go in the women's I'd go in the mens as the lesser of two evils.

I also have met a number of clearly vulnerable transmen, and non-binary young adults and I have no problem with them but if they're male they go in the mens because that's the most effective way to safeguard women and children.

We don't know who's going to be the next Dolatowski and try and rape a 10 year old girl in the women's toilets and who isn't. We can't possibly tell from looking. And the decent transwomen, like Miranda Yardley, see that obvious safeguarding issue and so don't go in the women's. The only ones who continue to use the women's at this point are the boundary violating ones, the ones that think their validation is more important than women and children's safety.