I'm asking Keir a question about women's rights on 5 live - how to phrase it?

[JanefromLondon1]

I want him not to be able to give me the flannel that we have to be kind to the woMen. I want assurances that we do t have to share our spaces. I want to not sound like the very nervous person that am I!

Any help appreciated?

I'm not sure we will. For one thing many won't notice. For another, it is difficult to understand legalise and a document that is actually misogynistic can pass under most people's radar because they do not realise what it implies. And we can't have the Tories because of the mess they have made of the NHS. But Labour are about to screw women and also wreck the education system. I have no-one to vote for.

I don't believe that was anything more than a slip of the tongue.

I think the wonks have persuaded Labour that gender ideology is something that appeals to young people and the party desperately wants to secure a new generation of "lifelong Labour voters". Living as most of the leaders and staffers do in a bien-pensant Guardian-reading bubble, they rarely see anything that might cause them to doubt that.

(There didn't used to be anything wrong with reading the Guardian, until it went batshit.)

He’s supposed to be an intelligent man, one would assume so given his previous high level position, so capable of critical thinking and scrutinising evidence, but on this he is totally blind to the facts.

What I find deeply depressing (as a solicitor) is how many law firms and Chambers have gone along with all this nonsense. Stonewall's list of darling companies has loads of prominent law firms in it. Plus the fucking regulatory body of solicitors (SRA) too. A huge number of people who should know better have actually got heavily involved. It baffles me!

Yes, there was, but he said it was a slip of the tongue. Later or around that time (don’t remember the dates) he said son and daughter.

Although he is very private about his children, he always seems to have been so, so I don’t think it’s him suddenly hiding them away.

A huge number of people who should know better have actually got heavily involved. It baffles me!
I have never understood how the NHS went along with this. They, of all people, should understand human biology.

Yes they don’t need to care

Unfortunately for women and girls that will be bad as they will get mandate to harm them more

Congratulations
Both Daily mail and Express have it as an article.
But watch his hands folks, there is a video of it.
He clenched his hand in anger at your bringing him to task....

I also wonder about why this issue is the hill he appears ready to die on. Helen Joyce from Sex Matters says often parents with trans dcs will collude in their delusion and anyone who questions it is attacked and cancelled because the parents don’t want to be seen as getting it wrong and harming their dc. She says David Tennant is a prime example of this.

I have a dn who has declared she is trans and my db and dsil indulge her delusion. We don’t see them often now because we feel we are being manipulated into colluding with her fantasy and our dcs are uncomfortable around her and them because of it.
I have my suspicions about why KS takes this stance:

1. he has a trans dc hence the reference to 2ds 2)he truly believes TWAW
2. he is beholden to the far left of his party big time. Which does not bode well when/if he becomes PM

slip of the tongue

Very hard to believe. Easy to believe you get your kids' ages wrong (especially the younger ones...!) but their sex? Really difficult to believe.

That's interesting. And worrying.

Like I always say - check their body language

Hmm who does that. Men not wanting to hear women

Yeah, ages and names (I often run through all names, including the pet, before hitting the right one!), but not sex. And even if you did do that, you'd immediately correct yourself.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13580269/Moment-furious-BBC-caller-tears-Keir-Starmer-flip-flopping-protecting-womens-spaces-tells-half-population-sick-absolute-twaddle-comes-mouth.html

Watch his hand, try to make a fist like he does, that is anger at the word twaddle.

Yep, the non-verbal communication from Starmer during these discussions on women's rights is definitely worth noting. During the radio call in with Jane, he shut his eyes briefly as if in exasperation or irritation. Not a good look for someone who says they respect everyone.

I can't remember what it was about but I do remember he got angry with Sunak in one of their debates. Might have been about immigration? Not sure. But I briefly wondered if Sunak might really get to him at one point.

Everyone gets angry. But politicians have to be able to keep a lid on it at least in public - for their own self preservation at least.

Not a good look for someone who says they respect everyone.

Unless they're women who have the temerity to question him on their rights and safety.

What I love about Jane is that she was able to say what some journalists have likely been thinking (twaddle) but aren't allowed to vocalise. But of course, they're allowed to then report it being said. It's no wonder they've latched onto it with glee!

Starmer is undoubtedly a thoughtless snake only out for himself and doesn’t care who he hurts. He’s a stereotypical lawyer, just needs to win, damn with morals, doesn’t care. it’s his way or the highway.

I went right off him when he was asked on one of the early debates, if someone close up him was seriously ill would he use private healthcare. He cane back with an empathic “no” - so that means if his daughter was suffering, he would continue up let her suffer even if he had the ability to stop it due to his misguided ideology. If he wouldn’t help his daughter when he could, what chance do the rest of us have if he’s running the country????

Any parent who wouldn’t move he’ll and high water to look after their child and would use another child’s murder over and over to further their career is, quite frankly scum.

In the sentence in question, he said something like "I have a son who's fifteen and a son who's thirteen".(I can't find the exact wording as the original thread was deleted.)

When speaking at speed and under pressure, there is often a tendency to repeat patterns - "a son who's" in this case - even when it's inaccurate and not what the speaker intended to say.

I note that he has since talked of his son and his daughter. I personally have no doubt that he meant to say "I have a son who's fifteen and a daughter who's thirteen", but this pattern repeating occurred.

Added to that, the usual way to speak about one's children and their ages (which was the emphasis in this context) would be "I have two sons who are fifteen and thirteen".

I'm no supporter of Starmer especially given his stance on this issue, but I do know a fair bit about language.

He did give an interview to (I think) This Morning recently where he talked about his son and daughter - the boy is 16 and the girl is 13. He is fiercely protective of them. I mean, I don't think there will be a Blairs-type moment on the doorstep next Friday, somehow. Some people have implied that he is sensitive about his wife and children being observant Jews and wishes to keep them out of the spotlight for this reason - I don't know if that's true either. But it is odd for the likely PM to be so fanatically against any coverage of his family at all.

And that’s absolutely fair enough to not want his children in the spotlight. It would be very difficult for them to have normal lives otherwise, and they should be able to grow up without the media spotlight - it’s not them that’s DPP/Leader of the Opposition/PM, it’s their dad.

After all, look what happened with the Blairs- Euan’s going to be followed around by that picture of him vomiting in a gutter for life.

He wasn't private when talking about the Lionesses.

Actually, thinking further about this and rolling out the same argument on a national/global scale. If a new pandemic hit that was this time much worse, was killing children on an unprecedented scale and America developed a drug to stop it. We could afford it as a country, but many third world countries couldn’t. Would Starmer refuse to buy it and save lives in this country until America gave it everyone for free? Because, to me that is the natural extension of what he is saying?

Or would be scap his ideology for strangers kids but not his own? I’m not sure I ever want to be in a position to find out!

Maybe he did have a son and daughter but now has two sons. He’s made himself very clear sex doesn’t matter and is fluid.

I sometimes wonder if many ordinary men have gone ‘there’ in their mind and can’t help but sympathise at some level.

Then, at another, it doesn’t
affect most of them, but they’ll keep loyal to other men doing their thing.