Starmer furious that Sunak should mention his definition of ‘woman’

[HagoftheNorth]

PMQ’s today, Sunak highlighted Starmer’s famous comments that some women have a penis. Starmer was furious that Sunak should make that comment while Mrs Ghey was in the chamber. Surely Starmer should realise that it is possible to be respectful and compassionate about trans people without parroting the insane lie that transwomen are women (because ‘woman’ is sex not gender)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68229785

It might have been a tactical error for Sunak to make the jibe today - not because it was offensive to Esther Ghey, who wasn't even in the chamber at the time, but precisely because he might have realised it would be used against him.

I do agree with this.

So we come down to the nub of it. Sunak wasn't allowed to mention women at all because it offends tra's. Beyond basic decency to mention womens rights as a mother might hear.

It certainly is exposing the belief system of labour.

You can use correct pronouns on here though?

Not talking about a specific case but generally

It was naive of Sunak to make that reference today, and if he was a shrewd politician he wouldn't have done it.

So I'm not going to defend Sunak, but I am going to defend the right to call out a politician who is too scared to state biological fact.

Which "HE" do you mean was insensitive?

Mn appear to have changed the rules just for bg. All other tw you are allowed to correctly sex (not misgender, that's what they are doing).

Literally every tw is referenced as he with no deletions for 2 years. But some moderators don't seem to understand womens rights or mumsnet rules. Most do.

You can use correct pronouns on here though?

Not talking about a specific case but generally

You can only use correct sex pronouns for criminals, generally. It depends how closely a threat is being watched. You have always been able to talk about what biological sex someone is though. I once got a deletion reverted when I challenged over zealous moderation when I used someone's correct sex. It's a fact of life, not a polite nicety.

I’m sure we’ve used he for sports?

I haven’t checked, maybe I should look. Also celebrities what about Dylan M?

Completely agree.

It depends on who says it, who is watching the thread, and who is moderating. Some people get targeted more than others by reporting.

Not just criminals.
Dylan m.
Suzie Izzard.
India w.

All always he on here.

And I've seen references to all three of them be deleted for "misgendering".

I can’t recall the most recent sport with a male

We’ve had a few golf, boxing and more

There's a difference between what MN have explicitly said is probably ok (ie calling rapists he) and what they reserve the right to delete in most cases (ie most "misgendering".)

''@PaperWalkAndTalk

5% (or probably less now) of the British population are on Twitter.''

That's incorrect.

Most recent stats (2023) showed that 18% of the population had a Twitter account.

Anyway I didn't misgender as I didn't use pronouns. I said boy. Male. Fact. There is nothing nasty about biology.

Brendan O'Neill has weighed in

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/02/07/no-rishi-sunak-should-not-apologise-for-his-trans-jibe/

I doubt I'd agree with Brendan over much but I do over this

This country fought for centuries to liberate the Commons from the unaccountable oversight of princes and priests. For the new priestly elites of the 21st century to use the grief of a mother in order to chill debate in that chamber turns back the clock. It is cynical in the extreme. It is their behaviour – not Sunak’s – that deserves the descriptor of ‘grim’.

I have just checked Hansard. At the start of PMQs, Starmer said:

"This week, the unwavering bravery of Brianna Ghey’s mother, Esther, has touched us all. As a father, I cannot even imagine the pain that she is going through. I am glad that she is with us in the Gallery today.

A year ago, the Prime Minister promised to bring down NHS waiting lists. Isn’t he glad that he did not bet a grand on it?"

So Sunak knew Esther Ghey was there before he made his "quip". Although he is apparently now saying he didn't hear Starmer say this.

Link to Hansard:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-02-07/debates/832BA7AA-E049-4C3F-98FD-1B677B32A7F7/Engagements

Brendan O'Neill has nailed it.

@RoyalCorgi also completely agree, it was Starmer who brought Brianna Ghey into it. A very low thing to do.

Moments before Sunak made his quip, Starmer had spoken, welcoming Esther Ghey into Parliament. Sunak either didn't listen or didn't care.

GPTec, I wouldn’t defend the Tory’s record on protecting women’s rights, yet Canada and Australia demonstrate how things could have been here if Labour had been in charge. I think, unfortunately, they provide reasonable case studies for what the UK will become under a Labour government..

But this is irrelevant to womens rights.

Wait...what?

“I think I counted almost 30 in the last year: pensions, planning, peerages, public sector pay, tuition fees, childcare, second referendums, defining a woman – although in fairness that was only 99% of a U-turn. The list goes on but the theme is the same. It’s empty words, broken promises and absolutely no plan.”

That is the comment that set this all off?? Good grief.