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

Agree, it’s irrelevant.

The only reason it’s remotely controversial is because society has been recently conditioned that it’s apparently offensive to point out the realities of sex in front of trans people. If it was normal to point out this reality, it wouldn’t be offensive to anyone, let alone a bereaved relative of someone.

I know. And a person in a building

Madness

He's right.

@NotBadConsidering 100% and too bad how actual women feel about it.

It is not irrelevant to the fact that Sunak completely disregarded and disrespected the prescence of a bereaved women who has been through a horrible ordeal in order to utter a shitty soundbite. Starmer was absolutely right to call him out for it.

Esther Ghey has shown more dignity and courage than Sunak could show in several lifetimes.

Yes it was Starmer who brought a murdered child up.

But it was Starmer who did that.

Not Sunak.

How many times does it need saying. Starmer initially mentioned Brianna and Esther Ghey BEFORE Sunak made his nasty quip.

Link to Hansard:

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

Starmer is not the villian here. He didn't mention Brianna and her mother out of nowhere.

I give up.

Right, then at PMQ the prime minister listed broken promises over several policies that Sunak believes Starmer has made relating to a range of issues one being the definition of women. The issue that Sunak raised accurately reflects what Starmer has said about this.

Is he supposed to not use PMQ in the manner intended because of a person being in the chamber?

I doubt very much that anyone would have reacted to this in any way had Starmer not used Brianna's murder to avoid answering questions.

Vile behaviour by the leader of the opposition.

"The offencerati are collapsing on their fainting couches."

Brendan O'Neill sums it all up.

When can the issue be raised? PMQs is the place for this. I feel it's one of the most important issues of this time and it will influence my vote.

The murder was horrific no excuse.

I have a feeling that Brianna will be mentioned as a gotcha in many future discussions of trans issues, in completely irrelevant contexts. "But look what happened to Brianna!" "Remember Brianna!" etc. Yes, it was obviously a horrendous murder, but that does not mean that Brianna's name should be used to shut down debate.

As an aside, there were two knife murders of teenage boys in the news this week, one in Bristol and one in London. I didn't even know their names - they don't make such big news stories as sadly it's not unsual.

FWIW, I don’t think Sunak said anything wrong. He was making a jibe about Starmer’s endless u-turns and making your political opponent look untrustworthy is PMQs 101. His comment was nothing to do with Ghey.

The bottom line is also that Ghey was not female, regardless of how they presented or thought of themself.

But it was crap timing and this will absolutely be weaponised by Labour and the TRAs. Sunak has handed them that because the nuance of what was actually said will be lost in the screamed accusations of “transphobia”.

Right, then at PMQ the prime minister listed broken promises over several policies that Sunak believes Starmer has made relating to a range of issues one being the definition of women. The issue that Sunak raised accurately reflects what Starmer has said about this.

Is he supposed to not use PMQ in the manner intended because of a person being in the chamber?

The leader of the opposition is in no position to break promises about policies. He’s not in government and unable to implement any policy. He can change his mind every other week if he wishes until the next manifesto is published before a general election.

The point of PMQ is what it says on the tin - for the PM to answer questions from the opposition about his party’s performance. Sunak - and you - clearly misunderstood its purpose and the role of the opposition. I guess Sunak’s practising for the day in the not too distant future when he’s sitting on the opposite side of the chamber.

@SidewaysOtter Im just not sure the TRA’s will take most of the country with them on this one. Agree though it’s a marvellous way to try and shut down debate from their perspective.

Are people suggesting that to respect a grieving mother, we have to pretend that their child had changed sex? or is it more a case of this could be mentioned any other day than the day that the grieving mother was very nearby?

Yes. On PM today E D brought this up.

Afterwards he went on to speak to a guest (male) MP who had spoken to Parliament about his own suicide and recovery.

But then, after talking about suicide, E, apparently wanting more to say about Rishi, then announced that the guest had often spoken about Trans issues.. what did he think of this?

His answer was based on the idea of the needlessness and harmfulness of this debate over such a vulnerable group of people who make up such a tiny proportion of society. That was the final word.

To myself I was so angry and wanted to turn off the radio.. no it is not about a tiny minority of society, it is about 50%of it, (and more if you include both sexes of children), being affected by the appropriations and manipulations of TRAs in regard this tiny minority.

They are saying you can't mention the definition of woman because it would invalidate the girl hood. Because that was keirs first thought. I highly doubt it even offended the parents until he started using this as a shield.

LOL.

Completely avoids the salient point that it is Starmer that has politicised the murder of a child not Sunak, but if it made you feel better! ? : S

As in - you can't ever mention the reality of the situation regarding transwomen (aka, they're male: TW not women)? Or just today?

They may well not but it doesn’t help to hand people a stick with which to beat you. And a lot of people won’t listen to what was actually said, they’ll just see the “Sunak makes transphobic comment” in the Graun - for those of a “Be Kind” persuasion but who might have been thinking that the GC viewpoint has its merits, this just sends them scuttling back to the safety of The Right Side of History.

To myself I was so angry and wanted to turn off the radio.. no it is not about a tiny minority of society, it is about 50% of it, (and more if you include both sexes of children), being affected by the appropriations and manipulations of TRAs in regard this tiny minority.

Yes. And that's 'most' people. Isn't that enough? I fear for the grand-children of my generation. In the most difficult times, how they are being failed.

It was responding to the point you made so you avoided it too. Maybe don’t say something if you object to a perfectly valid response.

To myself I was so angry and wanted to turn off the radio.. no it is not about a tiny minority of society, it is about 50% of it, (and more if you include both sexes of children), being affected by the appropriations and manipulations of TRAs in regard this tiny minority.

Yes exactly