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

Sunak is trending on twitter. Look at the comments to get an idea of public opinion.

Sam Coates (sky) says the mood around the PM is "grim"; also some suggestion he was considering apologising and Badenochs statement was designed to stop that and box him in.

I really wouldn't have thought that the Tories could do much else to shock me but this really has.

While I agree with that in theory, the optics were terrible. It is so frustrating that Sunak scored an own goal on a GC issue, and the outrage was 💯 predictable.

WTF were the people prepping him for PMQs thinking? They knew the Ghey family were in Parliament, and it’s only luck that they weren’t actually in the public gallery at the time.

Sunak has just made life for all reasonable GC politicians of all parties much harder. What a dimwit.

I think it’s a shame that people have been manipulated to believe that some topics/ women’s right should be off limits in the HoC. The only person who politicised a child’s murder and even raised it was Starmer.

Not one person on this thread thinks you can’t talk about women’s rights. I want more talk of women’s rights in the HoCs. What decent people are saying is, it is extremely insensitive to talk about women’s rights, in relation to the trans debate, when you’ve just been told a bereaved mother of a “trans child” is sat there.

Well that’s not what actually happened . The word trans wasn’t mentioned . Sunak was talking about starmers inconsistency on women’s rights (amongst other things) then Starmer made it about a child’s murder.

Sunak behaved like a bellend. He scored sone points with the big boys but he’s lost many others.

That isn’t true. Starmer asked to meet her, to discuss support for mental health support in schools. Hence he announced she was in Parliament just before Sunak made his awful comment.

Disgusting point scoring sneer, thank God Sunak will be nothing but a nasty stain on our memories soon

What awful comment ?

True but anybody with an ounce of sense would have predicted Starmer’s response.

This I don’t disagree with but accusing Sunak of making ‘awful comments’ and politicising a child’s murder when it was Starmer who did that is factually incorrect.

You’re being disingenuous or ignorant if you don’t think Starmer’s definition of a woman had nothing to do with the trans issue. I very much disagree with Starmer on this issue, precisely because he allows trans women to be included in his definition of what a woman is.

I can't stand Sunak and have never voted conservative, nor will I be likely to. But fuck me, Starmer is absolutely spineless. That ridiculous OTT gurning in faux-shock at Sunak's comment. When has Keir ever pretended to give even half as much of a shit about women? You know, the actual ones, who are murdered in their hundreds every year. Is this it now? If Labour win the next election, are they going to wheel Esther Ghey round with them all the time so if anyone tries to object to anything gender-related they can gasp and gurn and go 'in the presence of ESTHER GHEY?'

Starmer is lower than a snake's belly because you know there is no way on EARTH he believes TWAW. Hearing the potential future PM say that '99.9 of women don't have penises' nearly made me lose my mind. I cannot believe we are at a stage where someone saying that can run for public office rather than being laughed out of the room.

There were some TRAs who were desperate for someone trans-identified to be murdered so they'd finally be able to hold up a shred of evidence for their 'we are the most oppressed people ever' narrative, and now they've got it, they're going to exploit the case for all they can.

Sunak talked about Starmer changing his position on what the definition of a woman was. Brianna was not directly implicated because Brianna was a child and therefore ineligible to be considered a woman for that reason alone (plus also being male which to a vast number of the population means you aren't a woman). We can't expect him, or anyone else, to be strong armed into pretending people can change sex because of an abhorrent murder but I think some people think that Sunak was insensitive to mention Starmer's definitional flip flopping when Brianna's mother was in the building despite the damage he does to women with his bigotry. They have a good point. As do people calling out Starmer on his choosing to make a link with what Sunak said and Brianna's murder in order to point score.

The problem perhaps is that there is no forum in which women's rights are properly discussed. Lets create that so these silly entitled men (Sunak and Starmer) can get back into their boxes.

I know its already been posted here, but heres the comment for people who obviously havent read it.

Prime Minister
We are bringing down waiting lists for the longest waiters and making progress. It is a bit rich to hear about promises from someone who has broken every single promise he was elected on. I have 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: empty words, broken promises and absolutely no plan.

Keir Starmer
Of all the weeks to say that, when Brianna’s mother is in this Chamber—shame! Parading as a man of integrity when he has got absolutely no responsibility, it is absolute—[Interruption.]

It was Starmer who decide to used a childs death to deflect from Sunaks comments. It was Starmer who caused unnecessary upset.

It’s actually a good line at any other time.

Sunak’s political instincts are just terrible.

Sure are. From The Economist.

As I say, the most generous interpretation you could give to Sunak is that he is a useless politician, overpromoted well beyond his grade, lacking the most basic of surefootedness, boasting all the social skills of a Saturday worker at CeX and destined to crash and burn at an epic level the first time he makes contact with the actual general public in an election campaign.

Because the alternative – that our prime minister isn’t just incompetent, but an inhuman, hateful, unprincipled man willing to delve into the basest depths of the culture wars, mocking trans people as a grieving mother sits metres from him, is too horrific to contemplate.

What’s happening here? Women on this thread who can barely bring themselves to acknowledge another woman was there. Describing as “person in the vicinity” or some such.

I used "in the vicinity of a bereaved mother", which I believe is what you're referring to.

The reason I chose that phrase was because I didn't want to kick off yet another argument about Ms Ghey's exact position in the Houses of Parliament at the time of the statements in PMQs.

Your interpretation of my meaning is rather odd, to say the least.

@Flickersy I’m late to the thread and only read a page or so back. Yours wouldn’t have been the only comment that struck me as odd in this context.

Starmer looked like a Hollyoaks actor with his fake "shocked and stunned" face. He needed some pearls to clutch.
He saw an opportunity to avoid the question by taking full advantage of the bereaved mother, who wasn't in the viewers gallery, I bet he was gutted when he realised. He was an opportunist and he should be ashamed of trying to stop us discussing this vital issue incase someone is offended. Maybe he would be more productive being annoyed at the young person mental health services as those children obviously needed serious mental health help. Stramer never has this kind of outrage for the women killed every single fucking WEEK. This has nothing to do with what is a woman, trans issues or the incredibly rare incident of a trans identifying person from an historically very safe group of people (especially in this country) and its all distasteful point scoring by Starmer. He also needs to remember that those teens were going to murder someone that night, would he have been as outraged if it had only been a girl or woman?
And btw, I think Sunak is an out of touch fool on about every issue but at least he had the balls to say he knows what is and isn't a woman.
I am politically homeless as Labour, Lib Dem, Greens have all ruled themselves idiotic by their views that everyone is a woman, no questions asked. But I cant vote Tory.

You conveniently missed out a chunk of what was said:

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer
(Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in sending His Majesty the King our very best wishes for his treatment. Across the House, we all look forward to seeing him back to full health as quickly as possible.

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?

The Prime Minister
At least I stand by my commitments. He is so indecisive that the only bet he would make is an each-way bet.

Keir Starmer
He says he stands by his commitments. He once insisted that if he missed his promises,

“I’m the Prime Minister…it’s on me personally”.

Today we learn from his own officials that he is the blocker to any deal to end the doctors’ strikes. Every time he is asked, he blames everyone else. What exactly did he mean when he said “it’s on me personally” if he does not meet his promise?

The Prime Minister
We are bringing down waiting lists for the longest waiters and making progress. It is a bit rich to hear about promises from someone who has broken every single promise he was elected on. I have 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.

So it’s Sunak blocking the doctors dispute settlement. Fucking weasel.

Honestly what a load of absolute twaddle.
Sunak bringing up "what a woman is" and Starmer being "99% right" was a clear trans reference. As you know having spent all day arguing about it.

His benches knew what he meant, hence the guffawing.

It is a catastrophic misjudgement at best to not realise that's highly offensive when he knows the mother of a trans murder victim is present. Why you are continuing to compound it with political point scoring and nonsense I have no idea.

Starmer was respectful and compassionate towards Brianna's mother, Sunak decided to make a totally inappropriate and tasteless comment

I have now decided to vote Labour and stick a poster of Keir Starmer on my wall because all couple of posters here keep banging on about how this was the worst thing ever imaginable that a politician could do.

Or rather I don't care as I hold all politicians in utter contempt and the faux outrage by a few individuals and snippets like "the general public think this way" does't mean that I should change my mind.