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

BTW If you’re talking to me about transgender remark I don’t know what you mean, as it not something I said.

Because Labour are utterly untrustworthy on this issue. I used to be a Labour member. I left, because they completely let me down. Women here only approve of certain Tory policies because there is literally no one else who is saying anything palatable on this issue.

No I was quoting from the title of the guardian article you posted, not addressing you personally.

I don't know why saying the truth is such an awful thing.

Women don't have penises. Men who want to be women do. But that doesn't make them women.

Only men can be transwomen.

Seriously, they need to just need to be reeducated and show compassion and respect to women.

(Why the fuck is it the other way around?)

Not both. Only Starmer. Sunak didn't bring it up.

He really does.

It was. I understand the perpetrators had a list of possible targets only one of which happened to be Trans.

Sunak is just rubbish.

But anyone voting for 'some women have a penis' Starmer I just don't get.

Give me a rubbish PM over an idiot who may destroy women's and vulnerable children's rights any day of the week,

In sentencing the judge said that because Eddie Ratcliffe had made dehumanising remarks about Brianna being transgender that she had found that it was a secondary motive for the murder.

I personally think from following the case that they needed some sort of a motive for Eddie Ratcliffe to make sense of it, but there is some naivety about the issue that many children don't necessarily buy into this ideology (and so ER wasn't particularly unusual as a teenager in drawing attention to Brianna as a transgender person), and glossing over how much these specific children were capable of dehumanising anyone that was "other" to them.

It's quite stark how the trans issue didn't come into it much until sentencing.

Exactly right. Starmer's faux outrage was almost comical. How anyone could link Starmer's belief in female penises to the pain of Brianna's mother is a bit of a mystery but mysterious thinking is commonplace in the Laboour ranks.

@Babla I provided clarification. If you found it offensive, you should make yourself clearer rather than just petulantly saying "what does that mean?" or no "that's rubbish". I am not alone in my views and not alone in my view that Sir Starmer was more hammy than a pantomime dame.
I do not think language and discussion should be policed. I suggest you find someone else to attack as I will continue to have my own opinion and to fight for women's rights.

It doesn't matter whether or not Esther Ghey was present because Sunak did nothing wrong. Mocking Starmer's U-turns on several issues including the definition of "woman" is political rough-and-tumble. Starmer's invocation of the suffering of a bereaved mother as a distraction technique is beneath contempt.
99% of us don't believe women can have penises. Because they can't. TRAs, the Gheys, Starmer and Labour are going to have to deal with that fact and get used to hearing it.

What Sunak said mocked Starmer and his expressed views on women's rights in the context of the trans debate. It was fair comment.

I hope Sunak has the balls to ride this out. I also hope a journalist has the courage to ask BG's father to spell exactly what he wants Sunak to apologise for. I think we need to hear that he wants the PM to apologise for implying that women cannot have a penis.

We need a lot more spelling out than is currently being done.

That poster has a posting history of exactly 3 posts. It’s not reflective of attitudes here.

But what made Brianna a target was her extreme vulnerability. Which is why all of this on here, and in parliament today is just so awful to watch. The utter lack of empathy for a child and their devastated family.

Flickersy · Yesterday 23:03

Insensitive point-scoring when a bereaved mother happens to be in the vicinity is.

I agree, Starmer was indeed crass to introduce a non sequitur of that nature.

Sunak's an overgrown schoolboy, making quips, instead of answering, but it's entirely on Starmer for referencing Esther Ghey out of nowhere. Sunak didn't mention her, or the murder, Starmer twisted it to his own agenda of putting transw ahead of women and girls.

And PMQs has always been a pit, I can remember Thatcher taking the piss and being spiteful to Foot and Kinnock. I was only televised very rarely then, but it was reported on with glee.

One of Brianna's killers said she had also questioned her gender id. Does she also deserve an apology from Sunak, in Starmer's view? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/08/brianna-ghey-trial-accused-denies-anti-transgender-views 

Every political party that doesn’t repeal the GRA has the exact same policy. And that is indeed exactly that women can have penises. Men can have vaginas. You literally, legally can change sex in the UK with a GRC. Not new, legally true for over 20 years. Majority of which we have had Tories in charge. Have they reversed this law? No. In fact they have given us £5 GRC applications as their contribution to the area.

This is a non argument to me. Theres no real policy difference between the Tories and Labour here. If Sunak actually genuinely disagreed with GRA then he could do something about it. He’s trying to play it both ways. Starmer is a lawyer and knows what the law says but he doesn’t want to change it either. None of them do.

Very sad for the mother of a murdered child, absolutely unbearable situation to be in. But that said if you’re in Parliament then business of the day will be discussed whether you are there or not. I hope the family’s campaigning on online safety is listened to by the government.

A) The murder case is awful and terrifying. How can children do this to one another?

B) At the same time, I don’t agree with child transition, I think it’s medical malpractice and there is a strong element of social contagion. To celebrate it as some sort of personal triumph feels crass to me.

A does not mean that I can never speak of B. I also think Starmer is being disingenuous.

We cannot use violent crimes to justify political actions that we would not support otherwise. (This may be a controversial view but I think that’s what happened after George Floyd was killed - some took advantage of the aftermath in ways that we now see critically.) This doesn’t bring the victims back to life and it’s not the reasoned debate that should be the basis for good political decisions.

@Slothtoes
To repeal the GRA will take a generation, if it can ever be done. Up until five years ago, there was no momentum for it.

The Tories better get on to repealing the GRA then. I would support that. What a shame they wasted 14 years and only woke up to it (“woke”, they’d love that) now. But they won’t do it because they don’t care about women. 14 years prove it.

He didn't think of it?! You know he's the Prime Minister right? You would hope that a certain amount of competence and dignity would go with the role rather than spending his whole time in the HOC jeering at his opposite number rather than answer a single question.

@Holeinamole agree with both your posts