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

I really hate that the Tories have glommed onto this issue as a vote chaser, it's so cynical. They're the ones who suggested self ID in the first place! I don't think for a second they really care that much about the issue, with a few exceptions like Badenoch and Cates.

Quite a few people I know have leapt from a vaguely trans-sceptical position five years ago to all in on pro-trans purely because they don't think critically and just go along with whatever they see as "anti-Tory". Seeing the issue split between the two parties similar to the US is increasingly unhelpful.

Another thought on the cries of "transphobia" - I have only seen Esther Ghey (who strikes me as the most amazingly dignified woman in the face of such a horrific act) talk about the need for children to be protected from social media, restrictions on smartphones and mindfulness in schools. I haven't once seen her talking about transphobia being "something that needs to be tackled" or similar, which makes me think that she sees the underlying issue as social media/mental health driven rather than "transphobia" driven. It's everyone else that's shouting about that.

Well I have not seen those posts, so can't comment. I assume he found it difficult to accept his child had transitioned? That is no excuse for strangers to deliberately misgender her. Why would it be?

It's so boring, isn't it?

But that is irrelevant. To say he said it “in front of a grieving mother” has been shown to be false. To say he said it “believing that he was saying it in front of a grieving mother” is accurate.

And it’s also been pointed out repeatedly that Sunak didn’t know she wasn’t there. He’d been told quite clearly that she was. And he still read out his preprepared diatribe without the words passing through his brain. This is going to haunt him for ever. I have no idea why GC posters can’t see that this is a huge own goal - Sunak will be pasted every time he mentions this issue now.

We need complete language change for children

No ‘trans’ that is for adults

The school guidelines uses a better term. This needs to be fed right through the system and adults need to back off making their poor laws impact children in any way

I'm afraid "unpleasant" isn't something you can do anything other than disagree with. That which you might hate to hear spoken and that which is defined by law as "hate speech" are two very different things.

If you can't pull out any specific examples then I have to conclude that you don't have any.

Some of the reaching on this thread is going to give posters a hernia.

Listening to the R5 phone-in on catch up - most people saying Sunak shouldn’t apologise

That you got, but applies to you.

Like your evidence of ‘hatred’

except none…

Both Starmer and Sunak believed she was there. Sunak said what he said believing she was there. Honestly, some of the mental gymnastics on this thread trying to let Sunak off the hook would give the most committed TRA a run for their money.

It was badly judged, it was insensitive and (the bit that probably pisses me off most) from a GC perspective it has ended up being counter-productive.

I'd also like to add that it isn't only people who identify as trans who are murdered over gender. Predators hone in on difference as weakness. Not that long ago a friend of a friend was attacked and killed because he was a man with long hair. He wasn't trans, just a man who had broken one of the rules of gender in his attackers' eyes. The sooner we scrap the whole idea of gender the better.

I am not trying to let either of them off the hook. I am pointing out it is inaccurate to say he said it in front of a grieving mother. It’s perfectly reasonable to make a case for both of them being an idiot for saying what they said believing they were saying it in front of a grieving mother, but the fact is that neither of them said anything in front of a grieving mother.

As I said, MNHQ have done some deleting.

Yes, they do hone in on other vulnerabilities. I read in the victim statements that Brianna was also ASD/ADHD. Reading the mother's statement, I could relate to her child going on the bus for the first time as I've experienced it myself - such a big step for an anxious vulnerable young person. Absolutely tragic that it ended the way it did and it has made me even more worried about my young people and how safe they are in society. It seems that these other vulnerabilities are overlooked because the issue of gender has become so political and divisive. We need a wider discussion in society about the wellbeing and safeguarding of all children and young people.

How is me quoting you and saying how your words came across to me "misrepresenting you"?
Misrepresenting you would be misquoting you or saying that you said something you didn't. Neither of which I did.

Yea, we know. They just believed they were saying it in front of a grieving mother. So that's OK then. Massive distinction in their judgment.

Because what I said had nothing to do with the conclusion you leapt to. I recommend you go back through the thread or that conversation to fully understand. HTH.

And it’s also been pointed out repeatedly that Sunak didn’t know she wasn’t there. He’d been told quite clearly that she was. And he still read out his preprepared diatribe without the words passing through his brain. This is going to haunt him for ever. I have no idea why GC posters can’t see that this is a huge own goal - Sunak will be pasted every time he mentions this issue now.

It was an own goal, in the sense that it gave Starmer an opportunity to make political capital out of it. But what Sunak said wasn't morally wrong. It was perfectly reasonable, in the context of the usual PMQs knockabout, to make fun of Starmer's inability to define a woman.

It does disappoint me to see political commentators who can't grasp that Starmer is the one who was exploiting the tragedy, not Sunak.

And again it has nothing to do with making it ok or not ok, it’s to do with making it accurate. For the umpteenth time.

Good to see the public see sense.

The murder of a child should not be used by anyone to stifle important discussions about women's rights.

100%

It's noticeable that most of the stories about her phone comments focus on the killers, what they had been accessing etc, and obviously that's an important focus but it's clear her main issue is what addiction to the phone and the internet did to her own child.

Brianna wasn't attending school properly due to anxiety, was "obsessed" with the phone, was accessing pro-anorexia and self harm content, was trans identified, basically was suffering from every Gen-Z internet-led social contagion you can think of. The brutality of the murder shouldn't blind us to the fact that this was a very disturbed child with multiple mental health issues as a result of obsession with the internet.

It is a fair point to make in most circumstances. To me, making any reference to gender politics (Sunak) when you know there is someone present grieving the death of a family member murdered by a transphobe is inflammatory and extremely disrespectful. That's why Sunak was wrong but Sodha isn't (in my opinion).

Feeling entitled to spout off our opinion regardless off the circumstances and who is present is not a good thing in my opinion. Being polite and respectful of others is part of how society functions.

Son and daughter are facts which relate to biology. The realities don't define someone's identity unless we choose to let that be so. Saying daughter to describe a male is invalidating of women's history and experiences. Transdaughter could be the polite alternative because it obviously references reality without making people face realities which are not as they desire.