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

And we definitely don’t create a new harmful law to affirm it

Completely irrelevant to my point.
How would you feel if I posted a photo of your friends daughter on the Internet, said it was social contagion gone mad, and the mother shouldn't allow it?

That's my point. The tone of posts on here are posters doing that about Brianna, and thinking it's ok. It is not.

Of course he will.

Or are you suggest that the Labour Party should continue to make political capital out of Brianna's murder rather than deal with the legitimate concerns of women?

You are struggling

My points have been clear we should not use the language of trans for children

Nothing about photos online

The opposite in fact adults should stop using children at all for their gender ideology agenda.

Funny how posters insist that they knew exactly what was in each man's mind.

The grieving mother was not present. I could state that both men knew that and that Starmer deliberately lied to create this fuss. But that would be as ridiculous as claiming that both men thought she was there.

Starmer invited her because he knows Sunak jibes at him for being unable to define a woman. He set a trap, claiming a grieving mother was present when she was not. , Sunak walked into it.

I’m suggesting that he’s given the hostile media a stick to beat him with. Surely you don’t need reminding how politicians’ gaffes follow them round like bad smell? Johnson hiding in the fridge? Raab announcing that men are subject to misogyny and not knowing where Dover is? Sunak will never be allowed to forget this. It’s yet another example of his reverse Midas touch, he’s a completely useless politician.

*BackToLurk" Today 10:59

+ + She wasn’t there. This has been pointed out repeatedly. + +

But Sunak would have thought she was

And? Are you saying he's an evil little hate goblin, who couldn't resist possibly upsetting a grieving mother?

As opposed to taking the piss out of a vaccilating, weak ideologue, who's like a flag in a gale?

Completely irrelevant to my point.
How would you feel if I posted a photo of your friends daughter on the Internet, said it was social contagion gone mad, and the mother shouldn't allow it?

I have no idea what you are talking about. No one has posted a picture of anyone on the internet.

And as for the social contagion being a factor in the rise of teens identifying as trans well presumably in the interests of the CHILDREN it is a good idea to consider that this might well be a possibility, especially in teenage girls (numbers in this category has risen most dramatically) and the connection between neurodiversity and gender questioning children. We owe it to the children to consider whether these factors may play a part, surely? Especially when we see stark stories from detransitioners. I mean in what other area would we just let children go on potentially unnecessary pathways that can end up in infertility without exploring the root cause of the discomfort ?

The TRAs have done such a good job in silencing the debate. This can't continue, children are being harmed.

AdamRyan · Today 11:49

OK. I'll make a point of telling a random thin stranger that next time I see them shall I.

Come on, you can and do make better arrangements than that, it's not analogous. Who here has said that they will approach a transw in the street to tell them "You're a man in a dress?"

If she'd been a biological woman she would have been killed as well. Her killers would have used any old excuse.

I could state that both men knew that and that Starmer deliberately lied to create this fuss. But that would be as ridiculous as claiming that both men thought she was there.

Nope. Starmer stated she was there just before Sunak made his comment. It’s entirely reasonable to say they both believed she was there. It’s astonishing anyone is arguing otherwise

Even before this happened people were using the tragic and horrific murder of Brianna Ghey as a reason why no criticisms of transactivism should ever be made. Hence the more recent blame for her murder thrown at JK Rowling.

This will now set a veto in stone against any mention of any fault with transactivism such as the Labour party’s under their planned agenda.

It is the transactivists imo who add to children's vulnerability.

I’m suggesting that he’s given the hostile media a stick to beat him with. Surely you don’t need reminding how politicians’ gaffes follow them round like bad smell? Johnson hiding in the fridge? Raab announcing that men are subject to misogyny and not knowing where Dover is? Sunak will never be allowed to forget this. It’s yet another example of his reverse Midas touch, he’s a completely useless politician.

What will Sunak never be allowed to forget? I must be in an alternative universe to you because it was Starmer who made political capital out of Brianna's death not Sunak : S

OK. I'll make a point of telling a random thin stranger that next time I see them shall I.

My very slim sister gets that all the time usually from people who are very overweight, as well as comments on the food she has in her basket in the supermarket, so you'd be just another one of many. Be warned though she does bite back.

I’m not being intentionally rude but if you can’t see why it will haunt him you’re as politically naive as he appears to be. And you are in an alternative universe because the majority of commentators see a politician so stupid that he regurgitates the script someone else has written for him with no regard for its appropriateness.

Luckily for Sunak Starmer did a massive u turn just after

Showing that yes he does have a problem with not sticking to anything

Starmer has more to worry about particularly since his own party are going for it - cowardly and scared etc

It's OK I'm used to rudeness on these threads : )

It was Starmer who made political capital out of a child's murder and if he continues to do so that reflects more on the Labour Party than it does on Sunak.

I can't stand Sunak but he's done nothing wrong here, except fail to realise that Starmer would take advantage!

You clearly believe that some topics should be off limit in the HoC. I don't. We disagree and that's OK.

Britain is going to vote Tory lite this time around. 20 point lead and if anything more left wing Labour voters will hold their nose and swing round to Starmer at crunch time. How on Earth the Tories thought a billionaire candidate was the right guy to fight a centrist Labour candidate coming after years of austerity I’ve no idea. Sunak should just give up.

I couldn’t give a toss about the trans debate. What ought to worry people is that the Tory press seem incredibly comfortable with the prospect of Starmer becoming PM. Nothing fundamental will change …

lifeturnsonadime - Today 12:45

You clearly believe that some topics should be off limit in the HoC. I don't. We disagree and that's OK.

It is not that some topics should be off limits in the HoC. It is that, very unfortunately indeed, because of this debacle, this topic will now de facto be off limits for a long, long time. It will cause a long and chilling shadow where the really worrying culprits will hide.

No it won’t but if there is a point to be made about u turns by Starmer there is even more in the offing

I don’t think Sunak will step back but I do agree that people will try to use a case to hide behind. It won’t work though

Sunak was talking about women.

it was Starmer who made it all about Mrs Ghey and trans.

Politicians have been using murdered weans to score political points at least since the Athenian Democratic Assembly's emotionally charged debate about the Siege of Melos...and that was in 416 BC.

I think a lot will change. Not with public spending, or the economy, but with speech laws.

Starmer decided the conditions when a topic could not be mentioned, not even debated, just mentioned. He decided that a womens rights issue could not be even said because a mother of a murdered child was in the building.

He has stated that womens rights and trans rights are compatible and do not clash, so why has he linked the two now? Does he now believe the two cannot succeed at the same time?

I suspect if labour are the next government, there is going to be a lot of this sort of constraints on free speech.

Yes that will be the only thing

They can’t do numbers but they can do this