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

Absolutely. And clutched his pearls while he did it to show his virtue.

CantDealwithChristmas · Today 12:57

Sunak was talking about women.

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

You are so right, but I fear it won’t be seen that way.

You are so right, but I fear it won’t be seen that way.

If this thread is anything to go by.

You’re seriously arguing that Starmer’s flip flopping on the definition of what a woman is has nothing to do with ‘trans’. Nothing to do with the GRA or EA. That’s quite a claim.

She was on the list to attend and Starmer said she was there before the inter change.

What it does have nothing to do with is Brianna Ghey's murder.

Kemi Badenoch made a good comment about the situation. If Sunak follows her example, this will still be a debate.

The Labour party need to decide if they are going to be a party where in debate can exist, or are they going to take the easy route (for them in the short term) and make some issue where there is only one acceptable narrative.

If they do rule with this style of government, they will alienate a growing number of people as more and more a range of topics cannot be debated.

Sunak delivered a painful truth in a crass way. He's probably bought Starmer a bit of time and he can avoid addressing this issue for a while longer.
But eventually the reality will have to be discussed that males with trans identities are not just vulnerable kids who are trying to work out their place in the world but are also predatory grown men who are autogynophiles

If sunak was talking about women, what was the 99% referring to? The 1% of women that are cactuses or something?
What a stupid thing to say

How exactly was Starmer inviting Esther Ghey "a trap"?
If it was "a trap" he signposted it very well in his intro welcoming her to the house. Might as well have said "hey, sunak! I've laid a trap over there! Don't fall in it will you?"

Oops sorry grammar that was to dinosaur!

Sunak made that connection by choosing to bring the matter up at that time.
I cannot believe the Sunak cheerleaders on here. Pretty hilarious for people who swear blind they are disaffected labour voters...

I hope Sunak sticks on this.

He's right Starmer is using this case and is lacking much else

Jeremy Vine discussing this on R2 now. Surprising amounts of sense being talked by invited guests and one caller (male, Scottish accent.) Not by JV, of course, who was doing his 'both sides' and 'shocked' thing, in spite of hosting a discussion only half an hour ago about the winter lockdown women live under because they don't feel safe going out after dark.

@AdamRyan Bringing it up at what time? Just because her mother was in the same building (not same room) at that point in time.

Do we have to now conduct a full audit of who may or not be in a building before a statement of fact is made?

If sunak was talking about women, what was the 99% referring to? The 1% of women that are cactuses or something?

Of course Sunak was talking about women he mentioned Starmer's definitions of women. You know damn well the 1% is from Starmer stating that only 99% of women don't have a penis, ergo 1% do.

Brianna did not possess a GRC as under 18's cannot so Starmer cannot even cover himself with the fictional legal sex trope,

I disagree, as do many many other posters on here, and radio 5 live listeners.

I can't vouch for anyone else's political leanings but I find it quite amusing that you are so tribal you can't even begin to criticise anything the Labour Party ever does, even when the leader behaved in such a crass manner regarding the murder of child. You only had to look at Starmer's face to see how much he enjoyed being given the opportunity to shut Sunak down.

The simple fact is that neither party is doing the right thing by women or by children who are struggling with gender but, sadly, Starmer's views on gender concern me more than the conservatives at the moment. He appears to want to shut down discussion altogether.

This whole thread is worth a read
https://x.com/TomABacon/status/1755559869367697824?s=20

But I'm just copying the relevant tweet here:

And don't give me any rubbish about how Sunak didn't hear that Brianna Ghey's mother was in attendance. This is Prime Minister's Questions, and Sunak's job is to listen to what the LOTO says and respond. That line is just another admission Sunak is bad at his basic job.

Sunak made that connection by choosing to bring the matter up at that time.

No, he didn't he was highlighting Starmer's flip flopping on issues and policies and the definition of women is one he has indeed flip flopped on.

So, in your view the about turn of the Leader of the Opposition on any policy or proclamation cannot be highlighted in the HoC unless a full audit is done to make sure that no-one is in the building who has been in any way effected by the policy?

If Sunak knew in advance that Brianna's parents were going to be in the chamber it was an incredibly politically stupid thing to do. If he'd had any real political nous he'd have known how it would play out and how it would look.

Sunak's not that invested in this issue - so he didn't realise the ramifications and likely consequences. It is not that his words were untrue; but strategy and timing are incredibly important factors when it comes to furthering political goals.

This was more the typical PMQ personal point scoring contest. It backfired.
The only good thing that could possibly come of it is that it keeps the issue at the forefront and Starmer will run out of places to hide.

It's enabled a nice little diversion away from Labour reneging on their green spending plans - which is surely a vote-loser for Labour - and I imagine Starmer's rubbing his hands together with glee that so many of the front pages are focusing on Sunak's supposed 'anti-trans jibe' instead of his party deciding on this u-turn. Mind you.... £28 billion quid spending on green infrastructure and climate targets was always pie in the sky anyway in my opinion.

Sunak's a twit for thinking Starmer wouldn't use his comments as a way to divert attention from Labour's u-turn on green spending. And Starmer's a twit for thinking connecting Ghey's murder to Sunak's comments wouldn't immediately make it apparent he was looking for something to get him (Starmer) off the green hook he knows he's going to be roasted for.

The pair of them are ludicrous, entitled fuckwits pissing about while the country burns.

Yes, he really is trying to delay the day of judgment. He has issues with Scottish Labour too. They continue to support the Scottish GRA - and he supported the government's blocking of it.

Nice bit of political DARVO there. I'm enjoying this as a strategy. Unfortunately many of us are very familiar with this tactic and it doesn't work on us.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/01/trump-victim-political-strategy-manipulation

The Economist would never publish something that hyperbolic!

I looked it up and it was written by some bloke in the New European. "Mocking trans people as a grieving mother sits metres from him" is just absurd. He was mocking Starmer - it is perverse to pretend otherwise.

The pair of them are ludicrous, entitled fuckwits pissing about while the country burns

And who started the fire? 🧐

Ah @lifeturnsonadime you do get some posts back

Makes me laugh