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

@AdamRyan - do you imagine mainstream political parties would take no notice at all of 100's of thousands of people spoiling their ballots?

Spoiled ballots get counted and reported so it is, actually, very much better than 'sitting at home eating chocolate'.

You’re not repeating it. You didn’t use the word universal or anything like it. You initially said that the outrage was confined to social media. The fact remains that every media outlet is covering it - apart from the Tory party newsletter.

The "landmine" referred to Sunak making reference to transgender politics ("Starmer doesn't know what a woman is") when Esther ghey was present.

Reference to politics in the HoC where politics are discussed not allowed under certain circumstances?

Have read them thanks.

I’m asking about Conservative Party Policy.

With no evidence to the contrary I conclude that Sunak is happy to continue with the status quo, which in this country does sometimes legally define a man with a penis as a woman.

The only 2 major newspapers framing Sunak’s comments as an outrage are the Guardian and the Mirror. Their combined circulation is tiny.

The Times is too.

Have you? Even the ones talking about the ECHR?

Do you want it repealed?

The DM too below the line comments all with Sunak

This is just a more weaponised version of 'not during Pride Month' etc.

There's always reasons why women's rights in relation to gender ideology shouldn't be mentioned.

I agree with Brendan O' Neil, we can't go down the path of having no go subjects in the HoC even if the person making the point made a hash of it.

The Israel/Palestine conflict is probably the most sensitive subject on earth (if you disregard this one) and affects quite a few in the chamber very personally on both sides. Yet it still can be and is discussed robustly.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/02/07/no-rishi-sunak-should-not-apologise-for-his-trans-jibe/

The Prime Minister's childish dig was at Keir Starmer and is a regular theme at the PMQ. As the headlines at the time read "Keir Starmer says 99.9% of women 'haven't got a penis'". It was not connected to the Brianna Ghey tragedy. It was Keir Starmer himself who brought Brianna's family into the mix, I believe in an attempt to muddy the waters and make political capital from the jibe. Shame on him.

There seems to be some debate on Twitter about this but it does seem to refer to the Commons and not the Lords (people on Twitter saying it's not a Commons rule). It's unclear if Starmer was in breach of this rule. Time may tell.

"In 2017, the former strict rule was abrogated, the Speaker stating that such references could be permitted, but that references by Members in debate should be brief and directly related to proceedings, and should not be phrased so as to be in any way intimidating or to seek to influence debate"

erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4880/reference-to-the-public

From here:

erskinemay.parliament.uk/browse?part=3&chapter=21&sections=4863,4881

@BIossomtoes the Times has one comment piece siding with Starmer and other articles that present both sides.

Even if she wasn't present then, she sure as shit knows about it now. Seems pretty unfair on her and her family to be caught up in this fiasco while they are grieving.

They wouldn't be caught in any fiasco if Starmer had not deliberately brought them into it.

The idea that things must not be discussed in politics in the very place where politics are discussed for fear of upsetting someone is dangerous nonsense. The TRAs have peddled the no debate line for years accompanied with the hyperbolic denying existence trope.

Women's rights and the impact of policies upon them can and should be discussed whenever, wherever and whoever is in the vicinity.

It's a total shambles that neither party has the guts to repeal the GRA. In the event that the GRA stays (which seems to be the case for both Conservative and Labour) then we need to EquA to be amended so that 'legal women' can be kept out of single sex spaces. At the current point in time the conservatives are marginally better on this, Kemi Badenoch seems to understand the issues.

I don't trust either party. As a left leaning former member of the Labour Party I find their stance particularly disappointing. They introduced the Acts of Parliament which has enabled the erosions of women's rights, there have been consequences to those Acts which were perhaps unintended. But Labour, having seen the harms to women still can't define women without including the !% with penises and won't commit to stopping harms to children and the Labour leader has now used the murder of a child to stop conversations about this. Both sides are awful but to me, Labour is more of a disappointment, perhaps because I have lower expectations of the Tories, we all know they are no protectors of anyone (let alone women).

But everyone should get their acts together.

There should be cross party support for women's rights.

There should be cross party support into looking at why so many children are now identifying as gender non conforming.

Agree completely.

Starmer is going to have to come up with more than just distraction when challenged on his trans policies.

This time next year, he might be facing Kemi Badenoch, she wont care what twitter, woke journalist and btl comments say, shes not going to give him an easy ride.

Starmer cant blame the previous government for implementing policies he didnt think went far enough, let alone challenged. He should have been an effective leader of the opposition.

A gender recognition certificate (GRC) is a legal document which allows you to have your affirmed gender legally recognised. This recognition is in line with the individual's gender identity and expression rather than their sex assigned at birth, it does not change that person sex.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8921aa69-d930-4cb3-ada0-2cba55da539d?shareToken=8c5932b8a601648a58d829ec2d835cf9

Oh god that headline made me laugh

They should look up the DM comments

Starmer is on the slippery slope of hurty feely things which cant be mentioned.
This will be fun.

No, it was Sunak who brought who, totally gratuitously, brought the gender issue into his childish digs, grinning all over this face at how clever he thought he was despite knowing that Esther Ghey was in Parliament. He could have made his point perfectly well without being so crass.

From the GRA:

(1)Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

This might be badly written law, but it is the law, and Sunak has not suggested it should be changed.

I do think that Badenoch has genuinely engaged with the issues, but I think for many (including Sunak) their interest starts and ends at culture war. That just makes progress more difficult.

@BIossomtoes yes, that’s the opinion piece. The article directly above it focuses on Kemi’s accusation of Starmer point scoring with his remarks.