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

No. I meant what I meant. HTH.

I haven’t followed the case enough to comment on the parents but the media’s role in this is spin and circus

You can prompt any kind of quote with an agenda

The headlines linked below are part of the same farce

Rishi has already held a compassionate and dignified reality line. As has Kemi

She's not your BFF. She is loathsome.

Shh, a lot of posters talk about her like they have a direct line to her for some reason.
She's the Luke Skywalker of the GC movement apparently. Shame her action so far appears to be "mulling what action to take"

You mean she think trans people should be able to live freely.

How don't they?

I’m sure Labour will put up someone who is pro women & sex based rights and in a leadership role

Any names or probably crickets...

You mean she think trans people should be able to live freely.

Meaning?

Males in female sports, spaces or something else?

That is the truth and again because it deals with reality people want it silenced.

The Daily Mail is running this as Sunak refuses to apologise for transphobic remark.

Not Kier Starmer is opportunistic bastard.

I read that and the comments were not for Starmer

The DM like to get people going and on this Starmer is the punch bag

Well Sunak has been visiting the south west today and appeared on Spotlight, the BBC local news show. Guess what we found out about him? Now I know this will shock you all, he comes from an NHS family. Yes really. A few minutes later we found out one of his parents was a doctor and one was a pharmacist.

How has he kept that quiet?

He didn't seem so keen to talk about the elderly lady who fell in Plymouth and lay there for 7 hours until an ambulance arrived. He did like the fact that neighbours and passersby took turns to wait with her. Bizarrely he brought community spirit in COVID into it.

My point isn't that DM are Starmer supportive. My point is that apparently they are happy to say Sunak is transphobic; quite double edged of them

The DM like to prompt comments and looking at the below the line they got what they were after

@Iwasafool - he has zero political nous unfortunately so it will carry on for some months until he gets so desperate and decides to invite Boris Johnson as a special adviser. This episode has just confirmed how happy his colleagues are to criticize him.

No fan of Kemi but she is a better bet for the gender critical Tory.

It is disgraceful to go round publically criticising parents like that and speculating about the impact of their parenting, when the only reason they are in the public eye is because their child was murdered.

It isn't "silencing" to point out when people are being completely inappropriate; it shows to be honest how dehumanised this whole conversation is that people are feeling happy to post such poison.

I repeat what I said earlier: I, probably like loads of people, have always thought that the GC movement has some legitimate points.

There is a middle ground, but some GC people don't want to so much as set the tip of their toe in it.

It’s a good distraction from Starmer’s colleagues having a go

’scared of his own shadow’

The amount of promises made that he can’t keep he may as well get used to it

@EasternStandard that's just good business; the narrative in popular terms is overall bad for Sunak. Someone will be redoing the poll that prompted this line in PMQs to see if it worked right now

Can you say what your middle ground is?

Whereas Sunak’s never broken a promise in his life. Oh wait …

https://x.com/Haggis_UK/status/1755651716505039055?s=20

The father on his public Facebook page talks about his child using male pronouns and uses male photographs of him.

That is how is a reacting (understandably) in public, but now we're not allowed to mention what he does on a public facing website?

Must've missed this then:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13056823/QUENTIN-LETTS-Sir-Keir-Starmer-Rishi-Sunak-Brianna-Ghey-landmine-priggish-disbelief.html

Starmer taking advantage of the presence of a parent to get pity is crass.

Maybe, just maybe I could’ve given Starmer the benefit of the doubt in PMQ that it was a genuine reaction as he was going to meet Esther Ghey and not a cynical ploy to deflect from the Tories leveraging his ‘u-turns’…

But today when he did formally announce Labour was scrapping their green pledge? That’s when cynicism won out. It may have been instinctive and not conscious but to me there looks to be a clear political link between his response yesterday and today’s announcement.

And politically it was strategic. Crass definitely. But the Tories are going to find it harder to criticise Starmer/Labour about the green investment u-turn now because Sunak didn’t think on his feet quick enough or consider the briefing note strategically enough. That political point scoring, crass as it was, went to Starmer.

It's pretty callous to go scraping around a father's Facebook for remarks about their dead child, then to publicise those remarks to make it seem like the father is unreasonable for being offended by something a politician said. Like the worst kind of gutter journalism.

Everybody here thinks trans people should be able to live freely.

They should be free wear what they want, and believe what they want.

But women should also be live freely. And not be forced to pretend that males are female.