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

Same how the hell did we get here.

It’s Orwellian stupidity

@AdamRyan

That's still a bit of a cop out. So many prominent GC women have to put up with having livelihoods threatened, being subject to violence, court cases, rape threats for voicing any non-TWAW views. If you can't cope with a bit of constructive criticism for a middle ground view that you claim is the magic answer, you're not the brilliant mediator you think you are!

I'm not trying to be a brilliant mediator. I just wondered if the board was as overwhelmingly "single sex spaces only" as it comes across. As (I think) I said in my OP. Anyway let's not turn this into a TAAT. Stick to Sunak

It’s interesting the amount of threats, violence and loss of livelihoods women suffer and yet people talk about ‘hostility’ from women saying no to losing single sex spaces

Why run the country, when you can weaponise and distract the electorate, with hollow point scoring and culture wars, from the party that has been in charge and forming policy for the last 14 years?

credit- culture wars steve, spot on as ever

Who's watching Rishi on TV tonight?

@IClaudine

In what way would stating a middle ground position be hostile to trans people, if you genuinely believe that it's one everyone should be able to accept as a good compromise? Where would you voice this view safely?

I remain of the view that your (laudable) desire to be kind isn't really going anywhere helpful. You're stuck in the hope that it is possible to please everyone and anything else is hurtful and wrong. And it isn't.

That's the problem - I do think there are many of us who want to debate what the middle ground would be, but many of us are afraid of being labelled transphobes, so it's going nowhere.

Also, I don't think it is transphobic to say that biological sex is real and matters. Which is what a lot of labelled "hostile" posters are saying. There is literally no middle ground argument that can be made without accepting this as fact and then debating the degree to which it matters in different circumstances.

It will be interesting to revisit this thread in a few years.

I agree it will. Visit some threads from 2017/18. More people understand the issues now.

In what way would stating a middle ground position be hostile to trans people

It isn't, but this thread is.

Yes tg we’ve moved on

A couple of years ago there were more deletions over biological reality

A major concern is legislation over freedom of speech under Labour though

Reporters report. You seem to be of the opinion that journalism should only report on the nice things.

This is a site for parents and families and you seem to be in denial over the effects that a child who decides that they are trans has on the entire family. I and many others have seen families ripped apart by it, we shouldn't try to pretend that this was any different.

I anything I sympathise with the father (and I think he has received a lot of abuse from trans rights activists), because (in his eyes) he has struggled with his son's new identity as his daughter and has been open about it.

I think people confuse women asking for single sex spaces as hostility to trans people

Males could support their own sex class instead

It makes me think that the "Repeal the GRA, single sex spaces for women only" are the GC equivalent of TWAW

This makes no sense to me. It sounds that you believe that reserving single sex spaces for women is also magical thinking.

That is, you’re comparing those willing to engage in fantasy in believing that humans can magically change sex and and those that are fighting for vulnerable or marginalised women retain their privacy, dignity and safety?

Actually, it’s okay don’t worry. Previously, though not always agreeing with you, I thought you had some interesting perspectives. However you’ve lost with me that statement.

A major concern is legislation over freedom of speech under Labour though

lol

Do you think labour will have their own tv “news” channel, masquerading as not a news channel, pumped up by foreign, tax avoiding backers?!? Genuine question

Labour already have the BBC, which pumps out nothing but progressive propaganda.

lol Why lol?

Are you for it happening?

As for your question there’s a range of media across the spectrum none of which equals legislation stopping me using accurate language based on biology.

What hostiity do you see? recognising that tw are male, that we need a word to describe actual biological females, knowing that there are two sexes and that people can't change sex and refusing to be silenced by the 'be kind' attempts at control are not hostile. However, pretending that a male has turned into a female, saying women can have penises, demanding women share their protected spaces are highly, highly hostile acts to women. I think the concept of hostile is just warped by some TRAs as one of their many attempts to put women back into the place they think they should accept. But if you've seen actual hostility, please do tell me where.

Aka a massive bigot.

Why lol?

I don’t see Labour installing someone to head the bbc based on backhanders for personal loans to direct the BBC

I don’t expect labour to attempt to shut down important reporting institutions such as Ch4. And I certainly don’t expect labour to set up a populist culture wars news channel in the name of “patriotism” to push its message.

That’s why I’m laughing.

Have the DM really said Sunak's transphobic?

Poor bloke only mentioned Starmer's dodgy definition of woman.

In the meantime the real world know that no woman has a penis and that fact is not transphobic but the truth.

I’m talking about legislation on misgendering and the ability to use accurate pronouns

If that happens no one will be laughing. Well maybe some anti women sickos

On the plus side think of all the jobs that'll be created when they start building prisons to house the wrongthinkers.

"But Sir Keir told the BBC Mr Sunak had a duty to make every person in the country "feel safe". It was about "basic decency and respect", he said."

So Starmer plans on being a PM who never makes anyone feel unsafe? I don't know how you can do that as PM.

Why didn't Starmer respond to Sunak's question with a TWAW and a definition of women somehow that includes transwomen rather than seeming appalled. He still doesn't have an answer and is still trying to fence sit and play both sides on this issue.

The PM doesn't (& didn't) ask questions. Or have you misunderstood what PMQs means

"But Sir Keir told the BBC Mr Sunak had a duty to make every person in the country "feel safe". It was about "basic decency and respect", he said."

That's rather ironic really.

Basic decency and respect for everyone , eh? Except women. Women have to put up with the lie that 1% of us have a penis.

As for women feeling safe, I'm not sure we do really when it doesn't take much for any man to obtain a piece of paper that means he's a legal female, and Starmer intends to make that process even easier. I mean the bloke's seen the harms done to vulnerable women since the introduction of the GRA and still doesn't have he basic decency or respect to listen to women on this. Look at the way Rosie Duffield has been treated.

He must think us women were born yesterday.