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

She wasn't even in the chamber at that point in time! She arrived 15 mins late.

My sincere apologies for my misstatement please let me amend my post instead of stating "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." my post should have read "why didn't Starmer respond to Sunak's assertion/statement that he had flip flopped on a number of issues such as the defintion of a woman with a full throated defintion of such that would have made everyone feel lovely and safe"

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's done that miri. His 99.9% of women don't have a penis included the 0.01% that have a GRC. Labour are planning to keep the GRC and an element of "gatekeeping" to get one, and protect spaces for biological women only.

The problem is this doesn't go far enough for GC people who want the gender recognition act repealed, and leaves the door open to sunak for the "99%...." jibes.

Sunak is also planning to keep the GRA though so the Conservatives are no better in that regard

make every person in the country "feel safe"

What on earth does that translate to when it’s at home

Men in female spaces? Accurate language?

Jesus any time soon Starmer might have to make an actual point.

This is an interesting point; but of course, politicians are very reluctant to bring each others families into the picture because then it is open season on the things they all know about each others families. People need to cool their heads on this because very few of us go thoroughout life without some kind of challenge in our family lives.

Deleted. A good thing. Very nasty comment

What's a biological woman though?

There's no definition of a biological woman in the Equality Act 2010 and a recent judgement confirmed that the female sex = both women plus men with a GRC that states they are female.

And don't some tw (India Willoughby being one who springs to mind) claim to be a biological woman anyway by virtue of being a biological human with a GRC that means India the sex marker of female on official documents?

There has been no commitment by Labour that is worth it's salt that women will be protected from the harms of the GRA. What even is the point of retaining the GRA if it doesn't confer legal rights on a TW? It doesn't seem very fair on them to allow them to go through any process which allows their birth certificate to state that they are female and then say, well you're a female but not 'for that purpose'.

So that's why it's not good enough, by a long shot.

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's done that miri. His 99.9% of women don't have a penis included the 0.01% that have a GRC. Labour are planning to keep the GRC and an element of "gatekeeping" to get one, and protect spaces for biological women only.

I don’t believe it is clear that he means spaces for biological women only will be protected. I think he could well mean that the 0.1% of ‘legal women’ (men with GRCs to say they are women) would be included in those protected spaces ( unless the Equality Act definition of ‘sex’ is clarified.)

The element of gatekeeping to obtain a GRC that would be retained would mean something much closer to self-ID in practice.

Starmer gave the legal answer didn't he; the law as it appears to be.

Obviously not gender critical; but no politician will change this law so what next? I mean like who is going to say no? I see no one actually doing that and changing it.

I know you don't believe it. I was responding to the point that Starmer should set out his point to say he has.
People don't like it, fine. I'm not rehashing yesterday's AIBU thread. People can go look at that for the ins and outs of Labour's position and draw their own conclusions.
This is meant to be a thread about what Sunak said yesterday, not the GRA.

Best hope, currently, is Kemi Badenoch who appears to at least understand the issues and that amendments to the Equality Act will be necessary.

She's "mulling" though and has been for a year so it's very unlikely she will do anything useful before the GE (if ever).

All hot air, going nowhere.

"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."

This is a ridiculous statement. Such a thing is an impossible task as I'm sure Starmer will find out if he wins the election.

A PM's duty is to govern the country effectively which arguably he isn't doing a good job of and I doubt Starmer will manage it terribly well either.

Utter nonsense idea that the government is expected to keep everyone 'safe' from words they don't want to hear which is essentially what Starmer is meaning here.

I don't want to be difficult but she's actually in a position to do this NOW. Why not now?

Was just replying to your comment about the GRC in relation to the 99.9 % of women don't have a penis, which rather IS the point of the thread as this apparently the crass comment that Sunak made.

Yes people can make their own minds up, I'll suggest they take a read of this legal note which sets out that TW with a GRC will, following interpretation of recent case law, have the benefit of both protected characteristics of sex and of gender reassignment which might make it difficult for those who want to stop males from entering Single Sex Spaces reserved for females by virtue of the Act.

https://www.blackstonechambers.com/documents/Transgender_Issues_in_the_Law_-_2023_in_Review.pdf

Paragraph's 14 and 15 set out the issues.

It’s concerning he’s setting out this stall and the BBC are encouraging it

I doubt even posters on here would want limited and compelled language use

He is losing numbers and gaining this gender stuff. Exactly my fear. No economic gain just more Canada etc on gender

Starmer knows this. Starmer also knows that this does not just make women feel unsafe, it actually makes them genuinely unsafe. But he doesn't care. Revolting man. I can't believe anyone defends such a vile human being.

Of course he knows, he's a human rights lawyer.

Yes, but only interested in men's rights. So only the right sort of human then, not the service ones.

Many institutions using human rights in this way - aligned with Labour

Fundamentally he doesn't care I women are safe. Only if some people feel safe. It's all about ideology now, feelings if you can shout loud enough. Problem is women aren't allowed to shout and when they do it's hateful so 🤷

Perfect PMQs result. Everybody thinks that they have won the argument.

Well, I’m feeling gaslit by the whole news cycle.

I don’t think this plays as badly for Rishi Sunak as lots of people are making out.

Honestly this is a disappointing thread. It makes me sad. If any of you were the mothers of a transgender child you would be aware of how difficult it is for transgender youth to exist in society. It is not easy, and it is not a choice. Believe me, no one would choose the stares and the judgement. They just want to live their lives and feel like themselves. The existence of transgender women is not an inherent threat to women. In general, trans women are some of the most vulnerable ppl in our society. They are more likely to be verbally abused, assaulted, raped and murdered than any other group of people. Rishi Sunak uses the "definition of a woman" line as a dog whistle to the most hard-right elements in the Conservative Party. It's not because he deeply cares about women. If he cared about women he'd do something constructive that made the lives of women better. He uses that line because he cannot answer the questions he's asked, because he likes to deflect hate to a group of people that a good proportion of society finds unpalatable. It is pathetic. I can't wait for the Tories to be gone