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

Had we never started down the pretence that people can change sex, we would never had led vulnerable people to feel attacked when they discover that....we know they can't change sex. The GRA and everything that such appaling legislation has led to ia the ultimate cause of this hurt. Any murder is appalling but that does not create a reason to pretend reality is other than it is.

Adults caused this mess for children with the terrible GRA law

That they can’t even acknowledge the outcomes twenty years later is on them

They were both acting like a pair of tits. Again.

The PM should have had the manners and social skills not to bring it up at that moment in time and Keir Starmer should know what a woman is (as he said he did two weeks ago). Pathetic point scoring.

But equally (and probably very controversially), I think people need to stop making children's deaths a moment to lobby the government for irrelevant shite. First she wanted to ban social media to under 16s (fairly reasonable) then that got chucked out so now she wants mindfulness in schools. I understand that when parents have lost children nothing will ever make it right but she shouldn't have even been in there in the first place.

I don't watch PMQs as a rule, I don't think its useful, it doesn't get get, the government or the country anywhere on anything.

My point stands though, sunak should have been more cautious and Labour are using this family as a political tool.

Well said.

If there was a debate on the trans issue and Starmer's equivocations on the issue came up then fine, that's fair debate.

To bring it up as a sneering jibe when the mother of a murdered trans child might have been present (I suspect neither Sunak or Starmer would have known whether she was there right at that moment) is a different thing altogether.

On any political issue where you're trying to push for change you'll get the people who already agree with you, the people who will never agree with you and the soggy mass in the middle who are confused/not terribly bothered/uncomfortable with the rhetoric. It's beginning to feel like GCs are determined only to talk to the first of those.

Esther Ghey was on the Parliamentary Estate as I understand it. There are screens everywhere which show what is going on. She didn't need to physically be in the gallery to witness Sunak's jibe.

It was inexcusable of Sunak not to apologise.

The oft forgotten Eleventh Commandment.

Trans people are just people with a belief. No more, no less.

It is amazing to watch people contort themselves over this issue, no other class of human is treated like this: simultaneously as delicate and vulnerable as a baby yet as powerful and illogical as the God of a patriarchal religion.

Sunak is a prick but I don't blame him for wanting to expose Starmer (also a prick) on this.

It is amazing to watch people contort themselves over this issue

It really is.

Starmer made a joke about gambling. Thousands upon thousands of people are suffering real difficulties right now through gambling addiction, many have sadly taken their own lives over it. Some people affected may well have been in the public gallery. Is there only one group that we unfathomably have to tiptoe around so much that we can't even mention women or will Starmer be he'd to account for his crassness?

I'm totally with you on this.

Starmer made a sneering jibe about gambling, an issue which adversely affects far more people than this manufactured outraging. Also, Starmer was the one who thought it fit to introduce trans and Brianna Ghey into the conversation when women were mentioned which was a very odd thing to do.

As Starmer stood up and started speaking, watching Rachel Reeves’ face change from gleeful anticipation of Starmer refuting any criticism to sombre when her brain computed what was being said makes me think that the proximity of Brianna’s mother wasn’t foremost in her mind either. But this was ill judged by Sunak as he should have anticipated the reaction and that it would come across as insensitive.

On a wider point, should parliamentarians take account of the sensitivities of all the people in the gallery or wider Parliament estate when taking part in debates. Yes this was insensitive, but its a slippery slope if debates are constrained or limited in this way

Yes,just the one group.

Because y'know,denying their existence and stuff.

Starmer won’t be able to rely on Esther Ghey being there every week

So maybe one day he’ll say whatever it is he actually thinks

Do we even know if Mrs Ghey was traumatised by the exchange?

If we are going to help children mental health and review their access to the internet, she is going to have to hear things she might not like. Or things other people might imagine she doesn't like.

This

Starmer brought up the subject and she wasn’t in the public gallery. If you’re going to make a point, at least make a factual one.

@ZuttZeVootEeeVo

''Whatever your views on trans people there is a time and a place to make such comments.''

''The idea that any subject is off limit in the HoC is madness.''

Don't be obtuse.

It is not about the location itself, of course any topic can be discussed in parliament, it is about the fact that he chose to try to gain political points on the very day that this poor woman happen to be there

Also, if you want to talk about this topic in parliament because you care about the issue then you do it with dignity and initiate a serious, adult debate.

You don't just make a cheap joke with the sole aim of making the opposition look bad.

You know full well that's what my comment was about anyway...

I agree just the "back and forth" not actual thoughts.

The mother was not there. She came in later.

I really hope that KJK can get her party up and running to challenge Starmer on this.
Let's see him wriggle away when there's no hiding place.

Starmer made a crap joke about gambling which adversely affects far more people. So why the furore over Starmer deciding to introduce transpeople?