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

Was the Mother actually in the same room? I don’t think it was said in front of her.

I thought his response was entirely in keeping with someone who was outraged.

I remember seeing Cameron be similarly annoyed when Miliband made out that he didn't support the NHS shortly after his son had died.

Some things are beyond the pale, even for PMQs.

Yes. It’s amazing how little the words women’s rights are used by those with an agenda and the media

(I did note that in summary, I think the judge alluded to the fact that Brianna was trans as a factor in the murder but not the main motive

Yes, and it contributed to a sentencing uplift in part.

Sorry it's beyond the pale to care about the definition of women and not expect starmer to immediately link women to tw?

Every time the dire impact on women's rights, and the medical scandal of the Tavi is mentioned, there will be howls of "Brianna" to shut down discussion.

I hope Rishi holds his nerve and continues to attack the lying misogynists in Labour.

And people are going to have to be brave enough (as in not gutless, rather than courageous) to ignore that, to sympathise but point out it isn't always relevant.

Kemi Badenoch I have faith will continue along her path of challenging this, if she is supported to do so. I think there is a debate on the private members conversion therapy bill this week so trans issues will have to be discussed then.

I am not a big Starmer fan, but his genuinely upset reaction today has made me like him more than I did. He showed his humanity, which the Sunak-bot is severely lacking in.

I don’t think that was genuine outrage. I think that was a lawyer, mightily relieved to have someone to hide behind

And the BBC and sky are both pushing that rishi is wrong, with the clear implication being you are not allowed to call tw men or not women ever.

That is exactly what the TRAs are angling for.

I think you are wrong. This is going to stick to Sunak until he apologises

It was a badly timed, and therefore very crass, statement which has backfired.

Obviously Starmer is using it to deflect from his inadequacies - but it doesn't take away from the fact it was terribly mis-footed and inappropriate.

I really didn't think people would believe in his faux outrage (and his lie that the mother was sitting in the public gallery), but clearly some do.

It was definitely said in her presence. Most people will allow their sympathy for any parent losing a child to transcend their personal opinions on the death itself and would have wanted politicians speaking today to be as diplomatic as posible. I personally thought Sunak came across as surprisingly crass.

He didn't say she was in the public gallery.

The truth is hate speech and feelings trump facts.

Happy days.

You can't go on about the "truth" when you keep saying that the comments were made in front of her. They were not.

What they mean by apology is state out loud that bg was a girl.
He cannot do that.

I and a couple of others were repeatedly harangued on a thread about the trial to use she/her pronouns, even though we were avoiding using pronouns at all and spoke completely respectfully about the tragic killing of a child. It was pretty obvious that no dissent is tolerated, it's religious in nature and if you deny it you are to be cast out.

I suspect that Sunak would have been oblivious anyway. He was using it to distract from the pressure he is under within his own party - with Kemi Badenoch being lauded as the next leader ( knowing how strong she is on this issue)

He said she "is here in the chamber", therefore she is either on the floor of the Commons or in the public gallery.

The concerning part will be when dissent against this religion is legislated against

''@RebelliousCow

It was a badly timed, and therefore very crass, statement which has backfired.''

Indeed.

It is all over social media and the general feeling seems to be that people are appalled, and the comments go well beyond activists who are usually involved in the trans debate.

He made a stupid and inappropriate 'joke' and is now facing a massive backlash because people still have a concept of basic decency.

Sunsk literally said u turned on the definition of a woman.

It was starmer who linked the child in. Not rishi. Sunak should not apologise for this. It is in no way crass.
People who are saying it is mean that the tw are so so self centred that even mentioning women are all female is upsetting to them.
Starmer proved he's a liar and willing to jump on others pain yo try amd score points. And that he hasn't in fact u turned as apparently some male children can be girls or women.

It is completely unacceptable to label this as beyond the pale.
I'd go much further and say starmer was beyond the pale, bringing up this murder to deflect that he doesn't care about women at all.

The concerning part will be when dissent against this religion is legislated against

This.

And if Starmer gets in, he WILL legislate and we will be silenced.

Rishi Sunak has now invited Brianna Gheys parents to meet him, i wonder if they will accept.

Bare in mind what the father said about the PMs comment at PMQs.

Peter Spooner told Sky News Mr Sunak’s remarks during PMQs had been “degrading” and “absolutely dehumanising”. He said: “Identities of people should not be used in that manner, and I personally feel shocked by his comments. Mr Spooner added that Mr Sunak “should apologise for his remarks”

Seems Sunak is on damage limitation.