Sunak in PMQs - thread 2

[AdamRyan]

Ongoing discussion about whether Sunak cocked up in PMQs by raising "what women are" when Esthey Ghey was present, whether Starmer cocked up by raising Esther in response to Sunak, whether Sunak had planned the line knowing EG would be there or whether Starmer set a trap he unwittingly fell into.

Many segues into gender politics and left right debates.

All views welcome.
Thread 1:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5002735-starmer-furious-that-sunak-should-mention-his-definition-of-woman

Adam

From the other thtread:

I highly doubt he's going to have to apologise. Sunak also addressed Esther Ghey remember.

As far as I'm aware, he hasn't met her - I assume that's what you mean?

This is just Tories trying to flip the narrative. Classic DARVO.

No it's not, because he didn't mock Brianna, or their family. Starmer brought up Esther Ghey and it's very possible she wouldn't even had registered it, if it were not for Starmer and his crass comments.

And dinosaur
This is how Starmer prefaced his first question:
^This week, the unwavering bravery of Brianna Ghey’s mother, Esther, has touched us all. As a father, I cannot
even imagine the pain that she is going through. I am glad that she is with us in the Gallery today^

So he might have genuinely thought she was in the gallery, or he might have been setting a trap.

If he was setting a trap Sunak did a very shit job of avoiding it.

This is how Sunak closed PMQs:
^I would also like to say to Brianna Ghey’s mum, who is here, that as I said earlier this week, what happened
was an unspeakable and shocking tragedy. In the face of that, for her mother to demonstrate the compassion
and empathy that she did last weekend demonstrated the very best of humanity in the face of seeing the veryworst of humanity. She deserves all our admiration and praise for that^

Sunak directly referenced the fact Ghey was there, so addressed her in much the same way starmer did. It's a matter of public record in Hansard.

No. A thousand times no. It will never be inappropriate for a child to learn from its surroundings.

You do not get a free pass on insinuating that mothers do not know what it is like to have difficult relationships with their children.

You do not get a free pass to dictate to mothers what the correct feelings and reactions are to having children who go on to be the good, the bad, the ugly, the genius or even just the different.

You do not get a free pass to break the push-pull bond between mothers and their children to fit any narrative.

I am sick to the back teeth of people using any mother's anguish to get their way.
We know what it is like to worry to the point of exhaustion about our children. Do not throw that in our faces.

If the child is dead (like Brianna) how do they learn??

Sunak directly referenced the fact Ghey was there, so addressed her in much the same way starmer did. It's a matter of public record in Hansard.

OK, fair enough, but you've phrased it as if he'd said that first, knowing that she was there and did it callously.

That's cack, he said it, as many times before, to mock Starmer.

Don't you dare move the goalposts on me.

the post that riled me contained: "If any of you were the mothers of a transgender child you would be aware of how difficult"

that statement is about all children. The children we are the mothers of. Trying to play our sentiments for the posters gain.

I say no.

You do not get a free pass to dictate to mothers what the correct feelings and reactions are to having children who go on to be the good, the bad, the ugly, the genius or even just the different

this

I dislike Keir Starmer but Sunak not apologising especially when that young woman's father has asked him to is just horrible. Even if Sunak didn't know and it was a genuine mistake, the normal human response is to say I'm so sorry if I have caused your hurt, I didn't mean to. Too many people are worried about focusing on what a real woman is, what's more important is what a real human being is, and surely that involves some empathy for grieving murdered parents. Most people on here are parent's themselves but don't seem to get how hurtful that comment would be for the mum and dad of a murdered trans child, they would want to honour their brave child, not hear snide political comments.

I'm not, I read the quote. I found the section saying the mothers suffering was to teach the child inappropriate in this context.

I'm equally as offended by people trying to make out that those of us who agree with starmer that it was disrespectful to make that jibe are "playing politics".

It's possible that Sunak is more astute than we're giving him credit for. (In fairness, it's also possible that he isn't.)

The response to Sunak's comments from the bien-pensant crowd on Twitter and in the media has been horror, disgust, outrage that he could be so heartless.

But what if Sunak isn't talking to the Twitter crowd and the metropolitan journalists who write columns in the Guardian? What if he's talking over their heads to ordinary people - what used to be known as the man on the Clapham omnibus? And what if those ordinary people are quietly cheering Sunak on because they're absolutely sick to death of the endless pandering to the sensitivities of trans activists?

The predictable crown have launched themselves at the exchange at PMQ, and are clinging on for dear life. In it they see an opportunity to shut down debate and discussion and to make some things unsayable - so that they need no longer be bothered with having to rationalise, justify or explain this particular dogmatic article of faith.

At the time Sunak addressed Brianna's mother she probably was in the chamber, she was not there when Starmer claimed - falsely - that she was. Sunak said it was "an unspeakable and shocking tragedy" and expressed his admiration for her, Starmer used her to bait a trap. That is despicable and if anyone should be apologising he should be.

And what if Sunak, is just an over-promoted, wealthy, politically weak prime-minister in a useless government. I can't speak for the bien-pensant crowd (vaguely remembered what that means) but I do use public transport in south London and I can't say the discussion of trans is top of mine or anyone else's list, most of us are just getting by and need, health, housing, education, the rising of food and heating to be focused on. I think you have to be a certain kind of well-heeled, time-rich person, to care this much about the trans debate, the rest of us really have other more pressing issues to contend with.

It's ridiculous to accuse Sunak of disrespect, he was taking the piss out of Starmer, who then shouted in faux outrage and the only thing people heard was Starmer shouting, then they believed him.

Because he was shouting and giving out a pretense out righteous indignation.

It reminds of my SiL, who never misses an opportunity to put words in my mouth, in company and then have a go. Before the London Olympics, we were at a do at hers and her husband said,

"Great show by Danny Boyle." I said, "Who's Danny Boyle?"

She shouted, "What?! You've never heard of Train Spotting?! Ridiculous! Ridiculous! I can't BELIEVE you can talk such rubbish!"

It caught everyone's attention and they concluded that I'd said what she said. It's exactly the same sort of low down tactic.

I think you have to be a certain kind of well-heeled, time-rich person, to care this much about the trans debate, the rest of us really have other more pressing issues to contend with

On the contrary. The people who bear the brunt of trans ideology are the very worst off in society - female prisoners, female domestic abuse victims, female rape victims, homeless women in need of shelter, as well as disabled and sick women who have to rely on intimate care and have no say about whether their carer is a woman or a man pretending to be a woman.

It is possible, of course, that the average working-class or lower middle class person worrying about their bills doesn't have the time to concern themselves with the suffering of the worst-off. But all the more reason why those of us who have time and money should fight their corner instead. And you may not care very much, but I know I speak for many on this board when I say we will fight till our dying breath for those women.

I thought Penny Mordaunts comments interesting. She mentioned that many in the chamber had family members who " were trans" ( 'Identified' as the opposite sex). It would be interesting to know which MPs those are.

This is such an important point. People spending all their time trying to discredit posters on here haven't noticed what's happening in the rest of society. A quick glance in places online where ordinary people voice their opinions (not twitter) shows that it's true that "ordinary people are quietly cheering Sunak on because they're absolutely sick to death of the endless pandering to the sensitivities of trans activists"
Parents aren't cheering on the gaslighting of children in schools that their bodies are wrong and that changing sex is the solution - they're horrified. Workers confronted with the compulsory DEI "training" that misrepresents the law and erases women are seeing it for the manipulative bullshit that it is. Sport, parkrun, terrible crimes falsely attributed to women, censorship and all the rest. People are finally speaking out.
For all the empathy that everyone has for Esther Ghey and her family, the population is now seeing that the unthinking promotion of this ideology, especially at children is having a dreadful impact on society.

PM has a trans activist brother and another brother who is a convicted sex offender.

Add to the above - that there will always be those who are more politically attuned to movements in society, and who are actively interested in them, than others. I'd say most people are not naturally political at all - they simply have 'political' opinions and views which they pick up from their environment and those in their immediate circle.

Those who are naturally political tend to intuit things early on and realise the implications. Most people are blind to the implications of authoritarian trans ideology, nor do they understand the roots from which it springs. They will only realise something when it impacts on them personally and very directly - and then they will wonder " How on earth was this allowed to happen?" or "How on earth did this come about"?

Peter Boghossian has spoken about groups whose viewpoints are based on ideas about what is morally right, being unresponsive to changing their minds based on evidence. The ideas are evidence free in the first place, so they see no reason to engage in evidence at all.

I've worked in a women's prison teaching basic skills, I've worked with some of the poorest people, doing similar work, to help them gain qualifications to get good jobs. I have also come from a very poor background myself and I have found a lot of tolerance of difference and vulnerability amongst people who are more disadvantaged. The prison I worked in was a women's prison in London and lots of the women had been abused and traumatised by men it's true and that was part of the reason they were there. It's the lack of support, the closing of women's refuge centres, the lack of affordable housing for women to leave their abusive partners, the mental health support needed, the lack of real training, the poverty wages, not the few trans-men in this country that is such a problem. Stop trying to focus the ills of society on a few souls who have decided to change their gender identity. And please don't tell me I don't care, I have spent a lifetime working with disadvantaged people, for not much money and still continue to work, well into my 60s. Your judgment of me when you don't know me and saying I don't care, says much about you, none of it good.

Yes, she is very close to her brother, and as such as taken on board, without criticism, the idea that being against trans ideology is just the same as being homophobic.

It was very evident to me during the Tory party Leadership contest that Penny Mordaunt is not that rational. Her thinking was certainly confused and her points were all over the place. during her campaign speech. She couldn't articulate points clearly at all. Those transfixed by her good looks and sex appeal fail to notice that.

But can't you see you are accepting without any critical analysis at all, the very concept of a 'trans identity'? You may put this down to being simply 'loving' and 'accepting' of people - but in being so undiscriminating you are failing to see the wider implications for society and in particular for children and women in particular of this set of ideas in practice.

Gender identity is a construct;a concept - not an indicator of reality. Reality of sort that we can use to order and organise society for the dignity and benefit of all.

I'm not sure you aware of how bad the situation for women in jails in the U.S is?
The situation there is crazy. Violent and abusive men are routinely put in women's jails. We do not want that to happen here.

I've also taught in a prison, and with people with vulnerabilities and special needs, and I don't see how being aware of the impact of gender identity ideology means that we cannot care about the other harms and sufferings you mention?

I've only just spotted this thread.

But this from @AdamRyan 's OP sticks out to me:

All views welcome.

Yet on thread 1 on this issue she strongly implied that those of who think that Starmer was the one who inappropriately raised a child's murder to shut down debate were the victims of a Sunak led group manipulation technique.

So I'm not sure Adam really means that all views are welcome.

I'm also not sure why we need a second thread on this, it seems quite disrespectful to Brianna and her family to me, her mother doesn't want the focus to be on this issue, she wants to be able to use her platform to do good to raise issues of social media use for teens.

So what was the purpose of the second thread? It seems that Adam wants to continue to stop debate about this issue by focusing on her 'nasty tory' agenda. This neither helps the legacy that Brianna's mother seeks nor a healthy debate that needs to take place about the ongoing erosion of women's rights.

It really doesn't matter that much though does it, it's just semantics. You're entitled to your opinion as I am and that's important to have freedom of thought and speech. I also worked as a medical secretary at Barts Hospital many moons ago (I've had a lot of different jobs that paid the bills!) and was in the endocrinology department. A beautiful young woman, newly married and unable to have children was referred, turned out she was XY, a true male genetically but also a true hermaphrodite. Nature creates diversity, don't be too hung up on binary constructs. Enjoy life, we're not here for long and try not to 'punch down' is always a good rule to live by I find.