Tony Blair had to tell Starmer what a woman is

[cavalier]

The only reason Starmer changed his mind … yet again .. is because Blair said “a woman is a woman and a man is a man “!
This man is now prime minister .. I just can’t get my head around it all

It's a bit like Mussolini's success with railway punctuality - at best, nobody cares because it's way overshadowed by his far more devastating actions; and at worst, it does damage to the integrity of the cause because it's then associated with that person.

It's like this now all across the western world, though.

And in many of the countries that haven't bought into it, that's because women are treated as such inferior citizens; it's not coming from a desire to treat all people with dignity and respect as a member of the sex that they happen to be.

Not for women though. When self ID is wheeled out as a ‘law’ and women are treated with contempt/ignored if they dare state the obvious or suggest that - heaven forbid - they want single sex spaces. When men are locked in prison with women and women are raped on a ‘single sex’ ward then lied to by staff ‘no men here’.

I think the point may be that while first world countries faff about wibbling over what reality is, and other luxury idiocy, other countries with major war power have more basic concerns and increasing disrespect for what they perceive as weakness. The world is not a stable place at the moment.

Slight diversion but I’d say they are adept at using people movement as a tool of disruption and we can we it’s working on various countries

Tony's been listening to Mr Menno.

It's unlikely that British gender policy is going to incite war. We don't have to pretend to be homophobic or repressed in order to appease powerful countries bent on world domination.

@ticktickticktickBOOM Of course gender policy won't incite war - that's not the point though.

Whilst we focus on first world irrelevancies we loose focus on what really matters. We need our focus to be on countries that most definitely do have war on the agenda. No prizes for guessing which those are.

He runs an extremely well resourced and influential think tank, has the ear of the current PM and is known, for good or ill, around the world. I think his opinions are more influential than you think.

How do you know this

I reckon Keir's known the difference for a while now

Pretend to be homophobic how exactly?

Calling homosexuals sexual racists seems pretty homophobic to me, but is all the rage at the moment. If the Cass report is not properly implemented that will also be quite homophobic. You might want to read some Dennis Noel Kavanaugh on the subject, barrister and director of the Gay Mens Network, he occasionally posts some excellent links on here.

And that was not my point. Of course gender policy is not going to 'incite war'.

With ex and current Labour politicians it’s about time a direct question was asked on where men with GRCs can have access

There is still contradiction there if you look at Dodds and Starmer

And someone should ask Blair what he was thinking would happen when he created the GRA and caused all this

Calling homosexuals sexual racists

No government has done that. You are talking about a minority of activists.

Tony Blair didn’t seem to know what WMD looked like, so I am not sure he is a reliable source.

But I am sure his dodgy think tank/consultancy has finally decided that woke is not the way to go in 2024 (thankfully!).

The less I hear from the overpaid liar the better, though.

I reckon Keir's known the difference for a while now

Of course he knows the difference. Everybody knows the difference. The point is that he's willing to say whatever is politically expedient or will get him the least flak at any given time. Any statement he makes can retrospectively be reversed or reinterpreted with weasel words, e.g. 'Yes I did say a woman is an adult female, but a transwoman with a GRC is legally an adult female'.

Way to show he knows. He only listens to men's opinions or wants, doesn't he? Befrocked or not.

Starmer, like every other person on the planet (including all trans activists) know what a woman is and what a man is.

The question for politicians like Starmer is whether they are brave enough to state the obvious, and so far he has been unwilling to do so.

Their fear is based off of the over-estimation of the power of the trans activists and how the media would react.

I bet Starmer was a true believer up until recently. Grampa Tony telling him they could lose the election over this must have peaked him.

He may not be liked but there's no denying he was and is influential in terms of still being involved and having people's ear to a certain extent.
I glad he isn't concerned with 'being liked' and is prepared to stand up for women's rights (I'm sure Cherie Blair gets it) because women are being disregarded and being abused if they try and point out the unfairness of being told they have to accommodate men who say they are women now into their private spaces and sports etc.

Nigel Farage isn't well like either, yet look at his influence (in a terrible way) on our society and politicians of all colours.

Sounds like a pretty fair summary

He would not define a woman
watch Nick Ferrari LBC interview
since Tony Blair spoke out he changed his mind ans he’s changed it again
slippery starmer
Honey moon coming to an end on a tv near you soon lol and I’m here for it

If there was any truth in Starmer's (half hearted) claim that he seem the light he wouldn't have appointed a man who takes his daughter to Health and Social Care, a woman who believes its possible to be a male woman to Women and Equalities, or a man who isn't sure what a cervix is not thinks you can grow one with a few hormones to the Foreign Office.

His appointments speak a million times louder than his measly mouthed words.

He’s practically a Tory and. Very rich man which Sunak always got stick about.

I'm not sure what the improvement in 'culture' is. Suddenly announcing a major change in the winter fuel allowance for older people was duplicitous. It must have been planned long ago. I'm very unimpressed by Starmer taking a clothing allowance for himself and his spouse from a rich pal. It's always a bad sign when a PM spends so much jetting off for photo ops with foreign leaders.
Way to go Starmer!