News4 mins ago
P M Qs - Why Should The Pm Apologise?
125 Answers
https:/
It's fair game, Labour still don't know what a woman is.
Answers
No matter what surgeries they undergo, nor documentatio
13:42 Thu 08th Feb 2024
//It was shameful of Starmer to link his own inability to be clear on the matter of sex and gender directly to her grief.//
SKS *has* been clear. Last summer he said:
99.9% of women “of course haven’t got a penis”
That'd legally accurate – it remains possible to legally change one’s gender before gender reassignment surgery takes place.
Some people haev said "No-one should apologise for telling the truth".
Thing is - there are things we coulsd all say which would be inappropriate given context.
If you were giving a presentation at work and made a joke about Stevie Wonder being useless as a HGV driver, but did it in front of a delegation from the RNIB, whilst the "joke" would be true, it wouldn't be something you'd say in front of those guests.
Untitled - It would be more likely that people would take what you write seriously if you were willing/able to write in plain English, without ellipses.
Your keyboard appears to have contained capitals when you chose your username on here, so why can't you write in sentences, with capitals at the start?
I believe that the differences between men and women aren't restricted to below the neck.
But no attempt is made to surgically alter the brains of cross-gender patients.
On the other hand, I guess it's the brain which makes them want to change, so leaving it alone may be very wise.
But I do have a lot of sympathy with naomi's dogma, and I wonder at times whether we open a terrible can of worms trying to contradict it.
No - you need to understand when someone disagrees with you and gives you supporting information - it's *not* dancing.
Dancing would be avoiding the point completely and posting something like:
"SP, You've been caught out - again - so you're dancing - again. Fact is women can never be men - and men can never be women."
Which addresses nothing. It just a re-statement of a position.
The question TTT asked was whether Sunak should apologise. Your position is that he shouldn't because he was simply stating fact.
My position is that he should because he didn't need to say that when Brianna's mother was in the chamber.
It's really really simple. If the mother of a transgendered child whose been stabbed 40 times is in your presence - avoid trans jokes.
...especially when they have no bearing on the point you're making.
It's just bad manners.
SO @ 12:06 is spot on. The fact remains, and this thread has chosen to ignore it and turn into AB's usual Trans argument, the PM used trans people as a punchline for a dog at the opposition leader after it had been made very clear that the mother of a murder trans teen was in the public gallery. Whatever your opinion on the legitimacy of the teams community, that was an insensitive, crass act. One which, imho, the PM owes Esther Ghey an apology for.
For the record, while I think an apology is required, I also find using Brianna Ghey's murder for political point scoring, by both sides of the bench, to be despicable.
naomi24
KB's first point speaks to why Sunak should apologise.
Her second point is this:
"It was shameful of Starmer to link his own inability to be clear on the matter of sex and gender directly to her grief."
But she was wrong. SKS has been 100% clear.
The reason Sunak should apologise is because he made a 100% unecessary trans joke with the mother of a murdered teenage trans girl in his presence.
You simply wouldn't do this.
Would you?
If you did - and then found out that you'd made that joke in front of someone whose tran child had been murdered, wouldn't your first reaction be "I'm so sorry - I hope you know didn't mean anything by that".
No matter what surgeries they undergo, nor documentation they may have, sp, a man can never be a woman.
Sunak was refering to Starmer's position on the 'Trans' issue and not specifically the murder of Brianna Ghey. Esther Ghey may have been in the Parliamentary estate but she wasn't present in the chamber when he spoke.
JTH
My understanding is that the question of man / woman has been seized upon by the Right as a tentpole in the ongoing Culture Wars™.
Whenever I read about these issues, I always see the word "trans woman" and "trans man" as a differentiator to woman and man.
Sunak may have been referring to SKS's stance on trans issues, but it 100% didn't actually *need* to be stated in front of Brianna Ghey's mum.
Sunak said "defining a woman" was on a list of Starmer's broken promises, joking it had been "only 99% of a U-turn".
It was just tone deaf.
Like my Stevie Wonder analogy - it just didn't need to be said
//Sunak was refering to Starmer's position on the 'Trans' issue and not specifically the murder of Brianna Ghey. Esther Ghey may have been in the Parliamentary estate but she wasn't present in the chamber when he spoke.//
Absolutely irrelevant Jack. Wherever Mrs Ghey was at the time, she had already been mentioned here minutes before Sunak's foot met his mouth. I'm light of that, Sunak was a fool to even mention trans people as a dig at Starmer.
