New Tory Leader

[Yellow Fever 3,787]

10 hours ago, Well b back said:

He might be saying sorry after all 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68229785

I can't help but feel that despite their grief that the parents of Brianna Ghey stand head and shoulders above the cheap political playground LGBT+ jibes from Sunak at PMQ. It really does seem the Tory party can't go any lower but then they keep on surprising me.

[dylanisabaddog 4,930]

The first caller to Nicky Campbell on 5Live this morning blames Starmer for drawing attention to the joke. So yes @yellowfever, they can get lower. They have clearly been emailing their members overnight.

A couple of years ago a lady called in to Campbell and claimed to have no connection to the Conservative Party. One of the other callers butted in to point out that she lived in the same street as him and was a local Conservative member. She hung up. 

[horsefly 4,300]

There is a very obvious reason why Sunak refuses to apologise for his hideous transphobia yesterday. If he did, that would be an admission that transphobia is wrong. But that would then make it impossible for him to continue to attack Starmer with his favourite transphobic line about women with willies. As the election looms it is very clear that divisive culture wars is pretty much all the Tories have left as a campaign strategy. Sunak will be desperate to repeat his transphobic tropes and jokes ad infinitum to engender hate against a extremely small group of abused people.

I experienced a perfect example of this just a couple of days ago talking to someone in a hotel bar in Norwich. "Don't get me started" he said when I mentioned something about transgender people, and he launched into the usual tirade of populist tropes about biology etc. Keeping calm (Yes I can do it face to face), I asked him in what ways his life had been personally affected by the existence of this very small group of people. He admitted that it had affected him personally not one bit. Then I asked him whether his life had been affected by sky rocketing mortgage rates, massive utility bills, high inflation and interest rates, huge food price rises, 7.5m NHS waiting lists, crumbling schools, etc, etc, etc. I followed with the question "Why do you think the Tories want to get you furious about a tiny group of people that you have admitted yourself don't affect your life personally, when all these other things are making your life a misery?" TBF he got the point pretty quickly.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

There is a very obvious reason why Sunak refuses to apologise for his hideous transphobia yesterday. If he did, that would be an admission that transphobia is wrong. But that would then make it impossible for him to continue to attack Starmer with his favourite transphobic line about women with willies. As the election looms it is very clear that divisive culture wars is pretty much all the Tories have left as a campaign strategy. Sunak will be desperate to repeat his transphobic tropes and jokes ad infinitum to engender hate against a extremely small group of abused people.

I experienced a perfect example of this just a couple of days ago talking to someone in a hotel bar in Norwich. "Don't get me started" he said when I mentioned something about transgender people, and he launched into the usual tirade of populist tropes about biology etc. Keeping calm (Yes I can do it face to face), I asked him in what ways his life had been personally affected by the existence of this very small group of people. He admitted that it had affected him personally not one bit. Then I asked him whether his life had been affected by sky rocketing mortgage rates, massive utility bills, high inflation and interest rates, huge food price rises, 7.5m NHS waiting lists, crumbling schools, etc, etc, etc. I followed with the question "Why do you think the Tories want to get you furious about a tiny group of people that you have admitted yourself don't affect your life personally, when all these other things are making your life a misery?" TBF he got the point pretty quickly.

"Populist tropes about biology"... bloody biology! 😂

You're all mad. Lost in your own navel-gazing fantasy world where everyone can be a tree if they wish it hard enough. Or if they can't, pretend they're a tree anyway to avoid hurting their feelings, or send them to a doctor to have their arms chopped off and have tree  branches grafted on.

Edited February 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,300]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

"Populist tropes about biology"... bloody biology! 😂

You're all mad. Lost in your own navel-gazing fantasy world where everyone can be a tree if they wish it hard enough.

Your ignorance and bigotry is the only consistent thing in your posts. If you had an ounce of intelligence or curiosity you would seek to understand the massive amount of literature produced by scientists and social theorists that debates the distinction between biologically determined sex and socially constructed gender. But of course, you wouldn't dream of wasting your time questioning your well established set of prejudices. Hence your pathetic quip at the end. very sad.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Your ignorance and bigotry is the only consistent thing in your posts. If you had an ounce of intelligence or curiosity you would seek to understand the massive amount of literature produced by scientists and social theorists that debates the distinction between biologically determined sex and socially constructed gender. But of course, you wouldn't dream of wasting your time questioning your well established set of prejudices. Hence your pathetic quip at the end. very sad.

Yadda yadda yadda. You're a pompous, demented ****. Very few people have any issue with a handful of oddballs living their lives differently. Where it becomes a problem is demented people like yourself who believe its okay to start brainwashing kids that this is something that might apply to them. Even teachers are starting to struggle with the stuff they're told to push on young kids. You're sick.

 

Edited February 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,300]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Yadda yadda yadda. You're a pompous, demented ****. Very few people have any issue with a handful of oddballs living their lives differently. Where it becomes a problem is demented people like yourself who believe its okay to start brainwashing kids that this is something that might apply to them. Even teachers are starting to struggle with the stuff they're told to push on young kids. You're sick.

 

I see you are getting back to the level of abuse when you sent me that stream of DMs repeatedly calling me a f***ing c**t and many other things. Well done you!

[canarydan23 4,060]

I agree with Sunak in that it is important to recognise that there are two distinct sexes and that it isn't hateful or bigoted to allow that distinction to influence certain things; essentially participation in sports and access to female-only spaces. Nor is it hateful to say that a man is a male and a woman is a female. If that wasn't the case, there would be no need for the term "trans". There is absolutely nothing up with people becoming trans, those with genuine gender dysphoria have my sympathy, but there is something wrong with exposing a male-body in a female changing room, having a male in a women's refuge or allowing male-born people to compete in women's sports.

However, despite having that opinion, bringing the topic up in the presence of a bereaved parent of a trans child is ****ing sick. And to not just turn around and say, "Whilst I still believe my point was valid, I accept it was not the right arena with which to bring it up, and therefore I offer my apologies for any hurt caused to the parents or loved ones of Brianna Ghey", is indicative of a man who is borderline pathological in his outlook.

Edited February 8 by canarydan23

[horsefly 4,300]

Not a woman according to some experts on here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Cossey

[canarydan23 4,060]

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Not a woman according to some experts on here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Cossey

Don't conflate intersex with trans.

[horsefly 4,300]

Just now, canarydan23 said:

Don't conflate intersex with trans.

You've missed the point. Caroline Cossey was born with a biology that did not determine her gender. The point is she is a woman. Would you treat as not a woman?

[Yellow Fever 3,787]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Not a woman according to some experts on here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Cossey

Yes - HF. I seem to recall a few months back I tried to point out all is not actually even genetically binary (and that's leaving alone even more subtle brain developments and other hormonal tricks or perhaps developmental mishaps (poor choice of word in this context) that nature can play even if plain XX or XY. We are only just beginning to understand some of them! 

The humble thing to say is that 'sex' and orientation is complicated and nobody has the full answers but it clearly isn't black and white as per the simpletons. The real question is not that we shouldn't accept such people as they are but how to practically accommodate them in a majority simple male/female world.

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

You've missed the point. Caroline Cossey was born with a biology that did not determine her gender. The point is she is a woman. Would you treat as not a woman?

I think you've missed the point, or at least you've made one that doesn't stack up.

Intersex exists as a term because sex is binary. A problem within the womb assigns the baby with biological characteristics of both sexes. That doesn't stop sex being binary in exactly the same way that a baby born with a missing leg does not stop humans as a species being four-limbed bipeds.

Caroline Cossey was born an intersex male. The genetic condition she had was is exclusive to males. She is a trans woman, has lived her gender for more than two years, undergone medical treatment and reassignment surgery and absolutely should be recognised now as a woman. She's not someone who just woke up one day and decided "I'm a woman" and demanded to be treated as such.  However, had she chosen the athletic route for a career, I would oppose her inclusion in female-only events. And this is in a similar fashion to the hypothetical baby born with a missing leg; one day prosthetics may improve to such an extent that people with them are faster than those who compete in the Olympics. I would oppose their inclusion in Olympic events.

This topic could have it's own thread to be fair, thought I doubt it would last very long. We should probably get back to what a total **** Rishi Sunak is.

Edited February 8 by canarydan23

[dylanisabaddog 4,930]

38 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

 

This topic could have it's own thread to be fair, thought I doubt it would last very long. We should probably get back to what a total **** Rishi Sunak is.

Yes. 

I've just heard Sunak blaming Starmer for politicising this issue. It beggars belief. 

I freely admit to not fully understanding this issue but I only have sympathy for the parents of the murdered child. Sunak quite obviously couldn't give a s***. He disgusts me. 

If like me and Sunak you don't understand, surely the best thing is just to leave it to the experts? I'm totally ignorant of the issue but I definitely wouldn't want to change places with the people affected by it. 

[horsefly 4,300]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

Caroline Cossey was born an intersex male. The genetic condition she had was is exclusive to males. She is a trans woman, has lived her gender for more than two years, undergone medical treatment and reassignment surgery and absolutely should be recognised now as a woman.

Indeed! Born with male genitalia and assigned a male gender. Changed her gender to fit with her lived experience, and opted to have surgery to reflect that. The choice was NOT determined by her biology but by her self-perception of what her gender truly is. The issues are extraordinarily complex, and not helped by those who think biology is the only issue that matters. What rights should be given to transgender people who retain their original biological genitalia needs very careful consideration. For example, I happen to be one of those who thinks if you have male genitalia then you shouldn't have access to women's changing rooms. But the issues deserve calm rational debate and the people concerned need showing respect. The numbers involved are miniscule, completely disproportionate to the level of hate that has been generated.

[A Load of Squit 5,167]

Never mind , they'll be van along soon.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-nhs-prime-minister-government-cornwall-b1137965.html

Dentist Rishi Sunak visited is not taking on new NHS patients

The Prime Minister was at Cornwall’s Gentle Dental to promote the Government’s dentistry plan.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

How a swing voter could be remotely persuaded to vote for this shower re. policy, when all they've got is "buh duh udder lutt urrr wurrrrssssss!" is ****ing beyond me.

[Barbe bleu 826]

20 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

I agree with Sunak in that it is important to recognise that there are two distinct sexes and that it isn't hateful or bigoted to allow that distinction to influence certain things; essentially participation in sports and access to female-only spaces. Nor is it hateful to say that a man is a male and a woman is a female. If that wasn't the case, there would be no need for the term "trans". There is absolutely nothing up with people becoming trans, those with genuine gender dysphoria have my sympathy, but there is something wrong with exposing a male-body in a female changing room, having a male in a women's refuge or allowing male-born people to compete in women's sports.

However, despite having that opinion, bringing the topic up in the presence of a bereaved parent of a trans child is ****ing sick. And to not just turn around and say, "Whilst I still believe my point was valid, I accept it was not the right arena with which to bring it up, and therefore I offer my apologies for any hurt caused to the parents or loved ones of Brianna Ghey", is indicative of a man who is borderline pathological in his outlook.

A very sensible reply and I suspect one that chimes with 95% of the population even though its the 5% that get heard. Unfortunately its those few voices that add a layer of toxicity to discussions.

On the sunak thing, yes politically stupid and emotionally wrong to bring it up in the way he did at that time. It was a really damaging display of poor judgement IMHO.  Wrong also for starmer to personalise it so he's not off the hook entirely either, I will probably give him the benefit of the doubt over whether this was an off the cuff reply or the springing of a trap though. 

 Family wants to move on but I doubt they read the back end of the pink un so it might be OK to have written this...

 

[Fen Canary 828]

Why is Sunak mocking Starmers flip flopping on the trans issue in front of Gheys mother (although she wasn’t in the chamber at the time) beyond the pale, yet Starmers weaponising that teenagers murder to political point score in return seemingly fine?

Call my cynical but I’d wager this is an attempt by Starmer to try and shut down a Tory line of attack on him that has proven reasonably successful. The more so called trans rights come to the attention of the public, and the more the public is seeing how they clash with women’s rights to single sex sports and spaces the less support there is for Starmers position on the matter, so to try and make criticism of the subject off limits is quite a smart move by him electorally 

[Herman 9,768]

How was he weaponising it?

[Fen Canary 828]

5 minutes ago, Herman said:

How was he weaponising it?

By implying that Sunaks mockery of Starmers U turns is in anyway related to the murder of a teenager, which according to the police wasn’t even motivated by transphobia as Ghey wasn’t even the preferred target.

Starmer is a much more canny political operator than Sunak and he’s shown it again here

[Yellow Fever 3,787]

4 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

By implying that Sunaks mockery of Starmers U turns is in anyway related to the murder of a teenager, which according to the police wasn’t even motivated by transphobia as Ghey wasn’t even the preferred target.

Starmer is a much more canny political operator than Sunak and he’s shown it again here

I don't think SKS 'weaponised' it but simply rebutted the obvious clanger Sunak had made ... as any right thinking person would. 

By the way, if I recall the judge sentencing stated trans was an issue with one of the defendents.

Frankly Sunak and the Tories on this need to go back and crawl under their stone.

[Herman 9,768]

9 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

By implying that Sunaks mockery of Starmers U turns is in anyway related to the murder of a teenager, which according to the police wasn’t even motivated by transphobia as Ghey wasn’t even the preferred target.

Starmer is a much more canny political operator than Sunak and he’s shown it again here

What are you on about? Please go back and watch the beginning of PMQs.

[Fen Canary 828]

7 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I don't think SKS 'weaponised' it but simply rebutted the obvious clanger Sunak had made ... as any right thinking person would. 

By the way, if I recall the judge sentencing stated trans was an issue with one of the defendents.

Frankly Sunak and the Tories on this need to go back and crawl under their stone.

I could be wrong but from what I’ve read about the case the only real mentioning of Gheys gender was a text message guessing whether the screams would be like a girl or boys. The police never put forward transphobia as a motive for committing the crime, Ghey was simply one name on a list of targets.

However going back to the original point I don’t see the issue with what Sunak said. He never mentioned Ghey by name or made any mention of the case. Should politicians be banned from discussing certain subjects because of who may be watching in the gallery? I think it’s a dangerous precedent to say Parliament should be stopped from debating and arguing topics due to the feelings of people there to watch proceedings 

[Herman 9,768]

Blimey Fen!! A trans kid was murdered, her being trans was the major reason for her killing, the PM made some crass transphobic joke in parliament, while the mother of the murdered kid was in parliament.

I'm clearly not fully au fait with the trans debate, I simply don't get it, but even with limited knowledge it's clear that Sunak made an awful mess. Sometimes you've just got to hold your hands up, apologise and hopefully move on. Making excuses for this is just pathetic.

[Yellow Fever 3,787]

15 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I could be wrong but from what I’ve read about the case the only real mentioning of Gheys gender was a text message guessing whether the screams would be like a girl or boys. The police never put forward transphobia as a motive for committing the crime, Ghey was simply one name on a list of targets.

However going back to the original point I don’t see the issue with what Sunak said. He never mentioned Ghey by name or made any mention of the case. Should politicians be banned from discussing certain subjects because of who may be watching in the gallery? I think it’s a dangerous precedent to say Parliament should be stopped from debating and arguing topics due to the feelings of people there to watch proceedings 

What else was SKS supposed to do? Let Sunak get away with his diatribe in Parliament? Ignore it? 

Everybody is calling for him to apologise, even most of the Tories!

Oh - from Manchester Evening News...

"Sentencing, Mrs Justice Yip described the murder as ‘brutal’ and said Jenkinson showed ‘a deep desire to kill’. She added that Ratcliffe showed ‘hostility’ towards Brianna because of her transgender identity."

[Fen Canary 828]

4 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

What else was SKS supposed to do? Let Sunak get away with his diatribe in Parliament? Ignore it? 

Everybody is calling for him to apologise, even most of the Tories!

Oh - from Manchester Evening News...

"Sentencing, Mrs Justice Yip described the murder as ‘brutal’ and said Jenkinson showed ‘a deep desire to kill’. She added that Ratcliffe showed ‘hostility’ towards Brianna because of her transgender identity."

Ratcliffe was disparaging, referring to Ghey as it in various text messages, but Ghey being transgender wasn’t the motive for the murder. Ghey was murdered because they were unable to get to their preferred target, at least that’s how it has been reported.

I expect Starmer to try and do exactly as he has done, as it’s a handy way of shutting down an area of debate in which he’s politically vulnerable. I certainly don’t class what Sunak said as a diatribe. He was mocking Starmers inability to form a consistent opinion on the subject, he wasn’t attacking anybody who classes themselves as transgender.

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

I could be wrong

And then proved it with the two paragraphs that followed.

[Barbe bleu 826]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

I could be wrong but from what I’ve read about the case the only real mentioning of Gheys gender was a text message guessing whether the screams would be like a girl or boys. The police never put forward transphobia as a motive for committing the crime, Ghey was simply one name on a list of targets.

However going back to the original point I don’t see the issue with what Sunak said. He never mentioned Ghey by name or made any mention of the case. Should politicians be banned from discussing certain subjects because of who may be watching in the gallery? I think it’s a dangerous precedent to say Parliament should be stopped from debating and arguing topics due to the feelings of people there to watch proceedings 

I pondered whether starmer had this in his pocket to pull out if the opportunity arose. If he did then his been opportunistic at the family's expense and he did personalise it.

But sunak should have kept quiet, keeping a lid on things for one day doesn't mean some things can never be talked about, it just means picking the right time

[Fen Canary 828]

18 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I pondered whether starmer had this in his pocket to pull out if the opportunity arose. If he did then his been opportunistic at the family's expense and he did personalise it.

But sunak should have kept quiet, keeping a lid on things for one day doesn't mean some things can never be talked about, it just means picking the right time

It was politically naive to bring it up and give Starmer a line of attack, but it wasn’t transphobic or malicious. Sunak simply isn’t very good at debating and get regularly shown up at PMQ’s

I find it pathetic all those who now feign outrage and claim offence on others behalf