Pathetic waste of parliamentary time and the salaries we pay MPs talking about whether Starmer 'believes' a woman is a birth woman. Isn't it just a matter of accepting a legal ruling? Not a change of belief! Political game playing.

Show Post

What Starmer really believes is irrelevant. As PM he doesn't have the luxury of openly defying or contradicting the Supreme Court. What he can, and should, do is put forward legislation that legally defines what a "biological woman" is because that definition is missing.

Show Post

But criticising Starmer for doing exactly what we wanted Johnson to do is sheer hypocrisy. I don't agree with the Supreme Court's ruling but I don't expect Starmer to do anything other than respect, uphold, and defend it.

Show Post

Also bear in mind, his previous position was based on the law as it was interpreted then. The law has now changed and so has Starmer's position changed accordingly. This is exactly what we should expect the office prime minister to do: uphold the law.

Show Post

The fact is, whether you or I agree, the law is that a trans woman is not a woman and a trans man is not a man under UK law. If you want that to change take it back to the courts and make your argument. Don't shout into the wind criticising the PM for doing what the PM is duty bound to do.

Show Post