Keir Starmer, parading as a man of integrity.
After Rishi Sunak’s offensive ‘trans jibe’, as it has been called, during PMQs last week, there has (rightly) been an outrage. Sunak’s ‘joke’ drew the ire of Opposition leader, Keir Starmer, who immediately called the Prime Minister up on his ‘gag’, saying, “Of all the weeks to say that, when Brianna’s mother is in the chamber. Shame. Parading as a man of integrity, when he’s got absolutely no responsibility.”
Now, to begin, credit where credit’s due; Starmer was absolutely right to call out Sunak on the inappropriateness of his language, and there did appear to be a genuine anger behind his response, even if he did fluff it a little — pretty sure he meant ‘respectability’ because, well… Sunak’s an arsehole, but he’s the PM, obviously he does have responsibility. But, look… I sat there watching this scene unfold and I couldn’t help but shuffle uncomfortably in my seat at Starmer’s unearned sense of moral superiority. This is by and far not the first time Sunak has made this kind of comment, but it is the first time Starmer has called him up on it. Why?
Well, the obvious answer is the presence of Esther Ghey, the mother of Brianna Ghey, who was brutally murdered last year by two teenagers who targeted her in part because she was transgender. Starmer had praised Esther Ghey for her “unwavering bravery” earlier in the session. But, er… I have the ask the question: what’s Esther Ghey being there got to do with anything?
I don’t mean to seem to dismissive, but her presence in the chamber is irrelevant. I know it seems like it isn’t, but the fact of the matter remains that just because she’s not been there in person the last however-many-times a politician has said something like this, doesn’t mean she can’t still hear them. I mean, you understand that, right? And what’s more, Esther Ghey isn’t the only person who is personally impacted by these kinds of comments. If Starmer is aware enough to understand why it was wrong of Sunak to say this while Esther Ghey was in the room, then surely he is aware enough to understand why it’s wrong when she’s not. Or, indeed, when literally anyone who is personally affected by this kind of rhetoric isn’t physically present.
Starmer’s outrage becomes even more egregious and sanctimonious when we remember that not a month before this incident Rosie Duffield, the Labour MP for Cantebury, was “completely exonerated” of any charge of transphobia and antisemitism after an investigation by the Party was launched following her liking of a tweet by… ugh, Graham fucking Linehan!
In the hours following PMQs, a Labour spokesperson said, “We don’t think that the country wants or deserves a prime minister that is happy to use minorities as a punch bag. The comments were really deeply offensive to trans people, and he should reflect on his response there and apologise.” I can’t help but wonder why this statement applies to Sunak, but doesn’t apply to their own MPs?
Tell me, what is the difference between Sunak’s ‘jibe’ and Rosie Duffield calling trans women “male-bodied biological men” in 2021, or her assertion that “only women have a cervix” in 2020? Both are “deeply offensive to trans people” are they not? Both stoke the flames of this particular fire. Both validate hateful, bigoted opinions that lead more directly to the harm of trans people in real world terms, yeah? Both are politicians in public positions, saying these things publically, aren’t they?
Starmer’s obvious hypocrisy is obvious. Sunak was using trans people as a political weapon, but so was Starmer. He grabbed the opportunity to score an easy point, knowing that the presence of Esther Ghey would highlight the very real human consequences of this kind of rhetoric. But, as I think is clear, those human consequences have existed the whole time. By cynically swiping at the Prime Minister’s comments in this way, he in turn highlighted his own willingness to use trans people and their families/friends in much the same way. It is, in a word, dehumanising.
Later, Starmer tweeted about meeting with Esther Ghey. He wrote, “I am utterly in awe of her strength and bravery in the face of such unimaginable grief, as she campaigns to make sure no parent has to go through what she did,” continuting with, “Labour will work with campaigners and parents like Esther to ensure our children and young people have the mental health support they need. It’s what Brianna and her family deserve.”
I’m confused. Have comments from the likes of Duffield not added to the atmosphere that lead to Brianna being targeted by her killers? Is it only a problem when it’s the Prime Minister? Or is it only a problem when there happens to be a grieving mother in the room? Did it not matter when Wes Streeting, Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, said in 2022, “Men have penises, women have vaginas, here ends my biology lesson” on TalkTV? Where was Starmer’s outraged response to that?
As much as it pains me to admit it, Sunak’s attitude toward trans people has been horribly consistent. He’s made no secret of his disdain for the community and barely even tries to pretend that he has any respect for us as people and who we are. The same cannot be said of Starmer. Starmer waltzes around under the warped assumption that he holds some kind of moral highground, as if he and his Party are somehow excused from the very same standards and expectations he holds the Government to. It’s not simply enough to say you’re an ally, you have to actually be so, a fact that Starmer seems to have overlooked. I hate the term, but it’s virtue signalling. I don’t appreciate being used in this way anymore than I do being used as the punching bag. Neither makes me feel like I’m viewed as a human.
Perhaps Starmer should take a moment to reflect upon his own actions, and those of his own MPs, over the last few years. I’d like to hear an explanation as to how he squares the clear inconsistencies in his calling out of Sunak with his deliberate and unhelpful ignorance of the likes of Duffield and Streeting. He owes us an explanation. If the polls are anything to go by, like it or not soon he’ll be the Prime Minister, so if he’s going to hold the current man in the role to a standard then it’s only fair he hold himself to the same. Sunak’s comments were disgusting, but it seems to me that Starmer is just as guilty of “parading as a man of integrity,” and he, for now at least, actually does have “absolutely no responsibility.”
