He then once more paints Rosie as ‘toxic’ & once more references a murdered child
There are women that will hold their noses to vote for this man, I don’t think I can pic.twitter.com/F5gNtf5USt
— Le_Sorelle_Arduino KPSS (@Sorelle_Arduino) June 20, 2024
At least he’s consistent. Rosie Duffield is a bad troublesome nuisance woman who must be ignored, and Tony Blair is a good helpful correct man who must be listened to. This is especially important when Blair is simply saying what Duffield has already said multiple times. Rosie bad; Tony good. Women bad; men good. Must isolate and punish women. Must hug and cuddle men.
It’s pathetic that Starmer feels the need to recruit the opinion of Tony Blair to validate and affirm his bold statement that “a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis”. Gee, thanks for the update. This is on par with Trump saying “Not many people know this” upon having learned something himself for the first time. Wouldn’t it be more important for his beliefs to conform with reality than with those of Tony Blair? If he’s trying to save face, he’s doing it wrong.
Is this basic bit of biology not something he knew on his own? Did he have to consult with Blair, just to be sure? Why cite Blair at all? Can’t he stand up on his own two feet? Is he just that desperate to avoid admitting that Rosie Duffield was right all along? (Spoiler alert: yes, he is.) Did he miss school the day they covered the birds and the bees, and has been stumbling about in over-confident ignorance for the last few decades until Tony set him straight? Better late than never, I suppose, but he might have been a little more cautious and tentative in some of his prior, bold statements, made in his benighted, pre-Blair days. I’m still not at all confident (until he says so publicly), that he no longer believes (or claims to believe) that some women have penises. Where did he pick up that bit of wisdom? With whom was he agreeing when he said that? Why did it take Tony Blair to disabuse him of this false doctrine when he could have consulted any number of grade-school books on the subject? Is he now saying that he was wrong to say that some women have penises? Does he now know for a fact that zero women have penises, and is he willing to say so in his out-loud voice, without crossing his fingers? You can’t have it both ways, though Keir’s giving it the good-old college try.
Come on Keir, you can do it! You don’t need Tony’s help! Make a decision! Acknowledge facts, even if it loses you the support of people who convinced you that you needed to repeat their foolish, easily disproven lies. Those people were never your friends, they were your captors. Their “friendship” is poison, and is a one way street. Throw off your obsequious Stockholm Syndrome and reclaim your freedom of thought.
One has to wonder though: are there any other gaps in his knowledge that need filling by Mr. Blair (or anyone else), before he makes any more unfortunate public pronouncements? I want some assurances that he can add and subtract without help before he’s left alone to do the accounting.
Do some women have penises? Those who believe so likely believe also that it helps them get their rocks off, particularly by claiming right of entry to womens’ washrooms etc. But endorsement of their claim of theirs is only a likely introduction to further claims. Some people are never satisfied, even after they have got their rocks off; past tense.
It’s pathetic that Starmer feels the need to recruit the opinion of Tony Blair to validate and affirm his bold statement that “a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis”. Gee, thanks for the update. This is on par with Trump saying “Not many people know this” upon having learned something himself for the first time. Wouldn’t it be more important for his beliefs to conform with reality than with those of Tony Blair? If he’s trying to save face, he’s doing it wrong.
Is this basic bit of biology not something he knew on his own? Did he have to consult with Blair, just to be sure? Why cite Blair at all? Can’t he stand up on his own two feet? Is he just that desperate to avoid admitting that Rosie Duffield was right all along? (Spoiler alert: yes, he is.) Did he miss school the day they covered the birds and the bees, and has been stumbling about in over-confident ignorance for the last few decades until Tony set him straight? Better late than never, I suppose, but he might have been a little more cautious and tentative in some of his prior, bold statements, made in his benighted, pre-Blair days. I’m still not at all confident (until he says so publicly), that he no longer believes (or claims to believe) that some women have penises. Where did he pick up that bit of wisdom? With whom was he agreeing when he said that? Why did it take Tony Blair to disabuse him of this false doctrine when he could have consulted any number of grade-school books on the subject? Is he now saying that he was wrong to say that some women have penises? Does he now know for a fact that zero women have penises, and is he willing to say so in his out-loud voice, without crossing his fingers? You can’t have it both ways, though Keir’s giving it the good-old college try.
Come on Keir, you can do it! You don’t need Tony’s help! Make a decision! Acknowledge facts, even if it loses you the support of people who convinced you that you needed to repeat their foolish, easily disproven lies. Those people were never your friends, they were your captors. Their “friendship” is poison, and is a one way street. Throw off your obsequious Stockholm Syndrome and reclaim your freedom of thought.
One has to wonder though: are there any other gaps in his knowledge that need filling by Mr. Blair (or anyone else), before he makes any more unfortunate public pronouncements? I want some assurances that he can add and subtract without help before he’s left alone to do the accounting.
Do some women have penises? Those who believe so likely believe also that it helps them get their rocks off, particularly by claiming right of entry to womens’ washrooms etc. But endorsement of their claim of theirs is only a likely introduction to further claims. Some people are never satisfied, even after they have got their rocks off; past tense.