Response to Leo Varadkar in the Sunday Times
by Sorcha Nic Lochlainn, Director of The Countess
Leo Varadkar’s article in The Sunday Times is both enraging and also somehow affirming. Varadkar demonstrates a limited understanding of the concerns women have been raising for the past ten years but he does at least mention the clash of rights. He may come down on the side of trans-identified people (especially the men who say they are women it seems) but in usual Leo ‘sleeveen’ style, he does offer an olive branch, but only after sending our blood pressure though the roof.
The article starts by yet again tying the GRA to the popular 2015 Marriage Equality referendum, even though no public debate was ever held about the GRA, despite it being much more of a seismic social change than same-sex marriage. Leo helpfully outlines what ‘self-determination’ really means, though he certainly does not view this in the same way most reasonable people do – as complete overstep, wide open to any man who wishes to declare themselves trans and help themselves to women’s rights.
All the right-on Gaeilgeoirí with sé/é or sí/í in their bios are going to be mighty surprised by the declaration that ‘in the Irish language, the words for “him”, “her” and “they” are the same’. This reads like something someone he thought was intelligent told him once and he thought it was some kind of profound revelation. The word he is referring to is “a” – the possessive pronoun for his, her, their. As any half competent Gaeilgeoir can tell you, the noun following ‘a’ changes to clarify the sex of person. We know if it is his ‘bróg’ or her ‘bróg’ by how the word bróg changes (a bhróg = his shoe). Any primary school child can probably tell you that ‘sé’ and ‘sí’ refer to ‘he’ and ‘she’ as well, as do ‘é’ and ‘í’ in different contexts. We also have ‘ise/sise’, ‘eisean/seisean’ and ‘siadsan/iadsan’ for emphasis. How utterly insulting from someone who claims in the first paragraph that he is proud to be Irish to be so wrong about our language. As for “Gaeilge is kind of queer” – what? What does this even mean? And how can we make it stop!
Leo mentions languages without any gendered pronouns as the next little gotcha. I would say, no pronouns = no enforced lying, so no problem. It bears explaining again that the issue with ‘preferred pronouns’ (i.e. telling others how you want them to refer to you, even when you are not present) is that it forces the speaker to lie about how they see the world. To call a man ‘she’ is to say I think he’s a woman. This is far from a benign concession. It is a breakdown of language and reality with it.
Ah but wait, there is more – now after we have been confused and infuriated, we move on to the admonishment. ‘All around the western world, trans people are being demonised and scapegoated by populist, nationalist and religious fundamentalist actors.’ What Leo presumably means is women are finally being heard, but it has been conservative and religious people who have listened. They have acted, maybe for different reasons, to start the roll back of policies that allow men in women’s spaces and sports and against the erosion of language. Well, no surprise, because Leo and others, who in their collective progressive echo-chamber passed the GRA into law in 2015, commending themselves as saviours of the poor downtrodden trans community, totally shut down all debate in the years that followed. ‘Liberal’ by name, not by nature. The left abandoned women, not the other way around.
Oh silly women, with your ludicrous unfounded concerns over child safeguarding and your own privacy, dignity, and safety. The world did not cave in. Only a few women and children have so far been harmed and really, that’s an acceptable collateral damage for Leo and his ilk. He cares not for the women incarcerated with and abused by Barbie Kardasian, for the women assaulted by Shauna Kavanagh, the girls being concussed by boys in their Ladies Gaelic Football matches. It’s only a few, sure, and for the small few trans-identified people to have exactly what they want all the time is more important. The wants of the few (males) truly outweigh the needs the many (females).
Interesting to note that Leo mentions Barbie Kardashian as some kind of extreme example of abuse of the system. Make no mistake, Kardashian used the GRA exactly as it was intended. He legally obtained a GRC. He is just as Trans as any other man who says he’s a woman. His placement in the women’s wing was a policy decision. One wonders though why Varadkar describes Kardashian as a Brazilian – his nationality is Irish, he was born here to Venezuelan parents, and has Irish citizenship because we didn’t change the birthright rule until 2004. He is as Irish as Leo Varadkar. If he were not, he would not be able to get a GRC. Is Varadkar attempting to suggest that the Barbie Kardashian case is not a home-grown disaster?
Leo argues that we should not abolish the act because of one case of abuse or several. But the Gender Recognition Act was brought in on foot of one court case. And the issue is even when we can see the abuse, we can do nothing about it. The GRA is written to enable anyone to obtain a GRA. All safeguards were removed, as Leo mentions at the very start of his article. To do otherwise would go against the trans rights activists central tenet that a person is trans if they say they are. There can be no gatekeeping under this ideology. Bad actors being able to get a GRC is a feature, not a bug.
We at The Countess feel one case is too many. One woman incarcerated with a male is too many. Our Bill to amend the GRA to exclude prisons would not take away the rights or recognition of anyone, but it would offer protection – immediate protection – to the most vulnerable women in our society.
Leo throws us a bone at the end of the article though and explains that the issue of sport is a complex one. But it is only complex if you are trying to find a way to let men into the female category. He helpfully clarifies that the law as it stands allows for female-only categories. This is what The Countess and others have been saying for years, however the pressure brought to bear on sporting bodies from government funded NGOs has been immense. We have sports in this country that protect women and girls but many more either fail to do so explicitly or have capitulated to the activists. Some have even said they are legally obliged to allow males into the female category. Maybe Leo could contact the LGFA to reassure them that this is not the case.
When it comes to single-sex spaces, Leo might be feeling the heat from some of fellow gay men as he does mention the relatively new phenomenon of women who say they are men entering gay clubs and such like. As usual he ranks the male concerns over the female though – pesky women worried about bigger stronger males. He does at least acknowledge that there may be some validity to their concerns. But alas, he throws up his hands and says it can’t be solved. He then invokes the usual arguments of unworkable genital inspections etc. Perhaps if we didn’t allow legal falsification of gender/sex on our identity documents, it could be easier for security to police. But the crux of the matter is, if some men are allowed in, no men can be questioned.
It’s interesting though – the concern about a few masculine-looking women being asked if they are women is seen as more important than the concerns of women in general about being assaulted or otherwise having their boundaries breached by having males in their spaces. The cult of the individual strikes again.
Leo suggests ‘all-gender bathrooms’ as a possible compromise. But mixed-sex spaces increase the risks to women and girls. Also, most people do not want to share intimate spaces like toilets and changing rooms with members of the opposite sex, as Leo admitted just two paragraphs earlier.
The twisting flow of this article is best summarised as self-congratulatory on the supposed success of the GRA, with hints of smugness, and a generous helping of unconscious misogyny. Varadkar wants to appear woke and progressive but in the end, he must acknowledge some valid concerns about the GRA. He finishes with the olive branch of asking for discussion so that the debate won’t be led by ‘the extremes’.
Leo, it is extreme to suggest that self-ID was ever a good idea. It is extreme to suggest further expanding it to include a third option. Unless the power of a GRC is removed, women and children will continue to be harmed. Let’s talk about that.
Sorcha Nic Lochlainn is a Director of The Countess. The Countess team have repeatedly written to ministers and TD about the harms of the GRA. We are available for discussion any time.