Irish politician who supported the GRA now discovers he's expected to learn about 58 genders, he's not happy!

There is no stopping him today. Tweet after tweet getting more terfy by the minute. Just when you think nothing would surprise you.

Interesting that Craughwell was also apparently unaware that Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar was very famously unaware of the Barbie Kardashian case on 21st March 2023.

As pp said, he’s pissed off because this crap now directly affects him. He was ok with it when it was affecting women, children, prison workers, social workers …

https://twitter.com/GCraughwell/status/1688071814684012544?t=C_llIQ7IWJJhIPQaPHWcXw&s=19

I have been advised that my recent Tweets on #GRA may be detrimental to my future in politics. Then let what time I have left be highly vocal. Let us not be afraid to rise up and stop this insanity. Let our children have simple, happy childhoods. Gender = biological sex end of.

Bloody hell! Is this the most incredible 360. I had to check this wasn't a parody account.

In 2015 he was arguing that Ireland should follow the Swedish model of allowing legal gender recognition at 15 (or 12 with parental consent).

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/seanad/2015-02-03/speech/204/

I can inform the Minister that right now in Sweden it is being planned to split gender recognition into two areas, legal gender recognition and medical treatment. The main points are the separation of the legal and the medical into two different laws. Individuals will be able to get a legal change of gender at 15 or from the age of 12 for children with parental consent.

What on earth did he think would happen? How can he act so shocked now that girls are allowed no privacy from boys when that was exactly what he wanted to happen?

Although going by the rest of that speech he seems to have been under the impression that trans is some sort of DSD.

In his other speeches he says how easy it should be for transgender people to get legal recognition as their chosen sex, without any medical diagnosis, somehow without seeing that the obvious result would be that any man/boy could then legally declare himself female.

He wasn't someone who just stood by while this bill was passed. He actively argued for it - and for it to be as easy as possible to change legal sex, and for children to be included.

Aren't they two separate pieces of legislation passed at different dates. I often hear people say they were "attached" but I don't understand how. Can you explain?

^ you asked why people said they were attached.

A woman looses (signs away) her general rights and protections and can not have a legal abortion under the 2018 legislation.
A mother / woman who is unmarried has parental rights (to registers a birth etc) but men can now give birth but need a mother or a court order to register as the father." <---- not sure where you got the idea about these

If the GRA is a consitutional law a human female is not always a woman (a legal class) and men with GRCs are not women nor mothers (a sub-class of women)
A ) man goes to court (his newly birthed baby on hip) and says I want the govenment to be forced to pay me compensation for not providing me with my right an abortion the Judge will first ask for the section of the 2018 act which gave him the right to an abortion.
B ) man goes to register a baby ( A newly birthed baby on hip but no mother) and says I am the father what document are needed for his name to be on the cert?

How did the spotlight on same sex marriage hide the GRA? They are completely different acts, passed on different dates. Did same sex marriage hide all the other acts passed that year. The argument makes no sense.

You keep posting a lot of information but it is nearly 100% unrelated to what I'm asking you. For example, your point about whether we would have voted for the GRA in a referendum has nothing to do with a link between same sex marriage and the GRA. One was a referendum issue because the constitution needed to be changed. The other wasn't.

"A woman looses (signs away) her general rights and protections and can not have a legal abortion under the 2018 legislation.
A mother / woman who is unmarried has parental rights (to registers a birth etc) but men can now give birth but need a mother or a court order to register as the father." <---- not sure where you got the idea about these.

"I didn't think the léopards would eat my face!"

Thought terminating cliche

This fellow has voted for something, knowing exactly what it would entail and now, because it has a slightly adverse effect on him, wails "What?!! I never knew it would mean this!"

He can't claim ignorance. Ideally, an interviewer should tear him to pieces over this, quoting endlessly from his passionate speeches and ask him what's changed his mind.

He doesn't even have the excuse of lazy, incompetent morons like Farridge, Francois and Barclay etc, who whine that this isn't the Brexit they voted for, because they were too indolent and dim witted to understand what they were doing, just following a poorly thought out whim.

social engineering that a big social change (GRA) for everybody was hiding in plain sight (no big media spotlight) behind the positive social movement of same sex marraige which impacts a small number of people.

The link below looks at a strategy document which aims to push the TRA agenda

https://gendercriticalwoman.blog/2020/07/23/that-dentons-document/

For Ireland if the public were asked to vote on 2 constitutional changes
1 on the right to marraige
1 on the right to a GRC
the day to day problems (eg allowing a male enter a single sex female changing room) would have emerged in public debate.
It is highly unlikley that the public would vote in any number to allow a GRC right.

Other things woild be the GRC also has consitutonal impact as women and mothers have specific recognition and there is an abortion clause
A woman looses (signs away) her general rights and protections and can not have a legal abortion under the 2018 legislation.
A mother / woman who is unmarried has parental rights (to registers a birth etc) but men can now give birth but need a mother or a court order to register as the father.

https://gript.ie/varadkar-says-males-shouldnt-be-in-womens-prisons/

Now that the public know a violent male in the womans prison (part of the Dail record since 2019 and prison officers threatened to strike) only read it in the papers + eye roll and politicians have to answer what is a woman? with any male with a GRC the politicians are trying to claim they knew nothing

You really do have to laugh or you'd cry.

The good thing is he has openly admitted the act doesn't work and needs to be changed. He is a lone voice currently among those who originally pushed it but let's hope more will be reassessing.

How are two bills attached by social context? What does this mean in practice? Your answer has basically said that same sex marriage has an impact on the potential marriages of people who avail of GRCs. But it also had an impact on those who don't avail of GRCs so I still fail to see how the two bills are attached?

By social context

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/24/enacted/en/html

The 2010 act ^ provided homosexual couples legal recognition of a civil partnership
They could not marry because the consitution protects marraige as a social good between a man and a woman.
A constitutional right is stronger than a civil partnership legislation right

The government also "snuck in" common law / notmarried rights to property so a Irish woman living in her partners home can sue for a % if the relationship breaks down. This will still be a suprise to a lot of unmarried couples.

Anyway the right to marry needed a change to the consitution and the population was focused on equal marraige rights
Ireland had a prominent "male and openly gay" politicians but not many lesbians so for voters the man wanting to have a female birth cert was "kind of a gay thing anyway"

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ireland-becomes-first-country-to-approve-same-sex-marriage-by-popular-vote-1.2223646

The vote passed and the Dail prepared a bill on changing all the legislation to include F/F M/M relationships.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2015/78/
That was in September

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/isbc/2015_35.html

Commencement Date Whole Act 16 November 2015

The GRA was a Dec 2014 bill and voted on in July 7 months later
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2014/116/

The original bill (listed as a pdf in the link and the various changes) had to include provisions for marrige as the vote on this may not have been passed and they stayed as the marraige act had not passed yet.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/25/enacted/en/print

the sections for marraige were never signed into law.
Commencement Date
S. 9(2)(a) 4 September 2015
S. 9(2)(b) Not yet commenced.
S. 9(2)(c) 4 September 2015
S. 10(1) (a)-(e) 4 September 2015
S. 10(1)(f)(i) Not yet commenced.

So if I am reading the act correctly if the consitution did not change (so no same sex marraige) and the sections were signed as active legislation a male could get a GRC to become a legal female and then only marry a male

Effect of gender recognition certificate generally
18.
(3) A person issued with a gender recognition certificate may only—
(a) marry a person of the opposite gender to the preferred gender and reference in section 2(2)(e) of the Act of 2004 to “same sex” includes a reference to the same sex as the preferred gender,
(b) be a party to a civil partnership registration with a person of the same gender as the preferred gender and reference in section 2(2A)(e) of the Act of 2004, to “not of the same sex” includes a reference to not of the same sex as the preferred gender.

What gets me as well apart from his full throated support for the Bill (apart from it not going far enough) that hes now criticising is that his background is in education.

How on earth could anyone whos had a career as a teacher and then assistant principal have no thought about what the legislation would mean for safeguarding. How could anyone who was in Ireland when the relevations about clerical sex abuse in schools not realise the lengths people will go to become untouchable and unassailable in society.

When you read his speeches on the subject you can imagine his derision towards anyone who would have dared bring up that this might mean an infinite list of genders that other people just trying to do their jobs/live their lives will have to wade through.

I am surprised to see that long list of long speeches in which he waxed endlessly on about the benefits and goodness of gender.

Given what he's now saying.

Almost like he was talking utter pish.

Blast Twitter, it won't let me read it but I am too stubborn to sign up!

Is anyone pointing out the painful facts to him there??

Yes. He really has stuffed himself, as he either has to now admit he lied and knew exactly what he was doing - so why is he now getting all shocked about it? Is he seeing the political tide turning and is getting in ahead of the game?

Or is he admitting that he just read out stuff prepared by someone else without really engaging with it, and just acted the lines with no grasp of what he was doing?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Because of the damned situation these ruddy people have put us all in, I suspect we are going to have to (again) be the patient and generous ones as they all spin yet more bullshit as they row back on all this.

Yes, it is phenomenally depressing that there are people like this in positions of such responsibility, and it leads to the thought that the political system is one that needs very radical overhaul. As with Johnson and Cummings you're left thinking - these cannot possibly be the best of the minds available to do the job.

Yes, it looks like he knew exactly what the Bill entailed, and indeed he complained in his speeches that it did not go far enough (for instance, that children under 16 were not included). He also proudly lists all the groups he consulted. None of them included women, the cunty kind, of course

Does he seriously think people can't check this stuff?

Yes, it looks like he knew exactly what the Bill entailed, and indeed he complained in his speeches that it did not go far enough (for instance, that children under 16 were not included). He also proudly lists all the groups he consulted. None of them included women, the cunty kind, of course.

Obvious reverse ferret I'd say. If not he deserves loud and continuous ridicule for being the most useless and dangerous of politicians, Golden Bridge be damned.

Indeed and I don't think any of us strained our brain in the process.

Apart from a lot of women who can do that thinking things through malarkey (that an astonishing number of people in the public eye and who claim to pass the laws that apply to the rest of us can't seem to manage), you mean? 😆

Oh dear,who saw this coming?

It is staggering that he apparently just stood up and voiced someone else's information to influence a law without the content of what he said ever passing through his brain

So it appears we now have a choice between

politicians who are so stupid they genuinely believe people can change sex

politicians who secretly don't believe it but are prepared to state that they do if it gets them into power

or

politicians who state they agree with it without reading the laws that enact those beliefs and then are horrified when they do read it and realise what it entails.

Any which way, what it say about those politicians and political discourse generally is bloody depressing.

It’s funny isn’t it - oppose any of it & you’re a West Brit; while your ones pushing this, all the people who’ve the power, are essentially following the Denton’s playbook, trampling all over the rights of the Irish people, wealthy & well-connected - & sometimes actual Brits! What happened up in Donegal last month is a perfect example of that power & privilege at work.

To be clear, I think chucking about “West Brit” as an insult is rancid, but as it’s such a favourite of TRA’s in Ireland (who, notably, aren’t always Irish, lots of Americans IDing as Irish) thought it was worth picking apart. Oh & of course it’s ragingly misogynistic, the whole business of asserting Irish women cannot think for themselves but are blindly following the Brits - by which they ofc really mean The Evil English 🙄.