Irish women will be heard (trending)

[GrainneMhaol]

Hi everyone. #WeWillBeHeard is trending on twitter in Ireland. It is in reponse to Amnesty International, the National Women's Council of Ireland and other major NGO's calling for people who "defend biology" or who are gender critical to be disenfranchised.

Their words: "..Let us say unequivocally that the statements of newly launched organisations that seek to defend biology or fight gender identity and expression do not represent the wider LGBTI+ community nor feminists in Ireland... We call on media, and politicians to no longer provide legitimate representation for those that share bigoted beliefs."

This is a thread with pictures and the hastag which is trending

twitter.com/TCDFFT/status/1331208440971137024?s=19

A response letter from The Countess didn't fight for this thecountessdidntfightforthis.com/we-will-be-heard/

And an archived copy of the original ridiculous letter they are replying to (usual tropes about being far right etc) archive.is/glPXl#selection-1561.0-1561.202

Found it now I had the content. Well she certainly got told by many in reply..

Y'know, I was just looking at some of those tweets. I do very much think O'Gorman is a sleveen. His little glic and glib 'put downs' and dismissals'. 'A psychotherapist, Seriously' is the latest. He deliberately left out the 'Child' part of the person who was a child psychotherapist. And then I got to thinking about the right wing and conservative thing in the letter O'Gorman signed on behalf of Amnesty Ireland.
He used to be in the Progressive Democrats. Now the PD's were kind of inspired by Thatcherites economically. I know they were basically a group of homeless ex FF and FG TD's, but Harney and others were 'on yer bike'. Somewhat more socially liberal than the other Irish political parties. But probably more right wing than the other parties.

I think Colm O'Gorman is really an accidental (and supposed at this stage) 'human rights activist'. He was gay and thus became a campaigner for gay rights. He was directly harmed by the Church, so campaigned against the abuses in Church. Concerns which were of direct relevance for him. From what we can see of him on this, I don't know that he has any real objective moral compass or real interest in human rights in general. More what's 'in' with the guys now that his own concerns were campaigned on. I don't know if he was unique on that as I think most Irish people wanted that abuse to be held to account. But the cognitive dissonance of someone who wanted the child sex abuse tribunals and now says 'no debate' about what amounts to may on inspection be potentially medical child abuse is interesting. And the cheek of someone who ran as a PD (ran and failed) in a general election accusing someone of being conservative like they want us to believe they think it is a bad thing.... !

Where is a fairly ok political home for a GC Irish woman, these days?

I was thinking the same thing last night, Cailleach, but my post wouldn't have been nearly so well put.

He's ended up at Amnesty as a progression from One in Four, but human rights as a principle, aren't a calling for him. That's why that terrible letter didn't set his hackles rising. It blindsided him when Amnesty supporters, including those who'd previously supported self-ID in Ireland, told him it was contrary to Amnesty's charitable aims.

Since then he's just kept digging. And digging.

@bellinisurge

Where is a fairly ok political home for a GC Irish woman, these days?

I would like to know that too. I read the "debates" on the GRA 2015 and all political parties were falling over themselves to outwoke each other. It is very hard for any of them to backtrack now. I think there is an element of sticking their heads in the sand and hoping it will all go away.

The "debates" were mostly handwringing by politicians that the Bill didn't go far enough. That it didn't include under 18s and non binary people was the main source of the handwringing.
The impact on women or children doesn't get a look in.
Will any of these politicians acknowledge this? I very much doubt it.

So true, really good point. That also ties in with being OK with the intolerant culture around catholics in Amnesty, because the church was the enemy but couldn't see that allowing people their own religion is alos part of human rights.

@Cailleach1
Spot on analysis of COG.

@Weatherwarning
On sport I wouldn't want to be relying on the organisations themselves, but I think parents will be quick to see, understand and worry about the issues with boys competing in girls' sports. But just like with schools (whether the materials being circulated or the issues around changing rooms and trip accommodation), there's the risk of not wanting to speak out and seem like a bigot and/or being closed down as a bigot. What might make a difference would be the dads going batshit on behalf of their daughters, particularly where those dads are also coaching or involved in the organisations. Women are (again) going to have difficulty being heard though I'd hope that women involved in playing will feel able to speak up.

[quote 3timeslucky]@Weatherwarning
On sport I wouldn't want to be relying on the organisations themselves, but I think parents will be quick to see, understand and worry about the issues with boys competing in girls' sports. But just like with schools (whether the materials being circulated or the issues around changing rooms and trip accommodation), there's the risk of not wanting to speak out and seem like a bigot and/or being closed down as a bigot. What might make a difference would be the dads going batshit on behalf of their daughters, particularly where those dads are also coaching or involved in the organisations. Women are (again) going to have difficulty being heard though I'd hope that women involved in playing will feel able to speak up.[/quote]
Yes, I think you are right there.
I also think insurance costs will be the main protection for women.
If women are injured playing men then insurance costs will increase. Sporting organisations will not want be paying higher premiums.

@Weatherwarning

I said upthread that most Irish people would not support transwomen in women's sports. But after seeing the way the Cork and Galway women's teams were treated yesterday, I am not so sure. (Maybe not actively support it but just not care.) One of the most important matches they have played and not even given time to warm up properly. Then the president of the LGFA said they could have had more time if they had spent less time in the dressing room. Such a dismissive attitude that would NEVER be said of any men's team. It is clear that womens sports are considered of lesser value than men's, and is not really that important. That same attitude is reflected in the way women have always been treated in Irish society.

Nonetheless ...the appearance of some mediocre male hurler in a fright wig on some county's camogie team will be a deal breaker methinks. The other 31 counties will want their own 6ft Widow Twankey and it will all unravel.

@Cailleach1

Y'know, I was just looking at some of those tweets. I do very much think O'Gorman is a sleveen. His little glic and glib 'put downs' and dismissals'. 'A psychotherapist, Seriously' is the latest. He deliberately left out the 'Child' part of the person who was a child psychotherapist. And then I got to thinking about the right wing and conservative thing in the letter O'Gorman signed on behalf of Amnesty Ireland. He used to be in the Progressive Democrats. Now the PD's were kind of inspired by Thatcherites economically. I know they were basically a group of homeless ex FF and FG TD's, but Harney and others were 'on yer bike'. Somewhat more socially liberal than the other Irish political parties. But probably more right wing than the other parties.

I think Colm O'Gorman is really an accidental (and supposed at this stage) 'human rights activist'. He was gay and thus became a campaigner for gay rights. He was directly harmed by the Church, so campaigned against the abuses in Church. Concerns which were of direct relevance for him. From what we can see of him on this, I don't know that he has any real objective moral compass or real interest in human rights in general. More what's 'in' with the guys now that his own concerns were campaigned on. I don't know if he was unique on that as I think most Irish people wanted that abuse to be held to account. But the cognitive dissonance of someone who wanted the child sex abuse tribunals and now says 'no debate' about what amounts to may on inspection be potentially medical child abuse is interesting. And the cheek of someone who ran as a PD (ran and failed) in a general election accusing someone of being conservative like they want us to believe they think it is a bad thing.... !

Apparently Colm O G let Labour know he was interested in running for Dáil Eireann. But they didn't move fast enough so he joined the Progressive Rats.

How could anyone politically credible be weighing up Labour and the PDs as two possible options? (I think I've answered my own question).

@irishfeminist - wish we could meet IRL - I agree 100% with all of this.

@Cailleach1 - another who agrees with you on CO'G - and being involved in politics myself, I've had conversations about him for years with other political activists, and no one ever doubted he was a Me Feiner (can't get fada's on my keyboard!!).

David Coleman has weighed in. Haven't read it but will find link. Stella approves.

amp.independent.ie/life/david-coleman-keira-bells-experience-reflects-one-of-the-biggest-fears-of-parents-whose-child-expresses-gender-dysphoria-what-if-it-is-a-phase-39841387.html…
Unfortunately behind a paywall but Stella is definitely in agreement. Good to see respected voices such as David Coleman weighing in.
Stella's tweet
mobile.twitter.com/stellaomalley3/status/1336643077956636673

Gosh, that is brave of David - I hope he is not on twitter (for his own sake). Imagine thinking that writing a considered articles on a legal judgement is brave!

I came back to read the article copied and pasted by @3timeslucky but I see that it has been deleted. I managed to read it on Stella"s Facebook page, so thanks for that.
It is good to see David Coleman write about ensuring a holistic assessment is used in children presenting with GD. Though it is a pity that he hasn't spoken up before now.
Had Keira lost her case I wonder if he would have spoken.
There is a lot of "assigned at birth" in his article. Though, to be fair, in genuine gender dysphoria this is probably acceptable.
It is the imposing it on the general population that I have an issue with.

I've just read the Talk Guidelines but can't work out why it was deleted even having read them twice.

Assuming it isn't this bit ... Stella has the article pasted on her FB page so it can be read there.

It is good to see a mainstream respected voice speaking about this.

I'm not sure whether the issues are clear to the general population from reading his article. It would be easy to nod one's head and think he is talking common sense (which he is). It gives no indication of the extension of Self-ID legislation to children (nothing about Self-ID legislation at all). It says nothing about the impact on girls in sport, nothing on girl's (or women's) spaces etc etc etc

I found the use of the terms gender, gender assigned at birth, assigned at birth (and no use of the word sex) unsettling. I couldn't tell if he understands the difference and significance when discussing this issue. I hope he does as he may well get called upon by mainstream media to discuss this area given his standing.

Apologies for all the separate comments but if one gets deleted I can maybe work out why the original post was