Irish University says it is unlawful not to use preferred pronouns

[Poshspicebag]

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/education/2023/10/05/lecturer-objects-to-universitys-gender-identity-policy-which-describes-refusal-to-use-pronouns-as-unlawful/
There is a certain irony that the university states that this compelled speech is being done to make everyone feel comfortable.

While it is obvious from the article that money is a motivating factor, it is sickening that so many of the people pushing this are women who are willing to denounce other women who are unwilling to comply.

IANAL but I think their interpretation of the law is incorrect but I expect that the University will dig their heels in. I can't see the Minister for Higher Education or the Minister for Equality stepping in to rectify the issue.
Perhaps the only encouraging aspect is that the IT actually reported this.

She makes some good points and is stunning and brave for doing so

Is this irony?

Hi OP, this was also posted in the Gender Critical thread on Craicnet - I agree it's a load of bollocks, but it would appear that many Irish Universities are deeply embedded in this nonsense.
Interestingly, from that article it would appear that Athena Swan is sort of like a Stonewall champions thing - where institutions have to adhere to the charter to gain accreditation.

She’s toast. Jordan Peterson fell on that sword years ago in Canada. Now he’s apparently a far right Neo Nazi and misogynist.

Unfortunately in Ireland we are on the back foot already because 'gender identity' is a protected characteristic in our Equality laws, not sex.

Oops sorry I posted this before reading the article, @Villagetoraiseachild I agree with you!

As I said above IANAL but I wonder about this.
This is from the IHREC
"Discrimination on the ‘gender ground’ happens where there is less favourable treatment of one person compared to another, because one is a woman and the other is a man.
Pregnant women or women on maternity leave are also protected under the gender ground.
Under EU law, a transgender person who experiences discrimination arising from their gender reassignment, or transition, is also protected under the gender ground"

Gender is in the Equality Act but was in it long before Self ID became legal or before gender identity was widely spoken of.
I think the reference to gender was intended as a protection for women and was a polite term for sex. I suspect that there is some uncertainty about the law around the term gender and whether it was intended to protect sex.

https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2023/july/ihrec-wants-equality-law-to-cover-new-grounds

"IHREC’s submission has also recommended changes to the existing gender and family-status grounds.

It wants the gender ground in the equality acts to be amended to include explicit reference to, and define, gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics."
Interesting to see they don't mention sex just sex characteristics.
I read that as saying that they are worried that the Equality Act as it stands does reflect that the reference to gender actually means sex and they want to change it to give gender identity priority over sex (ie. women's rights). "

I think that they are worried that a legal challenge would clarify that gender was intended to mean sex and they are trying to change it before that happens

Always strikes me as bizarre that my right to say "Jesus was not the Messiah" or "Ganesh is a better God to worship than Allah" is protected, but my right to say "I see a man" is not just removed, but punished.

https://twitter.com/ColetteColfer/status/1709821035007132021?t=qmyu6Xc47MdloH5iCzvyLA&s=19
I have just read this tweet from Colette Colfer.
Am I being a little cynical in thinking that a government department that has the Progress flag in its social media profile might not be giving the the impression of impartiality.

Yes, I think gender was initially supposed to be referring to sex without actually referring to it. Which is a problem because laws are supposed to be specific, otherwise they are open to all sorts of interpretation as we are now seeing.

So gender is the protected characteristic, and the examples given are really issues that women face of discrimination, but you can get a GRA to be whatever gender you please so it's all a bit of legal nonsense really.

The bigger issue is that most Irish people aren't aware of all this - and I think have a mistaken belief that our laws should be/ are robust, were clearly thought through and could hold up to proper scrutiny. Apparently not.

I would love someone to take a legal case to show up the legal fiction inherent in this.

Unfortunately, we suffer from extreme apathy in this country about many things - 'ah shure it'll be grand', which doesn't serve us well in times like this.

My very amateur interpretation would be that it should be easy enough to show that the gender reference was intended to be sex as there have been several cases, for example, where women have won discrimination cases because they were pregnant. Your gender identity doesn't affect your ability to become pregnant but your biological sex does.

It is a worry to see the attempt to see the article from the law society as it would appear to be removing protections for women and prioritising protections for gender identity.

For some reason I can't edit this. I wanted to give an example of my thoughts on this.
If I felt like I was being discriminated on religious grounds as a Muslim, for example, and I went to the Dept of Equality SM to check my rights, only to find a picture of the Cross or the Pope, then I think I might not be confident that they would be impartial as it would give the impression that the Catholic religion was favoured.

"All animals are equal but some are more equal than others"
George Orwell
Animal Farm.

Yes exactly, it's waffling on about equality whilst clearly prioritising one particular belief system.
Unfortunately, there has been a very effective 'bait and switch' regarding the pride flag in recent years, it no longer really reprasents gay and lesbian people, instead many 'gay rights' organisations prioritise the TQIA, particularly the Ts who are biologically male.

But if you question anything about pride you are automatically labelled as homophobic. It's been a very effective strategy.

SETU’s new policy forms part of a wider bid to secure more advanced Athena Swan Charter accreditation, which is part of official higher education policy in Ireland.

The charter was launched in Ireland in 2015 with a specific remit to address gender equality and has since expanded to include consideration of the experience of trans staff and students. Higher Education Authority policies require attainment of Athena Swan certification for universities to be eligibile for State research funding.

This is what is driving this bs. The tick box bs. Make it allegedly more inclusive for those who wanted to be treated as special, whilst doing more to exclude women and girls from places designed to be safer, and safe sports etc. It is a deceitful crock to again enable a societal bashing of women and girls so that the lads can do as they please. Some figurative bashing, but also some literal as in sports or violent men in women's refuges etc. Not forgetting males in prison for sexual offences causing distress to the female inmates. Those male sex offender who got to have a bit of sport at the women's expense, and were allowed to do this by the Irish state.

One of the principles it commits higher education institution to achieving is “fostering collective understanding that individuals have the right to determine and affirm their gender, and to implementing inclusive and effective policies and practices that are cognisant of the lived experiences and needs of trans and non-binary people”.

Forgot this bit. I don't think there is any real definition of 'gender' as it pertains to this current 'gender identity' dystopian fad. It is sort what you are feeling in your water. What is trans or non-binary people? Like everyone else.

Ah , God be with the days when you looked up Gender in the dictionary and it said : Sex.

Now the TRAs can fuzz up the lines. Colette is a very brave woman. We need a bit less ' Ah shure twill be grand ' and a lot more ' It's a bit mad , Ted!'

Well, this will be interesting.
https://twitter.com/Ben_Scallan/status/1709925197715780042?t=8w89HSSkDmRfNSOf-T1dPA&s=19

It's sad because when the Athena SWAN Charter was originally established in 2005 its aim was to recognise committment by institutes to advancing women's careers in science, tech, engineering, medicine and maths.
Other disciplines and commitment to tech and support staff was later added in 2015. Also at this time the emphasis was changed to promote gender equality more broadly and not just barriers to the progression of women...

And now it seems to be working against GC women.

So ridiculous - how many of these bullshit laws are they going to enact without proper public consultation?
There is not a groundswell of people clamouring for the 'updating' of our hate crime laws, this has come from somewhere else.

Did Minister O'Gorman give a clear answer, I wonder?

Wasn't there an attempt to force this on the Gardaí? I thought they had successfully kicked to touch the 'Gender Identity in the Workplace Plan'. It would have given rise to disciplinary measures if they correctly sexed misgendered someone.

Now force it on the young (and those who want to stay in pensionable jobs).

Did Minister O'Gorman give a clear answer, I wonder?

Given it was described as a heated exchange I doubt it. The government seem to want to ride roughshod through common sense to push this shite, they don't seem to like any logical criticisms or questioning.

Yes, don't open that curtain in Oz! The pretence vs the reality. If he (I'm taking a punt here, O'Gorman could identify as a frog for all I know) can't rationally defend something, the heat would have been generated to distract from the fact it is all based on nonsense.

He didn't answer the question.

https://twitter.com/griptmedia/status/1709933771364143458?t=k9mpQ-y5LhmxjjG-eF5aQ&s=19

Personally, I'd take that as a no, it's not against the law.

Ok, So laws are case specific about everything then? Could you tell a Garda they cannot say that you breaking into someone's house and robbing all their stuff is unlawful in this case? Or, indeed any other crime is only determined to be illegal is on a case by case basis. Tear up all legislation, or just say it 'MAY' be applicable.

Courtesy, eh? It would have been courtesy to not pass laws that discriminate and endanger women and children. It would have been courtesy to respectfully (or otherwise responsibly) carry out the State's redress for the legacy of survivors of the mother and baby homes. I suppose they are counting on the fact that the survivors will pass away before the state (and Ministers etc.) can be held to account. So the evidence will be sealed for 30 years, and Minister O'Gorman in situ over that too.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40069511.html

One such as myself may conclude that these faux courtesy 'dudes' are not at all courteous. They like this new pulpit from which to admonish people.