Review of the Defending Freedoms, Advancing Human Rights: Equal Marriage Referendum 10+ Conference Report

Many of us have wondered why the Irish Government embraces gender ideology and the entire progressive human rights doctrine so enthusiastically? The answer may be found in the Defending Freedoms, Advancing Human Rights: Equal Marriage Referendum 10+ Conference Report, authored by Catherine Zappone, former Minister for Children, and Tim Hanley, Director of LGBT Ireland.

This conference took place in Dublin on 13 May 2025 with the stated aim of honouring the historic result of the 2015 same-sex marriage referendum and to take stock of the advances in human rights issues that have been achieved since then. The main focus was on the rights and inclusion of LGBTQI+ people and on their continuing challenges around the world. According to the report, more than three hundred people attended the conference, including members of Government, senior civil servants, grassroots and international leaders, activists and changemakers, philanthropists, civil society leaders, and UN Special Rapporteurs.

Discussions were held and speeches were delivered. The speeches of the two attending Ministers, Norma Foley, Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, and Simon Harris, Tánaiste, as well as that of Kevin McCarthy, Secretary General of the Department of Children, Disability and Equality, are published in full in the report.

It should be noted that this review cannot adequately convey the level of self-congratulatory language and “newspeak” terminology used in the report, nor describe in depth the lens through which the attending human rights advocates view the world. This article provides merely a glimpse into their worldview.

Two of the three stated goals of the conference can be summarised as working towards further improving the progress made for LGBTQI+ people in Ireland and internationally. The third goal is:

“To influence the agenda of Ireland’s upcoming EU Presidency in 2026, ensuring a strong European commitment to LGBTQI+ rights.”

The report goes on to state:

“These aims were framed in response to an increasingly volatile global landscape. Across Europe and internationally, disinformation and culture-war narratives continue to distort public discourse and undermine inclusive policymaking.”

Furthermore, it was noted that:

“The struggle for LGBTQI+ rights is bound up with broader fights against racism, ableism, sexism, and xenophobia”

and that:

“Trans and non-binary people, LGBTQI+ parents, migrants, people of colour, and others continue to face exclusion and marginalisation.”

It was also stated that:

“2025 is very different to that of 2015, and we are witnessing the rise of anti-democratic forces, growing disinformation, and increasing hostility towards LGBTQI+ people, particularly trans and non-binary people.”

One of the conference’s recommendations for the Irish Government is:

“Agree that Equality becomes a theme for the Irish EU Presidency, with LGBTQI+ rights central to the way forward.”

Notably, the 2026 conference of ILGA-Europe (International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association Europe), a leading LGBTQI+ organisation, which will take place in Dublin in October during the Irish EU Presidency, is likely to constitute the implementation of that recommendation. ILGA-Europe Director of Communications, Irish journalist and author Brian Finnegan, attended the Marriage Equality Referendum 10+ conference.

One theme running through the conference was that the Irish people did not simply vote for equal marriage rights for same-sex attracted people in 2015, but that the overwhelming “Yes” vote demonstrated an understanding that human rights are universal and that voters had effectively supported the realisation of all human rights. Another dominant theme was that the lack of progress in the acceptance of trans and non-binary identities, as well as the marginalisation of migrants, was understood by conference participants to be the result of undemocratic and authoritarian misinformation.

It was stressed that pursuing further progress in LGBTQI+ equality would strengthen Ireland’s international status as a diplomatic leader in the field of human rights, as Simon Harris highlighted in his speech.

Of note is the fact that the conference’s long list of recommendations contains only one referring to a specific action regarding a particular letter in the LGBTQI+ acronym:

“The Irish Government [should] deliver on crucial trans healthcare reforms to ensure a publicly funded, rights-based model of gender-affirming care; services in primary and community care settings, based on an informed-consent approach and international evidence (WHO and WPATH), and developed under principles of patient involvement, community co-production, transparency and accountability.”

For all the enthusiastic discussion of the referendum as a significant achievement for LGBTQI+ rights, Simon Harris openly confirmed in his speech:

“In developing the recent iterations of the Equality Strategies, we have endeavoured to ensure that this intersectional approach is at their heart, recognising the diversity of a person’s identity and how that impacts their experience of Irish life. In acknowledging complexity, we can deliver meaningful change. The conversations today remind us that the passage of the Marriage Equality Referendum was not an endpoint but an important step on our journey towards LGBTQI+ equality.”

In reality, the focus of LGBTQI+ inclusion quickly shifted from support for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual rights to support for the “T” and the insistence that gender identity is a fact. The State adopted the unreasonable demand of trans activists that gender-identity belief must be accepted by everyone when it introduced the Gender Recognition Act, and it endorsed the affirmative approach to children who are questioning their gender.

These Government policies create legitimate safety concerns for women and children. This is the real reason for opposition to current transgender policies and the Gender Recognition Act, and the real reason for reduced acceptance of trans and non-binary identities in Ireland.

Participants at the conference interpreted the Irish people’s overwhelming vote for marriage equality as a mandate not only to introduce intersectionality but also to embed gender-identity belief through the Gender Recognition Act. Simon Harris stated at the conference:

“I would like to consider how marriage equality unlocked new possibilities in our diplomacy. The referendum reinforced Ireland’s commitment to human rights, a central pillar of our foreign policy. Human rights are universal. The strength of the ‘Yes’ vote indicated that the Irish people understand this and therefore wanted the universal nature of human rights to be more fully realised. This gave the entire Government a mandate to stand up proudly for universal human rights across international fora.”

It may be true that Irish voters wished to see the universal nature of human rights more fully realised. However, what they may have had in mind was certainly not that the Government would compel citizens to adopt gender-identity belief, nor that Irish people would be divided into a privileged majority and marginalised, protected minorities, nor that increased immigration would be justified on those grounds.

The Government appears to view the 2015 referendum result as enhancing its reputation and status in international diplomatic circles, a reputation that must not be undermined by citizens’ opposition to its intersectional human-rights framework.

Those within the human-rights advocacy bubble are so convinced that their theoretical framework of social justice is correct that they fail to recognise that they themselves are dividing society into dominant oppressor classes and marginalised oppressed groups, rather than continuing the struggle of past generations of human rights advocates for equal treatment of all people.

The narrative that authoritarian and anti-democratic demagogues are turning Irish people against trans people is a myth that many LGBTQI+ advocates and campaigners cling to because they refuse to acknowledge that many people understand that:

• Sex is binary, real, immutable, and important.
• The category of women will be erased if anyone can identify as one, with serious consequences for women’s rights and safety.
• It is not beneficial for children to be told they may have been born in the wrong body.
• Affirmative care for gender-questioning children leads to harmful medical and surgical interventions.
• Children need to be able to recognise biological sex in order to understand boundaries and fundamental facts of life.
• Migration is both beneficial and necessary; however, uncontrolled migration affects access to housing, public services, education, public safety, and law and order, particularly for economically disadvantaged citizens.

People who oppose Government policy on transgender rights and uncontrolled immigration are neither authoritarian nor anti-democratic.

They seek frank, respectful, and open discussion about gender ideology, immigration policy, and intersectionality. Above all, they want the Irish people to have a say on whether they agree with gender ideology and with the Government’s immigration policies.

A Government that brands every citizen who disagrees with its policies as undemocratic or authoritarian shows contempt for the people whose mandate it is meant to fulfil. Such a Government could itself be described as undemocratic and authoritarian.

It is incumbent upon the Irish Government to demonstrate its democratic credentials by listening to citizens’ lived experiences and real-life accounts of how Government policies have affected their lives, by respecting people’s views and wishes, and by adjusting policies and legislation in accordance with the will of the people, to whom the Government is accountable.

The conference’s call for “an elimination of the anti-trans and intersex sentiment present in Ireland (and the wider world) today” and recommendations such as “the global backlash against LGBTQI+ rights is part of a broader attack on democracy. Ireland must lead with purpose, especially as authoritarian movements gain strength across Europe and beyond” are unlikely to promote rational and reasonable debate on these issues, as they vilify people who hold genuine concerns and differing views.

The assertion that the Government has a mandate from the Irish people to introduce policies and laws compelling everyone to affirm the preferred gender of people who identify as trans or non-binary, and that all immigration is beneficial, is not based on reality. The Irish electorate had little or no awareness of transgender issues and gender-identity concepts at the time of the referendum, nor had it yet experienced the consequences of irregular mass immigration.

The Irish Government should engage with representatives and organisations that advocate for women, children, and LGB people who are critical of current LGBTQI+ policies, and it should take their concerns into account in the interests of balance, fairness, equality, and inclusion.

A two-day conference hosted by the Association of Lactation Consultants of Ireland has come under fire because of safeguarding concerns over the promotion of male lactation. The conference was due to be held in the Ardilaun Hotel in October, but that venue is no longer hosting it. The ALCI website states that this is “Due to unforeseen circumstances on health & safety grounds.”

Director of The Countess, Sorcha Nic Lochlainn, and is a breastfeeding support volunteer and former midwife, said “Child safeguarding must always be prioritized. It is an active process where risk is constantly assessed and mitigated. Lessons of the past show us what happens when a sacred caste is established and adherence to an ideology trumps common sense. This blindness is again evident in Ireland, this time in the Association of Lactation Consultants of Ireland Council, who booked a speaker for their October conference in Galway to deliver workshops on ‘working with gender diverse families.’ This speaker, Jacob Englesman, has advocated for the inclusion of men who identify as women in breastfeeding support groups and promoted induced lactation among men as part of what he describes as ‘inclusive parenting’. He has delivered talks at a fetish conference on ‘Lactation for Kinksters.’ In his book ‘Lactation for the rest of us’, he suggested that some men may seek to induce lactation to experience ‘gender euphoria’ or for reasons including ‘curiosity, fun, or sexual gratification’. Any man who would associate infant feeding with sexual gratification should raise a red flag. Anyone who centres adult desires above infant wellbeing should raise a red flag. Anyone who ignores concerns in favour of ideology should raise a red flag.”

Ms Nic Lochlainn went on to say, “When the ALCI were contacted about our concerns around Engelsman’s work, they fell back on ‘LGBT inclusion’ and a need for education for their members. This response is wholly inadequate and demonstrates that they do not understand safeguarding in the slightest. This is not about a disagreement on gender. It is about this speaker, a man who helps other men use infants for their own gratification; who helps other men abuse babies. The whole conference has now been cancelled from the Ardilaun hotel. The ALCI says this is for ‘health and safety reasons’. Whose health and whose safety they do not say. Not the babies they serve it seems. Those who support this man cry cancel culture. It is not ‘cancel culture’ when children are at risk. The Ardilaun made the correct decision on this. It remains to be seen if this conference will be held elsewhere, and if Engelsman will be presenting. We will be watching closely.”

In response to queries, the HSE said this conference talk is “in line with equality legislation & inclusion strategies.” They cited a growing number of babies born with diverse family structures.

Laoise de Brún BL, CEO and Founder of The Countess, who also trained as a lactation consultant, said “Irish equality law protects people from discrimination. It does not create a right to chemically induce a secretion from a male body, call it breastfeeding, and put an infant on that nipple so an adult man can ‘feel like a mother,’ or for ‘curiosity, fun, or sexual gratification.’ Breastfeeding is a female-specific function. It is part of the mother-baby dyad. A man taking drugs to grow breast tissue and then pumping for ‘curiosity, fun or sexual gratification’ is doing something else. It’s called child sexual abuse. Presenting it as ‘lactation support for gender-diverse families’ does not change the facts. Once a baby is used for an adult’s identity or arousal, you have left the realm of healthcare. Tusla’s definition of child sexual abuse includes using a child for sexual gratification. An infant cannot consent.”

Ms de Brún went on to say “ALCI’s decision to platform this man deplorable. It should not have to be explained that the practice he is promoting will disrupt the Mother–Baby Dyad and the mother’s job of establishing supply, which takes place in the first month or so after birth. Babies are NOT props. This is fetish. This is child abuse, and it’s being promoted by the Association of Lactation Consultants of Ireland.”

Ms de Brún concluded “In Ireland we have the lowest rates of breastfeeding in the industrialised world, with barely 60% of babies getting any breastmilk from birth, whereas in parts of London is it 89% and yet this is what the budget is going on? Flying over a man who has previously presented on lactation for kinksters. Our hospitals don’t even have the funding or resources to comply with basic universal UNICEF breastfeeding protocols. We have a dismal amount of lactation support and yet as always, it’s the virtue signalling that they are only interested in, never ever the hard work of getting the basics right. Serious questions need to be asked of the ALCI Council who made this decision, and the HSE who support them. Minister Carroll-O’Neill needs to resolve this safeguarding failure as soon as possible.”

Ms Nic Lochlainn ended by saying “No one is denying that there are families with differing structures who need specialist support. What we are saying is this does not include putting male wants ahead of mothers and babies’ needs, and it should not be delivered by anyone who thinks male lactation is appropriate.

          —————[Ends]—————

NOTES

The Countess wrote to ALCI on Monday, 24 August. As of today, we have received no reply.

ALCI statement on conference sales: https://alcireland.ie/events/vgXmMqIczz2txISSbvcf

Laoise de Brún BL, CEO and Founder of The Countess, was invited to speak at The Women’s Policy Centre Parliamentary Roundtable on Surrogacy, hosted in the House of Commons by Sarah Pochin MP on Wednesday 22nd April.

Laoise’s speech focussed on her knowledge of the mother–baby dyad and the impact of surrogacy on both the surrogate mother and the infant. Laoise’s position on this is informed by her work as a lactation consultant, which gave her a deep understanding of the connections between mother and baby, formed in utero and deliberately ruptured by the process of surrogacy.

“Surrogacy demands of clinicians, midwives, doctors and lactation consultants to unlearn and ignore the bedrock of their training with regard to attachment. Attachment is not a ‘nice extra’, it is necessary for survival.”

“Undisturbed skin on skin is now the universal protocol for all babies and their mother immediately after birth. We call this the golden hour. The baby knows the mother’s smell, her voice and her heartbeat. Her nipple tastes like her amniotic fluid. It is the only world that baby has known. That baby views itself and the mother as the same person.”

Laoise argues that an abolition model is the only ethical one, as regulation of the industry is impossible and, in any case, the major harms to mother and child occur regardless of whether the surrogacy is commercial or altruistic.

“Surrogacy is the rupture of the mother–baby dyad to the detriment of that baby.”

“We cannot know what damage a rupture of that environment will do to the wiring of that baby’s brain. These considerations are not left wing or right wing.

These are existential issues with regard to our humanity, the best interests of the child and the dignity and human rights of women especially poorer women.”

When the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill passed through the legislative stages at Dáil Éireann, Laoise was helping in the background draft amendments and gave a parliamentary briefing. Despite the desperate efforts of a handful of activists and the noble advocacy of Senators Mullen and Keogan, the bill was guillotined and rushed through.

“In Ireland, we put forward an amendment to bar men with convictions for sexual offences but it was defeated as it was argued that the oversight mechanism would filter them out. Our amendment to bar single men was defeated too. And so here in the UK we see a threefold increase in single men commissioning babies. This week Netherlands has granted permission to the creation of an embryo out of the cells of two males.”

The media management around surrogacy means is framed as simply another way to have a baby, as if the ones impacted – the baby who cannot consent and the surrogate mother whose body is being bought – do not exist. They are out of frame. In exactly the same way the impact on women and children was ignored in order to allow “the most vulnerable minority in the world”, trans-identified men, to “be who they truly are”.

These vapid slogans are not good enough when it comes to matters of such complexity ethically, legally and socially. Surrogacy is not simply “another way to have a baby”. It has unknown detrimental impacts.

This must all be seen as part of a part of a wider trend which is the complete erosion and denigration of motherhood in culture, law and biology. It is driven by corporate capitalism and big tech: the same men who are investing in transhumanism are investing in reproductive technology. The recurring theme is disassociation, as with porn and prostitution, in surrogacy women are asked to completely dissociate from their bodies for acts they “consent” to and therefore they routinely experience trauma and shame once the gravity and impossibility is revealed.

It is increasingly the norm to put all teenage girls on the contraceptive pill and so they are unaware of the cascade of the 28-day hormone cycle or ovulation. The founders and investors are on the record of hailing the “end of procreative sex”. This sits side by side with another multi-billion-dollar industry, the porn industry. We are seeing a whole generation who are coming up through porn and encouraged to have hook-up sex only. We must be prepared to grapple with this on a meta level and acknowledge the heart of darkness to it all.

The Countess will continue to advocate for women and children in Ireland and across the word, especially where their interests are relegated or ignored in favour of ideologically driven policy.

Other speakers at the roundtable included ⁠Lexi Ellingsworth, Founder of Stop Surrogacy Now UK, ⁠Gary Powell, Former European Special Consultant for the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, ⁠Annaig Birdy, President and Co-Founder of Not All Gays, ⁠Olivia Maurel (via a pre-recorded video contribution), Spokesperson for the Casablanca Declaration and child born from surrogacy.  

A day before International Children’s Rights Day, a major conference entitled “Surrogacy: An Ethical and Political Challenge for Europe” was held at the European Parliament, bringing together Members of the European Parliament, international experts, human rights organisations, and individuals directly affected by surrogacy.

The purpose of the event was to examine the ethical, legal, and political implications of surrogacy in Europe and to assess how the European Union can protect the rights of women and children in the face of a rapidly expanding global industry.

The event was organised by Members of the European Parliament Paolo Inselvini, Bert-Jan Ruissen, and Stephen Nikola Bartulica. The opening session featured interventions from Laurence Trochu, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Carlo Fidanza, and Nicola Procaccini, Co-Chair of the ECR Group.

Laoise de Brún BL, CEO and founder of The Countess, was invited to speak by the ECR parliamentary group as country expert on surrogacy as Ireland has just adopted a new legislative framework which attempts to normalise surrogacy by banning commercial surrogacy in Ireland while permitting it abroad and allowing for altruistic surrogacy.

In her address to parliament Laoise stated that there was no way to mitigate the harm of the separation for both the baby and the surrogate mother and there was no way to stop babies being trafficked and surrogate mothers being exploited.

Ireland has undergone a dramatic cultural, social and political transformation; in the past 30 years we have gone from the most Catholic country in the world to the most radical progressive.

Not content with removing the meaning of sex in law and the protective rights that attach to the sex class of female, by adopting a radical gender self ID model in 2015 which allows any man to simply fill out a form and “become” a woman, for all purposes, last year the Irish government attempted to remove Article 41.2 from our constitution.

The Countess campaigned to retain the constitutional rights and recognition of mothers and 73.9% of the public voted to reject the amendment. The role of the mother had to be degraded into something replaceable, to a mere carer, in order to make way for surrogacy.

The Assisted Human Reproduction bill was brought forward and enacted in June 2024.

Laoise’s experience as a Lactation Consultant informs her understanding of mother–infant bonding.

She said “As lactation consultants we are experts on the proto relationship between the mother and the baby that starts in utero. We know that the baby must be placed on the mother’s breast and feed within the first hour, the golden hour. This relationship is more than nutrition it is bonding and bonding as Bowlby taught is an evolutionary response that our survival depends on. The baby knows the mother’s heartbeat, voice and smell, she is the only world the baby knows. The mother’s nipple tastes exactly like the amniotic fluid it was just submerged in. The baby has reflexes to help it move up the mother’s body to find the breast. The mother’s vascular and respiratory system will synch with the baby’s and regulate it which is why premature babies have less apnoea in kangaroo care, strapped to their mother’s chest than in incubators.”

The Motherbaby dyad is one system, one biological and social unit. Surrogacy is the ripping asunder of the motherbaby dyad.

As keynote speaker Reem Asaleem concludes in her report there is no way to mitigate the harm done by this separation.

And yet this is exactly what the new legislative framework in Ireland purports to do!

By regulating surrogacy for the first time in Ireland covering both domestic and international arrangements. It establishes a framework for altruistic surrogacy and prohibits commercial surrogacy. The Assisted Human Reproduction Regulatory Authority provides for oversight and approval but it has no teeth no criminal sanctions available and of course no jurisdiction outside Ireland. It takes as its premise that surrogacy can be regulated to made ethical and offset exploitation and harm. But this framework will be unable to prevent the trafficking of babies from poor countries or surrogate mothers into the country as they only need to resident only two years.

The Act completely prioritises the rights and demands of intending parents over child’s best interests

It disregards the will of the Irish people around the recognition of the role and importance of mothers

As a campaigner against Trans ideology and as a journalist, it is interesting to see the same playbook deployed both in the media and in parliament.

Rushed through in an abuse of parliamentary process and without a vote.

Vapid axiomatic slogans “Surrogacy is just another way to have a family”.

Celebrities and politicians who commissioned babies used as PR.

Ministers encouraged to have their photo with these children.

A drip-feed of first-person stories to manipulate the public but media blackout of the reality of the legislation resulting in a lack of awareness.

Laoise said “When I tell people that a single man of 21 can legally commission a baby in Ireland, they are speechless with shock.”

The debate was framed as old Catholic Ireland against new Ireland a Beacon of a modernity where the market provides the demands of the consumer. There is nothing old fashioned or even right-wing about protecting women and children.

We will not allow this law to normalise the rent of a womb and the sale of a baby and it must not be used as a model law to roll out more sanitisation or normalisation frameworks in other jurisdictions.

Please donate to support the continuing work of The Countess. We appreciate every donation, big or small.

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.