I confess, I’m not entirely sure what his point is here, but I think it’s that Contance Markievicz might secretly have been transgender. If there’s a more benign interpretation, I’m open to hearing it:
If the real and radically non-conformist Countess Markievicz walked into a bathroom today that crowd would accuse her of being a predator and chase her out.
She believed in an Ireland where people should be free & died having given all she possessed to marginalised people. pic.twitter.com/hWafWQX5bG
— Colm O'Gorman 🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈 (@Colmogorman) June 19, 2022
I’m interested here in what bathroom, precisely, he thinks she’d be chased out of? Presumably not the ladies, after all, since Markievicz was biologically female and there’d be no reason for anybody to be surprised, let alone annoyed to see her in the ladies’ bathroom. What if she walked into the gents? Well, of course, any good Irish patriot male who spotted Constance Markievicz in his bathroom would presumably do the decent thing, and faint in sheer admiration.
So, what’s O’Gorman saying? Perhaps, he’d argue, he’s saying that Constance Markievicz herself was such a model of tolerance and compassion and progressive inclusivity that if somebody had patiently explained to her, as only an Irish NGO CEO can, the intricate details of transgender ideology, she’d have turned her guns away from the Royal Irish Constabulary and onto the hated TERFs instead.
But again, I don’t think that’s what he’s saying. Note the language: “real and radically non-conformist”. Well, nobody’s suggested that the Countess wasn’t real, so what’s he responding to there? A real what?
And “radically non-conformist” is the kind of language people like O’Gorman use all the time to talk about trans people or “non binary” people. That they’re not conforming to gender stereotypes.
He is saying, isn’t he, that she might have been trans?
Which brings up an interesting point. Note this reply to O’Gorman, because it’s fascinating:
I don't know about that. She was also a life long supporter of her sister Eva who was an out lesbian, in a life long relationship with a woman and who by today's standards was almost certainly a trans man. Not very Catholic or Conservative.
— 🌈Dáire🦄📸🤓 (@daire_shaw) June 20, 2022
“A woman who by today’s standards was almost certainly a trans man”
Do you see yet why some feminists are getting annoyed with all this nonsense? For years, they fought for the rights of lesbian women, and the recognition of their role in history and society. And now, their very own allies are going down the path of suggesting that actually, masculine women are really men.
That’s the most fascinating thing about all of this, in truth: We are often told that we, more conservative folk have a “rigid, fixed, oppressive” view of gender. But it’s the opposite, isn’t it? We’re not the ones, after all, suggesting that masculine women are actually men, or that effeminate men might secretly be trans women. There’s no more rigid interpretation of gender roles than that now being adopted by the O’Gormans of the world: If you’re feminine, you’re a woman, and if you are masculine, you’re a man. Even Archbishop McQuaid wouldn’t have gone that far.
Normally we’d try to avoid covering something as dull and mundane as Colm O’Gorman’s tweets, but they do matter. He’s not an elected official, at the end of the day. He’s only the head of the country’s most powerful NGO, and therefore, much more important than any TD when it comes to deciding what Government policy is.
Anyway, this fella was onto the truth years ago, though I think O’Gorman laughed at him at the time: