Mick Clifford: Misuse of Dáil privilege in trans debate

People Before Profit-Solidarity TD Mick Barry used Dáil privilege to make remarks about psychotherapist Stella O’Malley.

ON May 10, Mick Barry trashed the reputation of a private citizen in the Dáil. Speaking with the privilege that protects members of the house from legal action, the Solidarity TD said that psychotherapist Stella O’Malley had been invited to address an Education Training Board conference on managing gender issues in schools.

“Ms O’Malley is an extremely controversial figure among the transgender community in Ireland and internationally,” he said during Leaders’ Questions. “Why would that not be the case when she recently messaged on a gay rights advocacy group, which excludes trans people, that ‘I don’t’ think you should have any empathy, and I haven’t asked anybody to have any empathy and I don’t think you should have empathy or sympathy."

“There should be no role for views such as this in sex education in our education system,” he said. He went on to ask the Taoiseach about when a new sex education bill would be enacted.

Ms O’Malley was not present to defend herself. Ordinarily, the Ceann Comhairle might be expected to issue a caution, or even admonishment, to a member of the house who had cast a private citizen in such terms. Seán Ó Fearghaíl didn’t open his mouth.

In replying to the question, the Taoiseach might ordinarily have been expected to pull Barry up for such a depiction. He didn’t. “I am not aware of the individual concerned but there has to be proper understanding and empathy in issues pertaining to trans people and the whole LGBTQI community,” he said.

That sounds as if the Taoiseach was leaving open the possibility that O’Malley may not have the requisite understanding and empathy. Why would he think that with nothing more than Barry’s word for it? Did both the chair of the House and the leader of the country separately decide that the less said the better on such a polarising subject and to hell with their duty to protect a citizen’s reputation?

The audio referenced by Barry was from a Twitter Spaces conversation online. In it, O’Malley is asked why should women who are concerned about their safety and losing women-only spaces have empathy for autogynephiles — a designation that describes men aroused by the thought of being female. This designation is highly contentious and disputed by many people in the trans community.

O’Malley responded: “I don’t think you need to give empathy at all, none, zero. I think I should because I’m trying to understand them.”

Obviously, the psychotherapist was quoted out of context in the Dáil, and the clip quoted misrepresented her position. Barry’s office said he is standing over his statement. O’Malley has issued him with a solicitor’s letter so his capacity to comment right now may be constrained.

Polarisation

The presentation in the Dáil of Stella O’Malley as a highly controversial figure, and the cavalier attitude to her reputation, is directly a function of an ongoing polarising debate about young people and gender identity issues. The disturbing thing about it is that instead of reasoned, rational arguments about different approaches, O’Malley and those of a like mind have been cast, largely on social media, as heartless ideologues incapable of empathy.

This is occurring against a background in which gender identity issues are arising with far more frequency than used to be the case. Until recently, gender was seen in binary terms. Precious little empathy was afforded to the small numbers who did identify as trans and they were, and still are, subject to discrimination.

The increasing numbers of young people presenting as transgender today has led to much debate with a particular flashpoint being the question of how they should be treated. Some believe that if a person presents as trans they should have immediate access to medical intervention that would assist transition. Others believe that some of those presenting may in fact be confused with other issues in their lives, such as extreme stress, anxiety, or even sexuality. Those who subscribe to this view are of the opinion that there should be an exploration of what else may be going on.

O’Malley is well-known for her views on refraining from immediate medical intervention. That is not out of kilter with the broad medical and mental health mainstream opinion, but her high profile has seen her become of a figure of hate for those who don’t agree with her.

As a result, her reputation is constantly thrashed on social media. She has been branded as “anti-trans” and even labelled as somebody in favour of conversion therapy. Social media can be a particularly useful forum for anybody wishing to construct a negative narrative about an individual by manipulating statements, video and audio footage. Most young people who access their news and views exclusively on social media would thus see a version of O’Malley’s reputation through the lens of people who despise her simply because she doesn’t share their opinion.

Then along comes Mick Barry to transpose that reputation from social media into the public square, complete with defamatory labels and defective evidence. He may well, as our American friends put it, have drank the Kool-Aid, and believes this depiction of O’Malley as a highly controversial mental health professional who is incapable of empathy. Even if he now knows where he erred, an apology, while the correct thing to do, would enrage the very constituency to which he was appealing when he had a gratuitous swipe at her.

Shut Down

The impulse to shut down any debate in this area is not confined to social media or even erroneous ramblings in the Dáil. Last August, O’Malley and two colleagues wrote an opinion piece in the Irish Times outlining how the actual wording of a bill proposing to ban conversion therapy could impact their ability to properly interact with teenage clients. While expressing abhorrence for conversation therapy they wrote that the bill as written would be, to paraphrase, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Almost immediately, there was a campaign among trans activists to boycott the newspaper for “platforming” such views. Platforming is the word used by some to describe the presentation of views with which they are not in agreement. Among those who affected some class of a boycott was the Union of Students in Ireland. These students are in all probability the politicians of tomorrow. Is this where we’re heading? Views that do not conform to a certain orthodoxy must be suppressed, and those who hold opposing views labelled and chased from the temple of decency?

The dark polarisation in the trans debate is the most notable example of how contentious issues are being grappled with today, but it is not an outlier in the prevailing culture. Increasingly, a fractured political and social landscape is leading to the souring of debate into conflict. Opponents are cast as enemies, argument displaced by abuse and the enemy dehumanised to provide a contrast with the proponent’s own self-declared capacity for empathy. Things are pretty bad when a manifestation of this development in society can reach the floor of the Dáil and nobody bats an eyelid.