Jonathan Clynch of RTE Radio News to become Jonathan Rachel Clynch #See post 1/81#

John Joe Jones

I must be an old fuddy duddy because I actually checked the calendar to see was it April 1st when I read this story www.radiotoday.ie/2015/09/rte-radio-news-presenter-to-dress-as-woman-at-work/

Added:
//MOD

Since some people appear to have a slight issues with reading let me make this 100% clear:

Try to be "funny" about Jonathan Rachel Clynch gender (or anyone else in similar situation) or bash him about it and you WILL be banned. There is very clearly outlined in the charter and multiple people are serving bans inc. permanent bans due to this. If you are so bloody insecure and immature that you can't handle the topic then I suggest you crawl back into your cave and never back out until you've matured and grown up.

//MOD

Lady Chatterton

Best of luck to Jonathan Rachel.

I'm glad that RTE are being supportive, it can't have been an easy decision for Jonathan to take and no doubt he will have some challenging days ahead. I hope he finds happiness.

More Music

As a TV license fee payer I feel I should say something😀

But you know what, I don't give a damn. Fair play to him.

Max Headroom

which loo will he use then........:D

Atlantic Dawn

Don't see any problem with it provided anyone else employed by them can have a new name added if they so wish for whatever reason they want.

L1011

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Don't see any problem with it provided anyone else employed by them can have a new name added if they so wish for whatever reason they want.

RTE have plenty of current and former staff who never used their real name to begin with (Rick O'Shea being one obvious remaining one); so I suspect they'd never have a problem with that.

Csalem

Isn't more common than uncommon for people on radio not to use their real names?

He was meant to be on Marion Finucane yesterday to discuss it but pulled out because of the newspaper coverage. Hopefully he will soon be ready and comfortable to discuss it publicly.

StonyIron

Best of luck with the new identity!
Jonathan's always been a decent reporter, so Jonathan Rachel will be too.

L1011

Csalem wrote: »

Isn't more common than uncommon for people on radio not to use their real names?

It's getting rarer these days, was mostly a pirate era thing. 25 years of commercial radio for people to have started off in at this stage

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Know a guy whose middle name is Mary, (I presume it was a religious thing)

L1011

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

Know a guy whose middle name is Mary, (I presume it was a religious thing)

It's relatively common amongst older men, I've some memory that it was done if the child was premature/very ill at birth in some religious belief that it'd help. Gay Byrne is Gabriel Mary Byrne for instance.

corsav6

Ya my uncle's middle name is Mary, I thought it was because he was born in a year dedicated to the christian virgin Mary. My ex's fathers middle name is Marian because he was born in 1954.

padd b1975

I don't think it's remotely credible for a guy to practice political journalism whilst dressed as a woman.
News at One has been weakened since SOR departed, this only brings it into the realms of laughing stock I'm afraid.

If I guy want's to dress up as a woman, then it really should be kept within the confines of his private life, I like my current affairs broadcasting to have an air of gravitas about it, a man in women's clothes really has no place conducting a hard-hitting political interview.

I can help but imagine what it would be like if it was 1982 again, and Clynch was grilling John Bruton about his VAT on children's shoes budget while wearing a pair of high heels!!

Monty Python would struggle to writ better.

StonyIron

Well, that's just your rather narrowminded transphobic opinion of the topic.

Whether the journalist is male or female doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to what they so on air.

Non-traditional gender identity is something that people are simply going to have to get over, as there is a minority of the population who very genuinely have gender identity issues. That isn't something that's going to go away and it's also not a topic of humour any more than bad Irish jokes are or jokes about Africans.

Like or not, people like Jonathan/Rachel exist and I don't think that anyone has the right to make a mockery of them or to suggest they've no right to work.

I'm 100% supporting him on this. It's hardly something anyone would do just for entertainment value as he's taking some steps onto what (with attitudes like the above) will be a very difficult road.

Also, it takes serious guts to do what he's just done and if there's one thing I value in a reporter it's being fearless and not being afraid of peer pressure!

padd b1975

StonyIron wrote: »

Well, that's just your rather narrowminded transphobic opinion of the topic.

One man's common sense is another's "transphobia".
Typical of this site as a whole really.

Whether the journalist is male or female doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to what they so on air.

Agreed.
Unfortunately Clynch falls between the two whilst "en femme".

Non-traditional gender identity is something that people are simply going to have to get over

Are they now?

Who appointed you judge, jury and executioner of what other people find acceptable?

as there is a minority of the population who very genuinely have gender identity issues. That isn't something that's going to go away

No, it's not going to go away.
Although Clynch, with his here today, gone tomorrow femininity, is only cheapening those with genuine issues.

it's also not a topic of humour any more than bad Irish jokes are or jokes about Africans.

Strawman.....

Like or not, people like Jonathan/Rachel exist and I don't think that anyone has the right to make a mockery of them or to suggest they've no right to work.

Humour is subjective, I've no problem with people who have a different sense of humour to me.

Could you quote where I suggested he has no right to work?

Also, it takes serious guts to do what he's just done and if there's one thing I value in a reporter it's being fearless and not being afraid of peer pressure!

What peer pressure is he likely to encounter?

RTE led the inevitable right-on stampede of acceptance.
I suspect any right thinking RTE employee will be afraid to look sideways at him for fear of him becoming"offended".

StonyIron

Great to see Ireland's moved on!

Honestly, not even responding to the above.

heybaby

padd b1975 wrote: »

One man's common sense is another's "transphobia".
Typical of this site as a whole really.


Agreed.
Unfortunately Clynch falls between the two whilst "en femme".

Are they now?

Who appointed you judge, jury and executioner of what other people find acceptable?

No, it's not going to go away.
Although Clynch, with his here today, gone tomorrow femininity, is only cheapening those with genuine issues.

Strawman.....

Humour is subjective, I've no problem with people who have a different sense of humour to me.

Could you quote where I suggested he has no right to work?


What peer pressure is he likely to encounter?

RTE led the inevitable right-on stampede of acceptance.
I suspect any right thinking RTE employee will be afraid to look sideways at him for fear of him becoming"offended".

While you're absolutely entitled to your opinion, your reasoning smacks of intolerance and fear.

To suggest that because a news presenter who wears a skirt lacks credibility and gravitas is ludicrous and essentially dismisses every skirt wearing woman with contempt.

Clinch is the same top quality respected journalist regardless of his gender identity or attire. To suggest his ongoing journey through the potential perils of gender exploration in any way robs him of his already proven journalistic acumen is pure nonsense.

Clinch should be applauded for demonstrating courage so publically as should rte for showing loyalty but more than that, commonsense to their employee.

It's 2015, Ireland is a very different secular inclusive society compared to that which you reference from the early 80's.

Live and let live.

StonyIron

I'm not the one acting as "judge, jury and execituoner" either.

All I've said is trans people aren't going anywhere. They're just a part of this society and if you don't like that, tough!

That's the reality of it. You don't get to chose who to exclude from society nor do you get to suggest someone's career is over because of their gender identity.

As a society we've accepted trans people legally in 2015 so, don't go around excluding then socially and expect to be given Carte Blanche to so!

Incidentally those Monty Python sketches are up to 45 years old! Happened decades before I was even born so, they're not exactly reflective of 2015!

Fr Tod Umptious

heybaby wrote: »

While you're absolutely entitled to your opinion, your reasoning smacks of intolerance and fear.

To suggest that because a news presenter who wears a skirt lacks credibility and gravitas is ludicrous and essentially dismisses every skirt wearing woman with contempt

Clinch is the same top quality respected journalist regardless of his gender identity or attire. To suggest his ongoing journey through the potential perils of gender exploration in any way robs him of his already proven journalistic acumen is pure nonsense.

Clinch should be applauded for demonstrating courage so publically as should rte for showing loyalty but more than that, commonsense to their employee.

It's 2015, Ireland is a very different secular inclusive society compared to that which you reference from the early 80's.

Live and let live.

But that's not what the poster is saying and you know it's not.

A reporter who is one day male the next day female the next day male again lacks credibility and gravitas

heybaby

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But that's not what the poster is saying and you know it's not.

A reporter who is one day male the next day female the next day male again lacks credibility and gravitas

How exactly? Are you suggesting their journalistic standards are compromised by their gender ambiguity? Or are you suggesting that because someone's gender identity isn't set in stone, you have a problem taking them seriously as a broadcaster? If it's the latter then that is your problem to resolve not Clinch's and not RTE's.

I think you are placing too much significance on the messenger and not enough on the message. For me, if a broadcaster is biased or just simply bad at their job, that would rob them of gravitas or credibility alot sooner than any gender ambiguity.

I think also you underestimate society's ability not to give a sh!t about things like this anymore. Ive heard no outcry from the general population echoing fears voiced in this thread.

StonyIron

It's only a few decades ago that the BBC would have had issues with regional accents.

I have also heard the horror stories of some of the most talented sound artists in electronic music, the likes of Delia Derbyshire (largely responsible for the Doctor Who theme music and who was producing stuff that sounds like modern contemporary electronica in the early 60s), couldn't even get a job in a commercial record label because she was female.

Move forward a couple of decades, it was still a problem to be gay and you'd tons of people hiding that.

That gradually became a non-issue

Move forward a bit further and you're finding that people's gender identity issues are now emerging from the shadows and into the open.

What matters is your ability to broadcast, produce music, be a good journalist or whatever else it is you do. Your gender, skin colour, orientation etc etc is all totally irrelevant.

I honestly think that countries like Ireland in 2015 are *far* healthier, happier, more socially integrated societies than they were back in the old days of conservatism where a large % of the population (for various reasons) were leaving in terror of being unable to conform with unrealistically starchy, inflexible, narrow-minded and deeply conservative views of what society should be rather than what it actually was.

It's that kind of nonsense that has led Ireland and plenty of other places to very, very dark places like Magdalene laundries for people who didn't conform / fit in.

I sincerely hope we've snapped out of that crap and learnt that people aren't all the same.

What difference it make to anyone what someone reading the news is wearing or what their name is?!

I'd rather see Irish society for what it actually is - very diverse, rather than some picture postcard of a married, straight couple dancing at the crossroads under the strict supervision of a nice nun (or however it was we liked to see ourselves in the 1950s).

RayM

padd b1975 wrote: »

I don't think it's remotely credible for a guy to practice political journalism whilst dressed as a woman.
News at One has been weakened since SOR departed, this only brings it into the realms of laughing stock I'm afraid.

If I guy want's to dress up as a woman, then it really should be kept within the confines of his private life, I like my current affairs broadcasting to have an air of gravitas about it, a man in women's clothes really has no place conducting a hard-hitting political interview.

I can help but imagine what it would be like if it was 1982 again, and Clynch was grilling John Bruton about his VAT on children's shoes budget while wearing a pair of high heels!!

Monty Python would struggle to writ better.

Thankfully, ignorant bigots like you are dying out.

joe_six_cans

good for him but why exactly did he need to broadcast this to the public , i honestly had only vaguely heard of him until the weekend and i listen to quite a lot of talk radio , he is not a household name broadcaster - journalist

amdublin

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But that's not what the poster is saying and you know it's not.

A reporter who is one day male the next day female the next day male again lacks credibility and gravitas

Why???????


The message being delivered by the PERSON is the same.

holyhead

We live in very strange times! I think though he needs to show respect for his position and dress like a man would expect to be attired given his job. Let him wear whatever he wants out of work hours. He simply will not be taken seriously by those he interviews or the watching public dressed as a woman.

padd b1975

amdublin wrote: »

Why???????


The message being delivered by the PERSON is the same.

Except it's not if you look at it with the smallest bit of common sense...


If you were to lose a loved one, and the male undertaker dealt with the funeral arrangements with the utmost professionalism but on the day of the actual funeral rocked up dressed as a woman while spouting some guff about "gender fluid"

You'd be OK with that??


another one....

You're in hospital having some tests done, on the day that you receive your results, the male doctor arrives at your bedside in a dress?

No problem whatsoever with that, or concerns about his professionalism?


Maybe you find yourself on the wrong side of the law and needing legal representation in court?

I would be amazed if your brief wasn't told in no uncertain terms by the judge that he wasn't suitably attired and was possibly in contempt of court.


That's what I mean when I say a guy in a dress has little or no place in a serious professional environment.

amdublin

padd b1975 wrote: »

Except it's not if you look at it with the smallest bit of common sense...


If you were to lose a loved one, and the male undertaker dealt with the funeral arrangements with the utmost professionalism but on the day of the actual funeral rocked up dressed as a woman while spouting some guff about "gender fluid"

You'd be OK with that??


another one....

You're in hospital having some tests done, on the day that you receive your results, the male doctor arrives at your bedside in a dress?

No problem whatsoever with that, or concerns about his professionalism?


Maybe you find yourself on the wrong side of the law and needing legal representation in court?

I would be amazed if your brief wasn't told in no uncertain terms by the judge that he wasn't suitably attired and was possibly in contempt of court.


That's what I mean when I say a guy in a dress has little or no place in a serious professional environment.

I'd have no problem with that.


Sometimes I wear a mens three piece with a tie etc to work (I am a woman), I do as good a job that day as the next when I am wearing a skirt.


Ps. Gender fluid is not about what you wear, it's about who you are.

hotmail.com

padd b1975 wrote: »

I don't think it's remotely credible for a guy to practice political journalism whilst dressed as a woman.
News at One has been weakened since SOR departed, this only brings it into the realms of laughing stock I'm afraid.

If I guy want's to dress up as a woman, then it really should be kept within the confines of his private life, I like my current affairs broadcasting to have an air of gravitas about it, a man in women's clothes really has no place conducting a hard-hitting political interview.

I can help but imagine what it would be like if it was 1982 again, and Clynch was grilling John Bruton about his VAT on children's shoes budget while wearing a pair of high heels!!

Monty Python would struggle to writ better.

You can't see what the presenters are wearing on the radio.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

padd b1975

hotmail.com wrote: »

You can't see what the presenters are wearing on the radio.

It's when he's doing face to face interviews in studio I'm referring to.:cool:

Annasopra

holyhead wrote: »

We live in very strange times! I think though he needs to show respect for his position and dress like a man would expect to be attired given his job. Let him wear whatever he wants out of work hours. He simply will not be taken seriously by those he interviews or the watching public dressed as a woman.

I love how these type of comments are assumptive that the entire Irish population will agree with them. It's actually quite hilarious.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

same could be said of the other side, that sees absolutely no problem, and can not conceive how there might even be one

StonyIron

padd b1975 wrote: »

Except it's not if you look at it with the smallest bit of common sense...


If you were to lose a loved one, and the male undertaker dealt with the funeral arrangements with the utmost professionalism but on the day of the actual funeral rocked up dressed as a woman while spouting some guff about "gender fluid"

You'd be OK with that??


another one....

You're in hospital having some tests done, on the day that you receive your results, the male doctor arrives at your bedside in a dress?

No problem whatsoever with that, or concerns about his professionalism?


Maybe you find yourself on the wrong side of the law and needing legal representation in court?

I would be amazed if your brief wasn't told in no uncertain terms by the judge that he wasn't suitably attired and was possibly in contempt of court.


That's what I mean when I say a guy in a dress has little or no place in a serious professional environment.

It honestly wouldn't bother me in the least!

If she/he's good to work with, friendly, professional and good at the job I really wouldn't give a damn what he/she chooses to wear or identify as.

I just don't see the relevance. I work with men and women all the time and I really don't go around wondering about their maleness or femaleness all day.

frostyjacks

When did this sort of thing go from being a thing of ridicule to being generally accepted? It's like it's happened almost overnight. I can't say I'd feel comfortable working alongside a man in a dress and high heels.

deni20000

L1011 wrote: »

It's relatively common amongst older men, I've some memory that it was done if the child was premature/very ill at birth in some religious belief that it'd help. Gay Byrne is Gabriel Mary Byrne for instance.

So his real name is Gay Mary Byrne - that must have been awkward at the school roll call.

Snickers Man

StonyIron wrote: »

Non-traditional gender identity is .........not a topic of humour any more than bad Irish jokes are or jokes about Africans.

I beg to differ. So do Monty Python in Life of Brian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA

Kev_2012

This should be nothing to do with work.

I can have a bad temper. But in work I can't lose it. It's part of who I am. I can't help but get annoyed sometimes. But you don't se me freaking out in work and expecting my employers for that to become acceptable. I can't imagine me having my temper flare up in work would go down too well.

Also, maybe they are "gender-fluid". So what? Having a split personality with 2 identities is considered normal now? That's just madness. Pick a single, gender-neutral name then? It's a bit stupid to be fair.

Get a bloody grip and be professional. Wear a suit to work or whatever the attire and do a professional job. Jesus this world is going mad I swear.

By the way, I voted yes on in the gay marriage referendum, I go to the LGBT parade every year here in Vancouver (probably one of the most LGBT friendly cities in the world) and have gay friends so don't even start with those homophobia/transphobia comments.

StonyIron

deni20000 wrote: »

So his real name is Gay Mary Byrne - that must have been awkward at the school roll call.

It wasn't as big an issue back then as it just meant "happy". You're underestimating how old he is!

hullaballoo

RayM wrote: »

Thankfully, ignorant bigots like you are dying out.

Personal abuse is against the charter. Please attack the post and not the poster.

padd b1975 banned.

Snickers Man

Seriously: I think this is ridiculous. He's a man; he's called Jonathan.

If he goes for the transgender op he can be called Rachel thereafter and no smart ass comments from his colleagues. Live and let live.

But this foot-in-both-camps I-want-to-be-both-Jonathan AND Rachel goes beyond simple tolerance.

This now makes it the height of presumption to infer that somebody with an Adams Apple and five o'clock shadow sitting in a suit in work is a bloke. Is it rude and presumptuous to refer to any strange man as "Sir"? Is it "inappropriate" now to prssume that the "Fred" you have been asked to meet in reception is the only one there NOT wearing a skirt?

Not being smart here. There are genuine proposal to introduce the Salutation Mrx as a counterpart to the marital-status-neutral Ms salutation for women.

And you might think it's trivial and flippant to ask such questions as "Which toilet should they use?" but it's a real issue. Should gender-confirmed women have to tolerate somebody with a big micky prancing into their inner sanctum? Have they no right to feel discomfited?

This is not like tolerance of gay-friendly or multicultural work environments. In those situations you ignore the orientation or ethnicity and concentrate on doing your job. Blokes called Rajesh are still called Rajesh; gay guys called Graham are still called Graham. There is NO NEED to mention or refer to the superficial difference in any way. You just get on with it.

But with this "Gender Fluid" nonsense your most basic presumptions and powers of perception have to be challenged because some guy can't make up his mind about whether he wants to be a boy or a girl.

Your name's Jonathan. For the time being. Suck it up like a man!

Jonathan Rachel has my full support. F*ck what anybody else thinks, live your own life as long as you do no harm to others.

Tompatrick

Snickers Man wrote: »

Seriously: I think this is ridiculous. He's a man; he's called Jonathan.

If he goes for the transgender op he can be called Rachel thereafter and no smart ass comments from his colleagues. Live and let live.

But this foot-in-both-camps I-want-to-be-both-Jonathan AND Rachel goes beyond simple tolerance.

This now makes it the height of presumption to infer that somebody with an Adams Apple and five o'clock shadow sitting in a suit in work is a bloke. Is it rude and presumptuous to refer to any strange man as "Sir"? Is it "inappropriate" now to prssume that the "Fred" you have been asked to meet in reception is the only one there NOT wearing a skirt?

Not being smart here. There are genuine proposal to introduce the Salutation Mrx as a counterpart to the marital-status-neutral Ms salutation for women.

And you might think it's trivial and flippant to ask such questions as "Which toilet should they use?" but it's a real issue. Should gender-confirmed women have to tolerate somebody with a big micky prancing into their inner sanctum? Have they no right to feel discomfited?

This is not like tolerance of gay-friendly or multicultural work environments. In those situations you ignore the orientation or ethnicity and concentrate on doing your job. Blokes called Rajesh are still called Rajesh; gay guys called Graham are still called Graham. There is NO NEED to mention or refer to the superficial difference in any way. You just get on with it.

But with this "Gender Fluid" nonsense your most basic presumptions and powers of perception have to be challenged because some guy can't make up his mind about whether he wants to be a boy or a girl.

Your name's Jonathan. For the time being. Suck it up like a man!

So how is anything relating to the possive referred to for he/she/it? For instance is it "his report" " her report" "his/her report" ??!

SEPT 23 1989

Will he/she put on a female voice when he /she transforms on air?

Snickers Man

Deleted User wrote: »

Jonathan Rachel has my full support. F*ck what anybody else thinks, live your own life as long as you do no harm to others.

Admirable sentiments but think them through.

1) Is it inappropriate to call a "Gender Fluid" person Sir or Madam?
This is an issue. If somebody takes offence to this you could get into trouble, especially in public sector organisations. Or organisations with paranoid HR departments who see their role (rightly) as protecting their employer against legal cases initiated by their own employees.


2) If yes to question 1 how are you supposed to know if somebody is "gender fluid"? Heck you might think it's easy but I've got a crap gaydar. (Probably because I'm straight.) Would YOU have known without being told that Gareth Thomas, for example - the Welsh rugby player, was gay? Should "gender fluid" people have to wear a patch informing their colleagues that they must not make presumptions about their gender?

If Jonathan Rachel has no problem people, especially people who don't know him, presuming that he's a man then fine. He can do what he likes. But if we're setting a legal minefield for some to exploit by saying "This person undermined my self-determination by calling me Bill when I really want to be called Wendy", then no. I'm opposed to any special dispensation being prepared for such people.

And seriously "Gender Fluid"? Sounds like something you hope doesn't get spilled on your good carpet.

Snickers Man

Snickers Man wrote: »

Should gender-confirmed women have to tolerate somebody with a big micky prancing into their inner sanctum?

Sounds like a step too far to me.....

Bellerstring

MrsD007 wrote: »

Best of luck to Jonathan Rachel.

I'm glad that RTE are being supportive, it can't have been an easy decision for Jonathan to take and no doubt he will have some challenging days ahead. I hope he finds happiness.

Here we go again, falling over ourselves to be the most right on, super liberal, all embracing champions of a man's desire to dress as a woman.
If anybody dared poke fun at this, they are tarnished as bigoted or hateful.
Would the liberal folk be as supportive and po-faced if it was Vincent Browne sitting in a dress and killer heels whilst ripping someone out of it on TV3?
And, should we also encourage our young boys to go to school in their sisters uniforms??
I hope this guy finds happiness too, but he's a man. And when he's in his, presumably, well paid job, he should dress like a man.

amdublin

Bellerstring wrote: »

Here we go again, falling over ourselves to be the most right on, super liberal, all embracing champions of a man's desire to dress as a woman.
If anybody dared poke fun at this, they are tarnished as bigoted or hateful.
Would the liberal folk be as supportive and po-faced if it was Vincent Browne sitting in a dress and killer heels whilst ripping someone out of it on TV3?
And, should we also encourage our young boys to go to school in their sisters uniforms??
I hope this guy finds happiness too, but he's a man. And when he's in his, presumably, well paid job, he should dress like a man.

If a young boy identifies female and wants to wear a girls uniform who are you or I to stop him?

Kev_2012

As a matter of interest, has the name legally been changed to Jonathan Rachel?

Triceratops Ballet

Bellerstring wrote:

Here we go again, falling over ourselves to be the most right on, super liberal, all embracing champions of a man's desire to dress as a woman. If anybody dared poke fun at this, they are tarnished as bigoted or hateful. Would the liberal folk be as supportive and po-faced if it was Vincent Browne sitting in a dress and killer heels whilst ripping someone out of it on TV3? And, should we also encourage our young boys to go to school in their sisters uniforms?? I hope this guy finds happiness too, but he's a man. And when he's in his, presumably, well paid job, he should dress like a man.

I wouldnt say bigoted or hateful but I would say un-empathetic and in need of education on the issue. People come in all makes and models, some of us are lucky in that who we are biologically matches what we look like, not everyone is gifted that, and just because you cant understand or relate doesnt make it any less of a valid life to lead. Everyone has the right to be who they are and how they present themselves to the world is solely up to them.

If it was Vincent Browne what of it, or for that matter Enda Kenny or Michael D . If that is their authentic self then why is it anyones business?

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

^ right on!

hometruths

dottie_lottie wrote: »

If it was Vincent Browne what of it, or for that matter Enda Kenny or Michael D . If that is their authentic self then why is it anyones business?

Are you really saying that after he has been elected as Taoiseach, it would be absolutely fine for Enda Kenny to suddenly announce he occasionally wants to be known as Edna and will be wearing dresses? Furthermore he may do so whilst conducting important state business and meetings with other heads of state?

I have to say personally I find the idea of Enda Kenny wearing a dress whilst carrying out his duties as Taoiseach to be utter nonsense and a step too far in trying to be seen as ultra tolerant.

If that makes me "un-empathetic and in need of education on the issue" I can live with that slur on my character.

I could even live with the slur of being bigoted and hateful if that is the consequence of vocalising my feelings that our elected representatives should represent us in the gender we elected them.