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

Second Toughest in_the Freshers · 14-09-2015 11:41pm

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

StonyIron · 14-09-2015 11:47pm

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 · 14-09-2015 11:49pm

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 · 15-09-2015 12:57am

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 · 15-09-2015 1:32am

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 · 15-09-2015 1:44am

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 · 15-09-2015 6:03am

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 · 15-09-2015 11:34am

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 · 15-09-2015 12:52pm

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!

15-09-2015 1:01pm

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 · 15-09-2015 1:44pm

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 · 15-09-2015 2:15pm

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

Snickers Man · 15-09-2015 3:11pm

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.

15-09-2015 3:13pm

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 · 15-09-2015 10:08pm

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 · 15-09-2015 10:23pm

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 · 15-09-2015 10:30pm

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

Triceratops Ballet · 15-09-2015 10:45pm

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 · 15-09-2015 10:49pm

^ right on!

hometruths · 16-09-2015 11:06am

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.

StonyIron · 16-09-2015 11:15am

If we'd a Taoiseach who was actually doing an excellent job of leading the country, could inspire confidence in the population and drive actual reform (i.e. not just attempt to abolish the Seanad, Cork and so on..), I quite honestly couldn't care if he or she wears or is called as long as they're doing the job, being totally transparent and just getting on with it.

I don't think it's being 'ultra tolerant' it's just that a lot of people really no longer give a **** about a lot of these issues anymore.

It's only a few decades ago we'd have been utterly freaking out about the possibility of a gay Taoiseach, yet I'd say that's fairly likely to happen if FG are back in.

Go back a few decades before that and you've people freaking about a female leader.

All I'm saying is for a lot of people, this stuff increasingly just doesn't really matter very much.

Some people genuinely do have gender identity issues. They're not trying to just annoy you for some reason.
From stats I've just looked up, it seems about 1.7% of human births are of ambiguous gender / intersex and it's quite likely that more may have gender identity issues due to some kind of a similar mix up.

A far larger % are gay.

That's just life, and I'd far rather we dealt with it as it is, rather than pretended that we're all exactly the same and force people who aren't necessarily the same to conform to some idealised model that they don't fit.

hometruths · 16-09-2015 11:20am

StonyIron wrote: »

If we'd a Taoiseach who was actually doing an excellent job of leading the country, could inspire confidence in the population and drive actual reform (i.e. not just attempt to abolish the Seanad, Cork and so on..), I quite honestly couldn't care if he or she wears or is called as long as they're doing the job, being totally transparent and just getting on with it.

Fair enough, but do you really think there is no danger of Ireland being lampooned or not taken seriously at international level if we had a male Taoiseach who wore dresses and make up?

I am not questioning how tolerant you are personally, I am asking is the potential risk that we are not taken seriously by other countries worth the potential reward of being seen as ultra tolerant?

Triceratops Ballet · 16-09-2015 11:26am

schmittel wrote:

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.

Why is the gender of your elected representative so important. Should their ability to do their job not be more important? Surely you voted for them based on their views and policies rather than whats between their legs?
An outfitt change has no impact on their ability to do a job. So Enda wears a skirt suit from now on does it change his politics? Does it it change how he does his job?

In reality I would be surprised to see an elected representative transition so publicly as, despite the cries of how Ireland has liberalised too much, I think it would still be too difficult for them in terms of public opinion and narrow minded thinking. Which I think is a shame.

hometruths · 16-09-2015 11:28am

StonyIron wrote: »

I don't think it's being 'ultra tolerant' it's just that a lot of people really no longer give a **** about a lot of these issues anymore.

It's only a few decades ago we'd have been utterly freaking out about the possibility of a gay Taoiseach, yet I'd say that's fairly likely to happen if FG are back in.

Go back a few decades before that and you've people freaking about a female leader.

Apologies, you edited to add the ultra tolerant bit whilst i was posting so I did not see it.

All I'm saying is for a lot of people, this stuff increasingly just doesn't really matter very much.

Fair comment, but equally all I'm saying is that stuff still does matter a lot to a large number of other people.

If it matters to them what somebody gets up to in their private life, agreed its none of their business, tell them to live and let live.

But if it is elected representatives I think it should be OK for people to say "Hang on a second, I'm not happy" without being vilified.

StonyIron · 16-09-2015 11:28am

schmittel wrote: »

Fair enough, but do you really think there is no danger of Ireland being lampooned or not taken seriously at international level if we had a male Taoiseach who wore dresses and make up?

I am not questioning how tolerant you are personally, I am asking is the potential risk that we are not taken seriously by other countries worth the potential reward of being seen as ultra tolerant?

So, what if we were?

Iceland was initially lampooned for having a married lesbian prime minister by several media outlets and by quite a lot of ultra conservative countries? Did Icelanders care? You must be joking! They actually just saw it as 2 fingers to the world and an expression of the fact that Iceland is capable of seeing past this kind of thing and is far more progressive than the lampooners.

You've had people lampooning the US over Obama being black. You know, countries we all take so seriously with open democracies and booming economies (cough) North Korea !?!

There are countries out there that would see a female head of state as a problem, an atheist head of state, a catholic head of state, a black head of state etc

There was a long period of time where it was unthinkable to have a non white, anglo-saxon, protestant, male president of the US was unthinkable.

Are we not self-confident enough to just put forward our best candidate and get on with it?

hometruths · 16-09-2015 11:31am

dottie_lottie wrote: »

An outfitt change has no impact on their ability to do a job. So Enda wears a skirt suit from now on does it change his politics? Does it it change how he does his job?

A huge amount of being Taoiseach is more than their personal politics or policy, it is how they are able to negotiate with others to secure advantage for Ireland.

And yes I do believe if Enda wore a skirt from now on that would impact on his ability to carry out negotiations on our behalf because he would be taken less seriously.

hometruths · 16-09-2015 11:35am

StonyIron wrote: »

So, what if we were?

Iceland was initially lampooned for having a married lesbian prime minister by several media outlets and by quite a lot of ultra conservative countries? Did Icelanders care? You must be joking! They actually just saw it as 2 fingers to the world and an expression of the fact that Iceland is capable of seeing past this kind of thing and is far more progressive than the lampooners.

You've had people lampooning the US over Obama being black. You know, countries we all take so seriously with open democracies and booming economies (cough) North Korea !?!

There are countries out there that would see a female head of state as a problem, an atheist head of state, a catholic head of state, a black head of state etc

There was a long period of time where it was unthinkable to have a non white, anglo-saxon, protestant, male president of the US was unthinkable.

Are we not self-confident enough to just put forward our best candidate and get on with it?

OK maybe I should have been clearer.

I would have no problem if a gender fluid candidate put themselves up for election and won that election. I would not vote for them but would happily accept the democratic process.

What I would have a problem with is if a currently elected representative suddenly announced they were gender fluid and expected the electorate to simply accept that was ok.

Triceratops Ballet · 16-09-2015 11:37am

schmittel wrote:

Fair enough, but do you really think there is no danger of Ireland being lampooned or not taken seriously at international level if we had a male Taoiseach who wore dresses and make up?

But its not a male leader in this theory, it is a gender fluid or intersex leader who through choice of their parents was raised as male despite their biology. This is not just some bloke with a wig slapped on, a flowery dress and handbag stumbling in heels

ZeroThreat · 16-09-2015 12:18pm

schmittel wrote: »

OK maybe I should have been clearer.

I would have no problem if a gender fluid candidate put themselves up for election and won that election. I would not vote for them but would happily accept the democratic process.

What I would have a problem with is if a currently elected representative suddenly announced they were gender fluid and expected the electorate to simply accept that was ok.

Would be easier for Kenny to be fluid. Even his name is easily changed to female if you swap around the 'n' and 'd'

Plus he's already a big Mary

Snickers Man · 16-09-2015 12:22pm

dottie_lottie wrote: »

it is a gender fluid or intersex leader who through choice of their parents was raised as male despite their biology.

:eek::eek::eek:

Oh my Holy God!! Those bastard parents!! They looked at his nether regions when he emerged into the world, observed a little tinkie and decided without consultation with the squealing infant that it was a boy.

Subsequently they potty trained him to pee standing up, encouraged him to play with fire engines and footballs and probably sent him to an all boys school.

What chance did the poor kid have!

Look we get it. Some people feel they are trapped in the wrong gender and would like to swop. And now, thanks to the miracles of medical science they can. But are we now to treat, from the moment of birth it would appear according to your screed, EVERYBODY as being "gender fluid" and guard against any possible presumption of preordained sexual identification?

Puhllease. The world is complicated enough.

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

Comments