Kathy Sheridan: Terry Leyden remarks show up poor debate

You don’t have to like the idea of little ladies playing rugby to find Senator Terry Leyden’s views intriguing.

In a Seanad debate about making certain women’s sporting events free to air, he declared that research he read “somewhere” shows that rugby was not recommended for young women. “I am not a great advocate of women’s rugby, funny enough . . . I think soccer and football are much different. I’m not a medical doctor . . . it wouldn’t be something I’d be totally encouraging but the jury is out in that particular regard . . . Rugby is a very physical game. I think there are certain games you can say – not being discriminatory about that, just looking at it from the a health point of view, or from the future point of view of young women who would be playing.”

So much to absorb. I’m not a medical doctor. The jury is out. Not being discriminatory but. From the future point of view of young women.

Part of rugby’s appeal is that it is a collision sport and that a good rugby team requires athletes of huge physical diversity. An enduring image from Munster’s glory days is of scrum-half Peter Stringer, 5ft 7in in his socks, standing alongside his towering 6ft 6in team-mate Donncha O’Callaghan. Superhuman self-discipline, sacrifice, grit, resilience and luck mean that both he and Stringer, despite the size difference and heading toward their 40s, are still playing professionally.

Kathy Sheridan: Beware the backlash to the Weinstein scandal

---

Kathy Sheridan: Trump is the biggest snowflake of them all

---

Kathy Sheridan: Kevin Myers’s fall is a long time coming

---

Why is it always men that win the media’s ‘talent’ contest?

---

Has Leyden ever expressed reservations about such mis-matches in men’s rugby? Or commented on the Newcastle University study that calls for a ban on the tackle and other forms of “harmful contact” from schools rugby? Why reserve his paternalism for the ladies?

Of course, one must be prepared to reconsider any position where research has shown . . . what? That the feisty ladies – twice winners of the Six Nations and World Cup semi-finalists, who spent last weekend highlighting the Irish Rugby Football Union’s “lack of respect and ambition for the women’s game in Ireland” – are at greatly increased risk over men and boys, “from a future health point of view”?

When a reporter from the Times's Ireland edition pressed him on a few details, such as whether the risks were related to women's reproductive organs, he insisted "it wasn't any objection to the principle, it was an objection from a health point of view."

Anxious

Sound. But ladies, perhaps you remain anxious about what particular part of your anatomy needs checking out? Or where precisely you might catch up on the Senator’s research? Well, that would be on Google. Not a particular website on Google. Just Google.

In fairness,Leyden has conceded his view was “ill-informed”. That was after he learned of a few “excellent initiatives around the country including one recently launched in Co Roscommon” (his home turf), not to mention his local primary school. He now also “fully” supports the campaign that questions the legacy the IRFU wants to leave to women’s rugby, following the downgrading of the head coach role. Marvellous.

But the more troubling aspect of this debacle is what it reveals about the level of debate in the Oireachtas. This was not some throwaway pontification from a high stool.

Given the post-truth world we inhabit, that any public representative would casually peddle something he saw on Google as a serious contribution to public policy should be a matter of serious concern.

When Donald Trump was publicly challenged about his claim to have had “the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan” (it was the 46th largest in history), an NBC journalist asked : “Why should Americans trust you when you accuse the information they receive of being fake, when you’re providing information that . . .” Trump interrupted. “Well, I don’t know, I was given that information. Actually I’ve seen that information around,” he said with a shrug.

Dishonest

By a

New York Times

count, he said something untrue, in public, every day for the first 40 days of his presidency. In a Quinnipiac poll published in June, nearly six in 10 Americans said they believed the president is not honest. He doesn’t care.

Last Sunday, he rejoiced that his campaign against the free press was working. “It is finally sinking through. 46% OF PEOPLE BELIEVE MAJOR NATIONAL NEWS ORGS FABRICATE STORIES ABOUT ME. FAKE NEWS, even worse! Lost cred.”

Elected representatives in Ireland who bend the truth, or get their “research” from Google are often dismissed as caricatures, just as Trump was.

Leyden was merely ill-informed rather than telling a lie, but as we approach a volley of referendums, the vital distinction between verifiable fact and opinion cannot be overemphasised.

Perhaps a daily lie count would be the best service a free press could offer.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts.