As I write, we are not yet half way through the second month of the year and already the media scandals have been piling up like cheap t-shirts in Penney’s — “Pantigate” is in it’s third week; the muckraking surrounding the Woody Allen sex abuse allegations has entered it’s second; and Piers Morgan’s interview with trans activist and author Janet Mock is shaping up to be a bitter war of words.

I presume you’re familiar with the details of Pantigate – but here’s a brief summary of the other two. On 1 February, the New York Times published a letter by Dylan Farrow in which she accused her adoptive father Woody Allen of sexually assaulting her when she was seven years old. The accusations fi rst surfaced in 1992 and Dylan’s renewed allegations were a response to Allen receiving the Cecil B. DeMille Award at this year’s Golden Globes.

As for Piers Morgan, well, his interview with Janet Mock was something of a masterclass in insensitivity, with Morgan mis-gendering Mock from start to finish. This you could put down to ignorance, although you’d think CNN would have the resources to research trans issues, or that a staffer at least would have read Mock’s book Redefinining Realness beforehand – or, indeed, that given the way the mainstream media had been criticised for mis-gendering Chelsea Manning, Morgan would have known better.

Porn and cute cats

On the surface, these three news events seem pretty different, but a closer look reveals some interesting similarities. In all three, powerful establishment figures have had their positions challenged by those who not so long ago would rarely have been seen or heard — a drag queen, a child sex abuse victim and a trans activist.

Who decides how we talk — or even if we talk — about sexual orientation, sexual abuse, and gender identity? The conversations are crucial, because at their very core are discussions about sexuality and humanity; about whether or not there is a ‘right’ way to be a sexual person; and at an even more basic level, about whether or not certain people have the right to exist at all.

For many years in Ireland the bulk of the media power rested in the hands of RTÉ as the State broadcaster, and the Irish Times, as ‘the newspaper of record’ – with the likes of the Sunday Independent also in the game. This gave them, and RTÉ in particular, an ability to set the agenda or to control a discussion. I am not suggesting that there was anything sinister about this, or any kind of concerted plot to silence other viewpoints, but these mainstream media are essentially conservative.

Over the years, on the national stage, Hot Press has played a pioneering role, raising issues and creating awareness of alternative ways of understanding sex, and of defining sexuality. It was joined in this mission by the launch of Gay Community News and by the work of individual commentators in other media. But while many young writers, thinkers and activists, whether strictly LGBTQ or broader in their remit, were inspired by what they read in Hot Press and later on also in GCN, for the most part, it was an incremental process of chipping away at old prejudices.

The internet, however, has changed the rules of the game. The bulk of web content may be porn and cute cats – but new media has also given people the ability to wrest the discussions more quickly out of the hands of traditional ‘controlling’ media and to keep the topics that are important to us at the forefront of the agenda. Very frequently these discussions revolve around aspects of sex, sexuality, gender and identity — topics which touch on important philosophical and human rights issues, but have long been regarded as trivial compared to so-called ‘hard news’ by the traditional media, which is more often than not conservative, hetero-normative, misogynist, transphobic and resistant to change.

Secretly intimate

All three of these eruptions began in traditional media, but once they were out there, the discussions became impossible for any one individual or organisation to control, no matter how powerful. RTÉ may have deleted Rory O’Neill’s interview from the RTÉ Player – but they couldn’t stop people from sharing the original interview on social media. John Waters received a reported €40,000 for being defamed. According to his lawyer, the State broadcaster paid up after they “had spent the previous two days conducting an internet trawl in a fruitless attempt to belatedly substantiate the allegation made by Mr O’Neill. They failed in these endeavours.” But that hasn’t stopped people discussing the issue of what constitutes ‘homophobia’ or sharing quotes in which John makes his feelings about same sex marriage clear. There is an August 2012 interview with the College Tribune in which, to me, he sounds like nothing less than a wacky conspiracy theorist. “This is really a kind of satire on marriage,” he was quoted, “which is being conducted by the gay lobby. It’s not that they want to get married; they want to destroy the institution of marriage because they’re envious of it and they feel really, that it’s an affront to their equality.”

So apparently it is okay to generalise about ‘the gay lobby’; to accuse them of acting in bad faith; to fi nd them guilty of what Christians (or Catholics) consider to be one of the seven deadly sins, envy; and also to convict them in public of attempting to destroy the institution of marriage. But it is not okay to generalise about Catholic lobbyists...

It doesn’t matter if you or I, as individuals, think that John Waters is a brave man prepared to speak an unfashionable truth, or that his views are deeply objectionable — what matters far more, right now, is that we are having a discussion about homophobia.

What we might believe about Dylan Farrow or Woody Allen may be more problematic: the accusation of child abuse puts any suggestion of homophobia in the halfpenny place. It is important, nonetheless, that we are having a discussion both about child sex abuse and about the way in which allegations made against powerful men — or institutions — have frequently been dismissed as fantasies and lies, dreamt up by mendacious women or emotionally unstable children.

In 1992 the New York State attorney, Frank Maco, publicly stated that there was probable cause to prosecute Allen, but that his offi ce had decided not to put Dylan through a trial. America’s Statute of Limitations means it’s too late now to pursue justice through legal means and instead Dylan has taken her case to the court of public opinion. During the fi rst round of accusations, Allen defl ected much of the negative publicity by treating them as a vindictive plot hatched by his ex-wife, Mia Farrow, as payback for ditching her for her much younger daughter Soon-Yi. He has responded to the latest accusations by ignoring the fact that it is Dylan making them and pretending that Mia Farrow is reprising her role as the woman scorned.

He also complains that Ronan Farrow may be Frank Sinatra’s biological son, painting Mia as money-grabbing and deceitful. “Even if he is not Frank’s, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank’s son? Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that.”

Commentators, meanwhile, have pointed out the hypocrisy of Allen complaining about infidelity; the meanness of his whinging about child support; and that he was 56 when he began his relationship with Soon-Yi, who was around 19 at the time – although her exact date of birth is unknown.

Slap on the wrist

In Ireland, discussions about child abuse, and the failure of those in authority to respond to it, are nothing new. What is different here is that both the accuser and the accused have public faces and names, and because we know about their history, it seems personal for us in a way that an unknown abuser or victim cannot be.

On the trans issue, it doesn’t really matter whether you or I think Piers Morgan is a pompous asshat, a bumbling fool or a slick media operator drumming up publicity and controversy for his show — it matters far more that trans issues are being widely discussed.

When Mock voiced her disappointment with her CNN interview on Twitter, Morgan accused Mock of “Deliberately, and falsely, fuelling some sense of me being ‘transphobic’.” He then invited her back on his show to address the issue – and what could have been a learning experience for the audience turned into a bun fight.

In each of these cases, we have to ask: who are the victims?

John Waters, Breda O’Brien and the Iona Institute have cast themselves in that role, claiming that they were defamed; Woody Allen sees himself as having fallen foul of a jealous woman’s “shabby agenda” to smear his good name; and Piers Morgan tweeted that he was “a victim of ‘cisphobia’.”

But are they victims? The truth is that the balance of power has not shifted. In Ireland, marriage equality is not a reality and homophobia is a daily occurrence for many Irish LGBTQ people. On the world stage, child sex abuse victims frequently don’t get justice and even perpetrators found guilty may be given nothing more than a slap on the wrist. And transgender people still face huge levels of prejudice and violence.

What is different is that the vested interests of the status quo can no longer control the discourse – and that those who were voiceless now have an instant platform.

The thundering Greek chorus of commentators, bloggers and tweets contains more than a fair share of trolls and idiots, but the good thing is that a multitude of voices can be heard. Some you may agree with, others you won’t. But the fact that the discussions are raging is sure to shake up our understanding of sexuality, in all its complexity. Bring it on...