It seems to me that both the misogyny accusation against Varadkar and the accusation against McDonald that she highlighted Varadkar's personal circumstances to suggest that he didn't understand the challenges faced by families are both based on unproveable counterfactuals.From memory, I think the article quotes her actual comments accurately.
I was surprised they didn't get more coverage during the week because I thought she sailed very close to the Andrea Leadsom's mistake on Theresa May. I don't believe Mary Lou, for all her faults, is homophobic but her comments were clumsy.
I've no sympathy for Sinn Fein or Mary Lou though, they're happy to play sexism card.
This is FG showing they'll play the homophobic card if they have to.
In the Varadkar case, the argument is, essentially, that he wouldn't have made the remarks in question if McDonald were a man.
In the McDonald case, the argument is that she wouldn't have made the remarks in question if Varadkar were a parent.
Both arguments are, thus, equally flimsy.
The only instructive point in all of this is that it shows up partisanship: if you believe what Varadkar said crossed the line but you think that what McDonald said was OK then it would probably be easy to predict your party-political leaning. If you believe the opposite, then it would also probably be easy to predict your party-political leaning.