Assuming it is she, she has mentioned that she is, in fact, interested in and available for (no information on specifics - also something I'm working on learning) speaking/debating/whatevering she does best at events in the states.
Incidentally, the way Jane Caro came across me is my article reviewing her debate on IQ squared; a debate I might add in which she-quite appropriately rudely-spent a full nine minutes slapping around her opposition with that petty matter of facts. She was googling (shamelessly as she said) herself.
It is a real shame that she the top return in google for 'jane caro debate' is my youtube video of that debate. The same for other variations on that theme. The lowest my youtube video of that which I found either 4th or 5th. Constantly I am met with the bewilderment of the PZ stripe of atheists who are constantly bemoaning the lack of diversity in the movement. Why aren't there more women in atheism?
A fairly straightforward solution to my mind is that instead of finding the ones who have capacity to be good examples of smart, driven, educated, articulate and serious humans who are ignored, we're too busy recruiting the perky dilettantes we tirelessly see being paraded around as strong advocates of atheism - let alone, women in atheism. Consider for a moment a mere matter of style, to say nothing of substance.
We have choices, and since the time available for speakers at events is limited, some of the choices are mutually exclusive. To invite group a of speakers, means that you simply cannot have group b speaking. Thus, we should hope organizers are making group a as robust as possible.
You're a member attending some conference, anywhere, USA, on the issue of skepticism, atheism, and communicating the same. Two speakers are slotted for the same billet and you have to choose between them.
Speaker a begins opens with some variation on the following concept: "I'm still drunk", "So, I was in a bar last night with the event organizers"
Speaker b opens with: "the prima facie evidence that all gods are man made is, of course, their treatment of women."
As a mere issue of style, it would seem that we have two very different approaches.
Speaker b in this case is Jane Caro, and speaker A is Rebecca Watson. Their educational backgrounds are similar. The difference between them then is not a result of that. The difference is in capacity, drive, and desire. Whatever the differences between, one simply has more capacity, and yet is almost unheard of here in the states - though she's amenable to working the circuit here. She runs a successful business in marketing, is an author and invited panelist on Q&A, in addition to being an invited debater at an IQ2 debate. In short, she's not a slacktevist. She does the online thing, twitter, but she also debates, attends public discussions, travels in the business world and so on. She's also witty and well read - a clever wordsmith who's expert in bringing to bear her background in communications and marketing, she's a force to be taken seriously. Where is she in the states? Where is she at our events? Why is a woman of her capacity mostly highly ranked in google for my crap blog and youtube channel?
Why oh fucking why don't we have more women in atheism?! Why is so hard to get women speakers?! Well, it can't be that we don't want them - listen to all the Watsonistas - they love women. Sure, there's the caveat that they have to agree with Watson, but it's slim pickings out there. There just aren't any women who exist who can compete with Greta, Watson, Benson, and PZ - the four horsewomen. Except that there are: just no one who's organizing meetings/events is asking them.
What about substance? Well, Watson has released a video excoriating the "Church" for executing Galileo, decides to spend part of a keynote speech lambasting a conference attendee, wasted her time on a panel with Dawkins (on communicating atheism) to read us her e-mail and youtube comments, and to call down Paula Kirby for being too old, blind and successful to see that sexism exists.
Let's see if this slacktevism bit can be used for good. Let's get Jane Caro invited as a paid, key-note speaker at a convention here in the states. With all of the 'No." meme silliness running around, I'll be modifying that and instead of signing 'No." from here on out, I'll end it with "JaneCaro." I certainly hope others help get this message out.
She's on twitter @janecaro, where she frequently comments on @qanda (Q&A). Sometimes, she shows a wry wit:
And then there's Jane Caro. For contrast, here's a video of each:
Edit to add a list of debates with Jane: