Gender Critical in Ireland Part 3

[VaddaABeetch]

I’m watching RTE news. They mentioned the Garda representatives organisation are concerned about Gender Identity in the workplace. It’s been brought in without consultation & without training.

the Garda Commissioner has said that Garda may be disciplined for misgendering.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

The phrase 'men and women' is found elsewhere in the Constitution. Does that change things at all?

@StephanieSuperpowers I think it's right to give protection to those in other longstanding relationships outside of marriage but I do think 'durable relationships' is much too vague. I want to know what I'm voting for. I'll default to no otherwise.
Also, can those protections be achieved by legislation? The awarding of the widowers pension to an unmarried man very recently makes me wonder why the referendum is necessary.

From this piece in The Journal it seems that the articles under review contain the only mentions of the words 'woman' and 'mothers' in the Constitution. However, the word women does appear elsewhere.

FactCheck: Could the 'women in the home' referendum erase all references to women in the Constitution?
https://jrnl.ie/6279204

The only reference to ' men and women' I can see is in Article 45.2

i That the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs.

Basically, nothing in the article we are being asked to remove takes any rights from us. It does acknowledge that being female (it doesn't mention pregnancy and lactation, but we all know that only women do those things - well, only women did those things until the government abolished women in 2015 without consulting anyone) can at times carry some specific responsibilities.

They are determined to erase our rights, and to push the official view that we no longer exist.

Article from The Countess here, https://thecountess.ie/the-countess-is-launching-its-vote-no-referendum-campaign/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-countess-is-launching-its-vote-no-referendum-campaign

Showed it to DH yesterday who skim read it for 30 seconds so I explained a no vote was a vote FOR women (he's also done the "outdated wording because men stay at home thing" so I know he's thinking what I would have before my eyes were opened) and not to trust the government on this. He said he was voting no for me and his mother. Today, he tells me that Labour are pushing a Yes vote like it's made him rethink everything. I'm staying quiet as badgering won't help but it does make me despair that people aren't aware of what is really going on, sigh

Thanks very much for the link @Fubbs. That's the explanation I was looking for.

Thanks for that @Fubbs. I especially found the bit about the text in Irish v the English interesting.

Yes, me too. Different meanings in Irish and English really. Doesn't the Irish version take precedence or am I imagining that?

Bloody hell, could that fact check be any more disingenuous?

Wrt The Journal piece.
People have been saying that the articles being removed are the only place that women are literally mentioned in the Constitution. See upthread for example. It's not surprising to find people refuting this even though it doesn't get to the heart of the issue at all.

The problems with the changes do need to be explained properly. Otherwise, on first glance, a lot of people are going to think removing what they see as outdated terminology is a good idea.

A good few people I've spoken to have said something along the lines of 'well, this is an easy one anyway' while intending to vote yes. Most of the others were only vaguely aware of the upcoming referendum.

In particular, the men I spoke to thought they were being supportive of women by voting for the change.

I was speaking to my Dad about it earlier on and he was clear he's voting no on the basis that "they're all against the women these days. I don't understand it."

VoteNo# trending No 1 on twitter in the day Vote yes campaign launched.

people not buying this.

Women is mentioned elsewhere in the constitution, not sure about mother.

The term "durable relationship" is not defined by the Oireachtas, and never will be (only by the courts). Now tell me if I'm wrong, but honestly giving the courts the right to interpret terms in the Constitution is a total cop out by our legislators IMV. It should be defined in the wording of the proposal. If it cannot be defined it is useless. I've no problem with the courts interpreting the definition, but there is no definition so....

The legislators think that by throwing out flowery words like "durable" (the Duracell bunny comes to mind here), people will think, ah that's grand - Joe and Mary have been living together for years, they'll be sorted now or something like that. I could have a durable relationship with my doctor lol. But I will be told "no, no, that's not what we mean at all", but what DO they mean?

A no vote is imperative, and it will be interesting to see what the referendum booklet will say + or - as they have to. Has it been released yet?

Estelle Birdy has a must-read piece on article 41.2 in the Irish Independent today.

https://m.independent.ie/opinion/comment/estelle-birdy-article-412-was-created-to-protect-women-and-must-stay-despite-its-dated-wording/a168002541.html

The Countess group will have a rally in Dublin this Saturday, starting at the Garden of Remembrance at 2pm. Twitter link. There's a pro-Palestinian one following the same route an hour before.

Estelle Birdy is brilliant!

Interesting to see the reaction to Estelle’s article on Twitter. Calls that it’s anti trans. Trans nor mentioned anywhere!

I think this from Estelle Birdy's article is very powerful:
..former chief justice Susan Denham, who stated in 2001 in the Sinnott case ... that “Article 41.2 does not assign women to a domestic role. Article 41.2 recognises the significant role played by wives and mothers in the home. This recognition does not exclude women and mothers from other roles and activities."

As well as wanting to protect whatever scant recognition women have in the Constitution or the law, I see this as another example of unnecessary foostering which makes the law more waffly: what does 'gender' mean? what is a 'durable' relationship? There are plenty of things that need to be changed, but not in way that adds layers of obfuscation.
And, no, I don't think it's done to make more money for lawyers - I think a lot of politicians feel they have to be 'on the right side of history', but history often reveals that they've actually been on the side of a passing, ill-informed fad.

One of the members of the SC who will invariably have a large say if this is voted in has said it will mean among other things if you get Christmas cards together.
"“There are all kinds of things, some of them are subjective and some of them are objective. So subjectively, a relationship is durable, if committed, if it presents itself as committed, if it means to be committed, if it intends to be committed.
“Its durability can sometimes be how you are treated by other people. Are you are you invited as a couple to weddings? Do people send Christmas cards to both of you? These are the indicators of your commitment to each other,” she added." https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/durable-relationships-could-be-defined-by-a-couple-getting-a-christmas-card-says-chair-of-electoral-commission/a1922458908.html

Its about as clear as muck what this will actually mean, there was a great letter to the editor that summed up my feelings about how they've drafted this legislation better than I can
"Sir, – The failure to define “durable relationships” in the upcoming referendum is being defended by the Government largely on the basis that it will allow the courts to be flexible and decide what a “family” is on a case by case basis.
But constitutional rights, including the rights of the family, do not operate on a case by-case basis. They must apply uniformly to all categories of people in similar situations. If the courts can make this decision, why can the Oireachtas not do so?
And why was a similar approach not taken on other recent referendums? For the votes on same-sex marriage in 2015, abortion and blasphemy in 2018, and reducing the timeframe for divorce applications in 2019, the wordings in each case were extremely specific, with no room for ambiguity or judicial interpretation.
Why the sudden desire to use ambiguous wording and to allow judges such huge scope to impose their own views which would then stand in law for all time unless subsequently repealed by a future referendum?
The politicians and lobby groups who support this referendum are invariably groups who decry what they see as the political overreach of the US supreme court into policy matters in recent years. So why do they now want to hand similar powers to our own Supreme Court? Can they really have such short memories? – Yours, etc," https://archive.ph/1Wnvm

I knew someone with children. They had chosen not to marry their partner because, among other things, the partner looked after an aging parent and severely disabled sibling and ran their family business.

Child care was managed between them, their finances as a couple were distributed in a way they deemed fair.

A durable relationship as a couple with children, but the person I knew did not want to take on the other responsibilities, and was wary of the attitude that revenue, social welfare and the health board might take.

And they were probably wise, because their partner died very suddenly, leaving them with full time care of the children, but not of the rest of the package. They had a good job, supportive colleagues and extended family of their own, and all ultimately ended in happy re-marriage.

But would this constitutional re-wording render their decision against marriage (and against cohabiting) void, and leave the survivor in a situation where they could be expected to sort out the winding up of the business, or even to help support their partner's dependents?

That's what I wonder - if you want the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage, everyone is now free to take them on by a positive assent. But you shouldn't acquire them by default. Not everyone wants them and they should be free to enter into non marital relationships if that's their preference.

Good piece by Sarah Carey in the Indo today:
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/sarah-carey-if-you-want-to-keep-the-state-out-of-your-love-life-vote-no-to-durable-relationships/a1262507366.html

"There are couples who don’t want the State involved in their relationship, and that’s fair enough. But declining to ask the State to recognise your relationship while simultaneously complaining that the State won’t recognise your relationship is a paradox to be resolved by the couple, not the Constitution."

Heard Estelle Birdy on Newstalk today. Good points and clear, calm head in the face of her counterpoint who managed to talk more and over her without saying anything of substance. Just kept referring to the language being outdated and patronising (as he spoke down to Birdy). How can men be so oblivious to their own misogyny as they scoff at and talk over a woman while proudly stating they're feminists

To misquote Albert Reynolds, that's the men for you.