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.

I'm pretty sure this is grossly exaggerated. The photo of scaffolding being taken down is in France. There are barriers up around Dublin Castle but they are most likely for the St Patrick's festival that's about to kick off. They probably put them up a bit early due to the referendum count but the government had a pretty solid idea for the last while that they wouldn't be winning the care referendum so weren't anticipating a big celebration.

The indo has posted an exit poll but its one they did by text message at 9.30 the day of the vote and then ran the results through chatgpt

"As recrimination over the Government’s campaign gets under way, the exit poll also reveals that on the care proposal, a majority of Sinn Féin (88pc), Fianna Fáil (71pc) Independent (94pc), Social Democrats (70pc) and Solidarity/PBP (83pc) supporters voted No. In contrast, a majority of Fine Gael (51pc) and Green Party (53pc) supporters voted Yes. Labour Party supporters, meanwhile, were split down the middle (50pc).
On the family amendment, the exit poll found Sinn Féin (78pc), Fianna Fáil (76pc) and Independent (90pc) supporters again voted No and a majority of Fine Gael (53pc), Greens (60pc), Labour (67pc), Social Democrats (58pc) and Solidarity/PBP (83pc) voted Yes.
A majority of women, men, middle-class and working-class voters across all age groups voted No in both referendums."

https://archive.ph/RLYYG

That's an interesting analysis, and suggests that maybe politicians should be thinking of starting a politically left-leaning but mildly socially conservative grouping ready for the next election.

I've never thought advancing the rights of women and children were socially conservative positions. But this is the world we find ourselves in.

Yikes! Apologies for spreading misformation 🙈

No worries a@VoteNONO !
It was metaphorically truthful!

It surely was. No government ministers there at all ...

Admitting that women exist at all is so socially conservative that it is hardly allowed in public, and gets labelled 'far-right' by the likes of no-right-to housing-education-or care posh boy. Advancing the rights of such a suspect creature is very daring.

My one (1) disappointment about these referendums is that that vital question didn't get discussed at all. What is a 'woman' ?

(1) That and people using the wrong plural for referendums.

I'm looking for a party that is politically left leaning, socially liberal but knows what a woman is.

All those labels blur though, don't they - at the moment it seems that

socially conservative = women exist, people need housing, the state has responsibilities

socially liberal = marriage should be open to all so we know who will inherit the farm

I'll vote for them too. I had hopes for the social dems when they started forming, but they're indistinguishable from labour.

Yes, same here. It's a shame.

I guess I'm left with trawling through the independents.

I've no problem with marriage or other specified "durable relationships" being open to all. However I think you should have to actively opt in to a specifically legally recognised durable relationship, whether it be marriage, civil partnerships or whatever.

But yeah, what on earth is socially conservative about knowing what sex means, wanting to ensure people have access to housing and believing the state should be providing a safety net.

By socially liberal I mean pro choice, pro marriage equality, church control removed from schools etc., pro women's rights etc. My lefty leanings would cover housing and the state safety net.

yeah, you're right,

marriage should be open to all so we know who will inherit the farm is totally 2015 and passe and is now not just socially conservative but probably far-right

NOWADAYS

socially liberal = letting the authorities decide whether you are in a 'durable relationship' with concurrent responsibilities without telling you what the parameters are and without giving you the means to opt out.

Which makes me think that the right to divorce must be far-right too, by the newspeak definitions.

Exactly and whatever else you should never be left with a situation where you can't opt out, which is what we already have to a degree here. I'm single and I own my own house, and due to the cohabitation rights/responsibilities bill, I'm left with a situation where I can't invite a future partner to live with me as after 5 years they would have a claim on my house. We don't even have an option to write a contract stating that someone who lives with me as a partner would not make a legal claim on my house in the event of a break up or after my death, because that has no recognition in our law. It's genuine bullshit, if someone got to benefit from living for free in my house, they could then claim some ownership!

If the family referendum had passed, I'd have felt resigned to being single forever as even not living together we could have been considered to be in a durable relationship and I'd have no way to protect my assets. My only safe option for a relationship would be with someone with a greater degree of wealth, but why should he take a risk with his assets that I won't take with mine! It's such a crock of ill thought out shit.

@Wanderingowl when you see your clear explanation there in black & white it beggars belief as to how they thought they were going to pull a fast one. So glad common sense prevailed. I seriously doubt they'll try running this again.

Can someone make these quotes make sense to me given the GRA exists and people are allowed to get new birth certs that pretend they were born with a different name and sex?

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2024/03/15/inability-to-give-new-birth-certificates-to-people-in-witness-protection-a-major-hurdle-court-hears/

https://archive.ph/ZI9o0

"Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy concluded that the lack of new certificates has not led to an infringement of the Does’ rights under the Constitution, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. He accepted the State “could” amend the Civil Registration Act of 2004, which provides that a birth registration can only be altered if it contains a clerical or factual error."

"While accepting legislation could be framed to accommodate the Does’ situation, this would somewhat diminish the status that the birth and marriage registers have as historical records."

"The defendants did not accept a constitutional right was engaged in the circumstances but, if a right is engaged, any interference is slight and proportionate to the legitimate aim of maintaining the register of births and marriages as accurate historical records."

"He said a birth certificate is a “historical record, not an identity document” although it is clear that having an accurate record is fundamental to one’s identity and personhood. The Does have birth certificates that accurately record the circumstances of their birth but they are asserting an entitlement to an inaccurate record, he said.
While he had sympathy for the Does, the “stark reality” is their participation in the programme makes it necessary for them to maintain a “fabricated history”.
There is no evidence that the absence of certificates causes “insuperable” problems for them, still less that they have been deprived of any essential rights, he said. If there was any infringement of their rights, it could only be regarded as slight."

First mistake is trying to make it make sense. None of it does. The "rules" once you say the magic words contradict all kinds of legislation and common sense.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/0316/1438220-national-womens-council/to €50,000 at least spent by NWCI on the yes/yes campaign.

Sorry Miri hadn't seen you'd already posted on this on the other thread.

I didn't spot this in the news, thanks v much for highlighting it, Miri1985.

It's a pretty big inconsistency, isn't it? People on witness protection programmes may be in danger of literal literal murder if their original details are known,whereas we all know what 'literal' means in Transworld. And yet Judge Mulcahy was adamant that
" a birth certificate is a “historical record, not an identity document” although it is clear that having an accurate record is fundamental to one’s identity and personhood. The Does have birth certificates that accurately record the circumstances of their birth but they are asserting an entitlement to an inaccurate record, he said."

Let's tuck that behind our collective ear for later 😋

Sorry Miri hadn't seen you'd already posted on this on the other thread.
Where else has this been discussed please? I haven't seen it anywhere else.

I was referring to the NWCI spending. Miri posted about it on the referendum thread.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/craicnet/5024447-referendum-pt-2

hmmmmmm

https://www.rte.ie/sport/other-sport/2024/0328/1440505-sport-ireland-issues-transgender-non-binary-guidance/

Can't find the guidelines on their website and very interested to know exactly what they say. Unfortunately that report seems to suggest a "we know it's unfair to women and girls but transwomen are more important" and passing the buck onto individual sports organisations. I remember one of the surveys and it was the usual crap of being poorly worded but they did ask for feedback from the various sporting bodies but I don't know how each fed back . ..e.g was a consensus statement given or did it allow for the individual concerns/opinions of members to be fed back. I know certain sports bodies were holding off on publishing guidelines until this was published so it will have knock on effects whichever way it goes.

Whoops didn't realise there's a link to the document in the article...off to have a read now

I found it interesting that they acknowledge that there is majority support for natal women and that their right to participate in sport is the priority for most people. It does, yet again, highlight the insanity of gender rather than sex being a ground protected from discrimination by the equality act.