Women and the Irish constitution - sunlight in the Irish Times

[Styleseeker]

These letters to the editor were published in today’s Irish Times:

Women and the Constitution
What is a woman?

Sir, – Your article “Doubts grow over ‘women in the home’ referendum – concern in Government that campaign could lead to divisive debates” (News, August 28th) provides some hope that the politicians are starting to actually “read the room” rather than simply do the bidding of the NGOs they fund so well.
If the Government or the NGOs actually cared about outdated and sexist language, they would review the Gender Recognition Act, which was implemented in 2015. This Act affords a man a female birth certificate if he promises to “live as” a woman. Nothing could be more offensive.
Having asked many politicians and the National Women’s Council of Ireland, for three years now, how one “lives as” a woman, without any reply, my conclusion is that the way to live as a woman is to be born female. – Yours, etc,
SARAH HOLMES

Sir, – Your article delivers very disappointing news. I am one of thousands of women and men who were looking forward to asking those in favour of making constitutional changes the following question: what is a woman?
The terror that this question generates is astonishing. Politicians are so afraid of it they’ll cancel a referendum to avoid being asked it.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned but it is nothing in comparison to the fury of women who understand the biological reality of being female is being erased via legislation. The question remains, and it will be asked in the local and general elections. The answer is simple. A woman is an adult human female. – Yours, etc,
SANDRA ADAMS,

Some background:
Ireland's constitution currently states the following:
1. In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

A recent citizens’ assembly recommended the article be changed to reflect modern life and the government duly agreed to hold a referendum this November. But insiders are now saying that won’t happen as they haven’t even agreed on wording to replace it because it’s a shitshow nobody wants to touch. It seems the government is only now realising that rather than being an easy win (it is after all a ridiculous article that doesn’t even have any positive impact in the real world) they‘ve accidentally brought the issue of gender and women’s rights to the fore.

Because when the constitution was written that's what it meant. Clearly that's not the reality of many families. And thanks to the Gay marriage referendum we now recognise them as legal families too. But none of that is an issue, the problem is that the government are in a tizzy over the gender issue. So they do not want to open that hornet's nest. They will just piss off everybody. Starting with how are they going to define two words. Woman. Family. Especially woman. The Green woman politician the other day refused to even say what a woman is. Because she knows now it's a trap she could fall into. If she says a man can be a woman she will piss off half the population. But all this is sunlight, so I'm delighted.

Here is the beginning of the fighting over wording:

Clarity needed on wording and timing for gender equality referendum - The Labour Party

Referendum to remove 'sexist' reference from Constitution may not take place this November (irishexaminer.com)

However, ministers have now hit a block in defining ‘the family’ which is currently linked to marriage in the Constitution and they are still working out the wording of how carers might be recognised.

A few months ago it all seemed so easy

Ireland to vote over constitution clause on women's role in the home | Ireland | The Guardian

This was the official line a few months back, but now they have hit the dreaded 'gender' problem

gov.ie - Taoiseach and Minister O’Gorman announce holding of referendum on gender equality (www.gov.ie)

SIPTU says 'care' has to be included https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2023/0902/1403062-referendum/

but the RTE headline refers to the 'gender equality referendum'

What's that then?

Once you start talking about care you blow the 'parents and their children' model of family right out of the water, because voluntary extended-family carers can be children, grandchildren, siblings, nieces, nephews, cousins, of any sex and of any gender or none.

Indeed
It would create a conflict with the adoption /State care clauses that the children section was introduced to overcome.
If DGM is family then DGM gets to keep her adult child and grandchild in their existing living conditions.

And that is not taking account of the family bond between a child of a prior relationship and the step parent and any family ties they have.

But its not just family by blood or legal recognition if general caring applies.

SIPTU's Deputy General Secretary, Ethel Buckley, descried the forthcoming referendum as a critical moment for Irish society.
She said it was important that all those who provide care, including people in the home and in the wider community, are recognised.

That ^ is very nice
But care by the wider community is not about "the Family"
So take Jimmy in (rural Ireland) looking after NDN John (whos siblings and cousins all left Ireland and never came back) who is now "family" what rights and obligations do they owe each other?
Plus what are the rights and duties of the State when providing a legal framework to support their individual Constitutional rights.
And how wide must the failure of a family "care net" be before the State has duties?

Like I said, can of worms.

Modern interpretation of the Constitution is never allowed. Supreme Court judges have to interpret what is written in the way DeValera would have intended

Ooh that's interesting. So the inclusion of the words 'woman' and 'mother' in the Constitution can only be interpreted to mean the old fashioned cunty type, inspite of the GRA? So as it currently stands the Constitution recognises biological women as a distinct class in a way that our legislation does not? Do I have that right?

Also doesn't the existence of 2.2 not ensure that single mothers in receipt of social welfare are not compelled by ANY government to seek employment outside the home to 'justify' the supports they are given? How many times have we heard these women dismissed as 'scroungers' so the idea is not so outlandish I think? Are we really so sure that these articles are meaningless?

Nope it is for all mothers and it is not a right.
Look at the wording for property or voting. If it was a right women who were forced to give up their babies could now sue the State.

I think there was a test case in the 90's(?) where the children were in the sole care of their father but the mother was being paid the childrens allowance and not passing it on and the courts ruled that based on that the State could continue to pay the mother.

It has to balance rights so what is a balance for a situation where mothers were all married (nope) and their husbands had the first duty to provide economically for their children then mothers and then if there was no charity (poor house) the State would try to step in (State run poor house). And as afail safe when the State steps in the poor could not be punished just for being poor and unable to provide

however if the father/husband had a duty to provide and the mother/wife a right to receive the State would have an obligation to pass legislation to remove the personal property (money) from the father to give to the mother. So that is regulation of the internal agreement between all married couples. Then apply the same obligation to unmarried fathers during a period without DNA testing.

Anything that kills this stone dead is marvellous.