This comment on Sky from their Irish correspondent has it fairly right. This was not about saying a woman's place is in the home, not is it about defining or redefining the word woman in Irish law.
"This will be held up for many years as an example of how not to run a referendum campaign. Pay no attention to any international clickbait headlines declaring that on International Women's Day, the Irish voted to keep women at home.
This wasn't about the "sexist" language. It was about the government's shambolic approach to the vote.
A reluctance to commit resources. Rejecting recommended replacement language in favour of vague aspirations that convinced no one. Poor messaging. And a perceived arrogance and complacency toward the electorate.
Replacing marriage as the family foundation with "durable relationships", but not defining what on earth a durable relationship was? Ah sure, the courts will sort that one out, the people were told.
Ditching the sexist language, and replacing it with a vague commitment to "strive" to support family carers (who are mostly women)? What does that mean? How do you define "strive" in a legal sense? Do or do not, there is no try, according to Yoda, who definitely would have voted 'no'.
The answers simply didn't come, and history shows the Irish voters are more than happy to shoot down referendums when they don't feel the tangible results to a Yes vote have been explained. Brexit would never have passed with Irish voters. They don't do vague. Better the devil you know. Status quo prevails."