TERFs and the Irish referendum

[theDudesmummy]

Could any kind Irish MNer break down for me the reasoning around how a TERF should be voting in the referendum on 8 March? I am not usually thick but I am struggling to get my head around it, and would also like to explain to fully TERFy DH. (We are British, not Irish yet, not fully steeped in all the ins and outs of Irish politics. We moved here in 2020, and we have the right to vote in referendums here). Thanks!

Recent Poll on the likely results

Right now it looks like Yes will win overwhelmingly, but this Irish Times poll [conducted between February 2nd and February 6th] also indicated that those who were more informed on the referendum tended to be on the No side. Which is a damning statistic.

At the outset of the campaign the Yes side has established a strong lead. In the referendum on changing the constitutional provisions relating to the definition of the family, over half of all voters (52 per cent) say they will vote in favour, with just 15 per cent against, while 27 per cent say they don’t know. A further 5 per cent say they will not vote.

On the “care” referendum, which proposes to recognise the value of care and remove the text which recognises women’s role in the home, the Yes lead is even larger – 59 per cent say they will vote in favour. Just 12 per cent say they will vote against the proposal and 23 per cent are undecided. Again 5 per cent say they will not vote.

So NO just need to get the public to study the issues and they would win, but can they do that in under a month?

Clear majority of voters intend to vote Yes in both referendums, poll shows Better-informed voters more likely to vote No, suggesting the lead for the Yes side may shrink as polling day nears
<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240210012430/www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/02/09/yes-campaign-in-the-lead-but-signs-referendum-campaign-likely-to-tighten" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20240210012430/www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/02/09/yes-campaign-in-the-lead-but-signs-referendum-campaign-likely-to-tighten/

2 different referenda . The one relating to Women's special place in the home was inserted by Irelands arch feminist Bishop Quaid.

Orla O’Connor, Director of National Wonens Council said,

“We welcome the announcement of this referendum which women have campaigned for since the insertion of the wording on ‘women in the home’ in the Constitution. This referendum is our opportunity to remove limits on women’s role from our Constitution and close this dark chapter of our past. The current wording never led to any positive supports for women and was at the heart of cruel, discriminatory policies such as the marriage bar which forced women out of their careers once they got married. As a result, women missed out on opportunities. They had to curtail their dreams and ambitions and many are still facing inadequate pensions and income in older age because of it.”

I will be voting yes to get rid of it as archaic B.S. there are feck all additional supports for Women in the home, simply a mechanism to keep women in their place.

I am open to learning. Can anyone tell me any tangible positives that women have from the current wording? What will we miss out if the referendum on women's place is passed? Am asking as genuinely confused as feminists why so many are against it (and disliking Roderic O Gorman isn't enough) . I can't ever imagine voting the same way as the Iona Institute.

Such un-historic nonsense. The marriage bar was removed in the public sector early in 1973 and became illegal in the private sector in 1977. And existed in many countries long before Ireland existed, never mind had a constitution.

I'm voting no. I want to retain a recognition of the fact that women have needs, particularly relating to pregnancy, that are different from those of men. And that people's life and work in the home is important for society - it is not all about the financial bottom line - Yeats's 'greasy till'.

If the proposed wording was adding a recognition of men there I'd be voting yes, but writing our (all citizens, here represented by women) right to home life out of the constitution is wrong.

Our right to go out to work and earn our living is, and always has been, protected by Article 45.2

The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing:–

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.

I'm a sahm and a carer and I'm voting no and so are all women I know who are in similar circumstances

Well, given what McDowell writes today about being refused access to departmental discussions on the basis that the information could influence the referendum, do you think anyone really understands the intention? I personally don't, which makes me suspicious. If the women in the home part was a straight deletion, I would vote for that. But I think the proposed wording is a bit of a mess.

The National Womens Council recognises people who can get other people pregnant as 'women' equally with people can be pregnant.

I do not trust any member of that organisation to represent my interests.

It's like something Helen Joyce once said, when someone has a trans child or there's a trans person on the board,the whole organisation turns into one for promoting their interests. Just like the NWCI, which now acts against the interests of women at the behest of one individual.

I'm rooting for you, Irish women. I hope you can get the word out quickly enough about the potential implications. Do the constitutional changes need a simple majority or a super-majority?

Simple majority.

That is very bad news. Also wrong in principle, I think.

Not to derail but as a man I don't think I should have a vote anyway , on this issue.

The new Article looks like a dog's breakfast however.

Yes I know some men do childcare , housework etc. Brain fog this am. Stephanie put it better.

Can I ask what actual tangible benefits you think Irish women will get from the changing of this wording? What has it stopped you from doing in life up until now?
I'm curious because the previous referendums - abortion and marriage equality were for a tangible change in the law that benefitted people in a meaningful way. With this referendum, I don't see what this change would do - it seems the wording changes are wishy washy at best. Also the fact that the government aren't releasing the meeting minutes which clarify how these changes will affect other laws is suspicious.

Also, while I abhor the Iona institute and many of the things they stand for, I think it is misguided to assume that just because they campaign for something it will automatically be bad just by association. Surely it's better to look at each issue individually on it's own merit than by just assuming that because you've disagreed with them before that you could never align on any issue in the future?

I ignore the Iona Institute (literally have no idea what they've said about anything in years). I am not going to let them influence how I'll vote either by blanket agreeing with them or by blanket disagreeing. I am capable of making my own decisions.

For ne the tangible benefit will remove the archaic idea that womens place ( only) is in the home. It would be different if stay st home mams we're offered special protection but they are not. For me it's a meaningless platitude that ( as they are no additional supports) has no place in modern life. It would be different if this was reckobable time going towards pension contributions, additional meaningful allowances paid but its not. For me it's a pat on the head without any real substance. The above posts highlight the reason why people are voting no are specific mention the Constitution (which has no real meaning) and dislike if ROG. I am.absolutely open to learning, I am not being obtuse but can't see where womens and in particular objections are coming from.

Fair enough, however I personally disagree that article 41.2 states or implies that a woman's place is only in the home. In fact nowhere in the constitution does it expressly state that 'a woman's place is in the home'.

In my view it doesn't consign women to a domestic role only, it simply recognises the importance of women and mothers role within the home. It certainly hasn't stopped women from working outside the home, as many women in Ireland already do.

It also removes the sole reference in the constitution to mothers, as previously mentioned by PegasusReturned upthread - which is unnerving to me given the recent nonsense pushed by the government to give priority to gender bullshit over biological reality and women's protections.

Also, ROD and his friends won't release the minutes of interdepartmental meetings which would have discussed how these changes would impact other laws, we don't yet know. According to ROD it's not in the 'public interest', I disagree.

The Department has refused access to all 64 pages of notes and minutes discussing the consequences of the amendments including tax laws, social welfare laws, pension laws, allocation of family assets, alimony and allowance including the laws in relation to family reunification for asylum seekers. The withheld records include minutes of 16 meetings of the cross-departmental group.

As for what a 'durable relationship' means - that's anyone's guess.

The whole thing seems messy and unnecessary.

Yeah, I mean they clearly know that the notes are going to damage their ambition to pass the referendum. Otherwise, they'd release them no problem. So there is a devil in the detail that they've identified. And that might be the purpose.

Just realised I've called him ROD all along, rather than ROG 😂oops.

Not releasing the minutes is a huge red flag and I think it is a financial disadvantage to women and they will the women's vote to pass this.

I seriously suspect that it is CB which is affected.

Also I suspect it will expand the repatriation of extended family for asylum seekers.

In current climate they definitely do not want that information in the public arena.

I think it may also have some implications for the changes to the laws around surrogacy that they're looking at.

Not to be confused with the wonderful Ronan O Gara.

Surrogacy is my best guess too. If the can get rid of the word mother, it can be replaced gradually; in HSE...etc documents, with gestational carrier.
Nobody will object to removing a baby from a gestational carrier because it is now a job not a relationship.

I've been calling him ROD too.