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!

If we don't vote correctly, SF are going to rerun it if they get in power with different wording https://www.thejournal.ie/family-and-care-referendums-sinn-fein-6304542-Feb2024/

The government should used the assembly wording. Changing it and hiding the notes from the meetings re the same is hugely fishy.

I just don't trust them especially ROG.

I wonder will they re-run it really? When the electorate voted against changes to the voting system and on the Seanad they didn't revisit any of those, even though the margins were often low.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

Who knows. They re-ran the Lisbon Treaty. But SF weren’t in power and they’ll say anything they think might garner them some popularity. I know that’s true to some extent of all politicians but SF are particularly prone to it and really blow with the wind.

'Follow me, I'm right behind you' worked well for FF for years, not strange to see other parties (and independents) sing the same song.

@StephanieSuperpowers

If this is somehow connected to surrogacy then it has to involve the automatic guardianship rights of the single mother.

Any child born through surrogacy is by default a child born out of marriage and so the woman giving birth is the automatic guardian.

There has to be a connection between the two.

I'm convinced the care one is about legalising killing. Force all responsibility - not just the care, but also the admin and organisation of support - onto family as tenuously defined as possible, then start pointing out how expensive and onerous it is and that the caree has no quality of life, and wouldn't it be better . . . .

@DeanElderberry

I am not so sure there would have something somewhere in the constitution which could challenge that.

Soft power over life and death in bureaucrats scary thought.

They are debating 'assisted dying' at the moment, and there is nothing in the constitution to stop them afaik. There are some in the HSE who would be quite gung ho about it - I heard some quite chilling comments on my own aged parents, and was glad they had legal protection.

Why do Yes people keep boring on about the Marriage Bar (RIP 1973) ?

There was no Referendum to get rid of it since it wasn't in the Constitution. A complete red herring.

As for previous posters concerned with euthanasia or the removal of the constitutional underpinning of children's allowance , yes....unintended consequences ahoy. Or the state getting out from under its obligations? Can't just dump shit on the church now. Thankfully.

But what rough beast slouches towards Bethlehem to be born in its stead.....

Yes, that makes a lot of sense to me. Gender equality in this respect would be to loosen the connection between the legal rights and responsibilities and the biological reality of being a woman/mother who gives birth to a child. After they are just womb havers etc...

The emphasis on different types of 'durable relationships' rather than biological families could be used to support this as well

Of course none of this will change biological reality, it will just mean that it is more open to being commodified and commercialised and women will face even more negative effects

It makes me feel queasy that this is being held on IWD and NCWI cheerleading it😥

The IWD date is deliberate.

Look how progressive we are, women get to vote to get out of the home on IWD.

It's the a cynical move by the tratbagd in government

Ratbags I mean

I think a lot was learned from the Denton's playbook. We might not have full sight of what this is in aid of but can be fully sure that it's not for freeing women from the kitchen sink as that was done decades ago..

Well that's for sure. We also didn't vote for gay marriage to get self id, but here we are.

Self ID didn't need us to vote at all. It wasn't impeded by the Constitution and was introduced by legislation.

TDs didn't bother looking into the impact of Self-ID and just thought it was another unquestionably progressive step.

So yes we voted on ME, but we did not vote on self-ID. It was brought in totally separately.

Yes, I know that. However, the Denton's document explains the link:

‘In Ireland, Denmark and Norway, changes to the law on legal gender recognition were put through at the same time as other more popular reforms such as marriage equality legislation. This provided a veil of protection, particularly in Ireland, where marriage equality was strongly supported, but gender identity remained a more difficult issue to win public support for.’

The document that reveals the remarkable tactics of trans lobbyists | The Spectator

What concerns me is that this could easily happen again.

@StephanieSuperpowers

It will happen again, it's been proven to work and many people don't do any research,

If it s not headlines it's not there.

I'm surprised the polling is still so in favour of it, I assumed the statement by FLAC and the other NGO's who agreed would have moved the needle on the care ammendment somewhat

https://www.businesspost.ie/news/majority-of-voters-say-they-will-vote-yes-on-two-upcoming-referendums/

https://archive.ph/uEkqA

Recent times have shown polls are not a good indicator of what people are thinking.

Look at Brexit, polls appeared to be heavily in favour to remain side.

Hilary Clinton supposedly had a huge lead.

People are inclined to say what is most popular thing.

I've read the information booklet carefully and I'm puzzled by this:
It says that if we vote YES to this amendment:

Article 41.1.1 ̊ “The State recognises the Family, whether founded
on marriage or on other durable relationship"

"The institution of Marriage will continue
to be recognised as an institution that the
State must guard with special care and
protect against attack."

Attack on the institution of Marriage-with-a-capital-M? What would that be? Maybe like somebody suggesting that other durable relationships are worthy of recognition in the constitution??

Daft.

BTW I understand 'any stigma to beat a dogma', but bringing in assisted dying as a reason to vote no is not only a stretch, but counterproductive: I'd vote yes please! in a referendum on assisted dying, for reasons that are not just ethical but also personal.

My reasons for fearing it are also personal. Based both on experience and observation (that Dutch girl, the things a HSE person said about my parents) and on reading about what is happening in both Canada and the Netherlands.

It is undoubtedly a useful way for a state to save money on housing and treating old, mentally ill or poor people. useful, but not good.

I'd have thought that suggesting that the gender recognition act would happen after the marriage referendum was a stretch. I'd actually have said there could be no possible connection between the two. I'd have been wrong.

And 'assisted dying' aka killing people, like the GRA, can be brought in without a referendum. We won't be given a chance to vote for or against it. If it is brought in, be warned, and never get ill, never get poor, never get old and dependent.

I think this might be the most arrogant interview I've ever read of a politican, so convinced hes right that he can't even entertain or argue against what other people are saying. FLAC are wrong, ICCL are wrong, Tom Clonan is wrong, Michael McDowell is wrong, etc

Also they aren't going to legislate for durable relationships, it is going to be left to the judges to decide what it encompasses because "we trust the courts because our courts have interpreted our Constitution for all of our nation’s history and have done that in a very respectful and rational way." but also Justice Marie Baker was wrong when she said what Catherine Martin said about women in the home was wrong.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/roderic-ogorman-referendum-critics-are-wrong-marriage-isnt-being-usurped/a562180917.html

Perhaps someone should tell Rodders about what has happened in the past when vague wording was left to the courts to interpret. We should tell him about how those same courts interpreted the 8th ammendment during the X case. The politicians were very adamant before that referendum in 1983 that no woman would be prevented from leaving the country. X was.

We were also told repeatedly that no woman would be let die as a result of a foetus being given equal right to life. Savita died because they would not terminate while there was a heartbeat as they were afraid how that right to life might be interpreted in a court