Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

Jazz Hands

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120329498#Comment_120329498

Theres 1000s of men who lose their family home to women for the only reason they are men.

...Ghost...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120329489#Comment_120329489

Deadly serious. I believe in equality, not the one sided ideology being thrust upon us. Equality of opportunity is what we need rather than equality of outcome.

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058287346/referendum-on-gender-equality

You live in one of only two countries, the other being Switzerland, that I know of, with a sovereign people. That means that nobody but the people can change the constitution and parliament is subject to the constitution. You won't hear people questioning the acts of parliament in other countries because parliament is sovereign not the people. Likewise when the EU states sit down to negotiate membership issues the PMs of Ireland, France and Denmark are the weakest PMs in the room because all they can do is negotiate, only their peoples can actually commit the state to any proposed changes.

In Ireland and Switzerland, voters are asked to vote on two levels - strategic: who they want the country run over the long run via constitutional changes and tactically: who they want to run the country in the short term via a general election. Referendums are held when there is a legal need to do so or it is felt there is broad support for a change. Governments don't win or loose referenda and it is of no consequence either way and in this case the proposal did not come from the government or even the Dail, although clearly a majority of TDs believe the voters want to consider.

As to it meaning and implications that is something you will learn once the campaign kicks off, so may be start reading and keeping up to date with current affairs.

iguana

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120329041#Comment_120329041

It will depend on the proposed wording. I'm a mostly left-wing, liberal who campaigned for and voted yes in 2015 and 2018. But I, and a lot of people I know if the same general persuasion, are quite wary of this referendum. It could be something I support but I also expect there is a chance that it will be something that I don't. If there are issues with it, especially any that could negatively impact children down the line, I'll be voting against it. Caring for children in the home incredibly important work yet is something that is getting harder and harder for families who would choose that for their children to provide. If there is a possibility that this referendum could in any way add to that hardship, I strongly suspect some sort of organisation of people who are generally liberal could easily form to campaign against it.

Jazz Hands

Actually, Taking a step back, If it’s only to remove or edit text from Articles 40 and 41 then it’s not a Gender Equality Referendum in relation to the constitution.

If there was a sole focus on introducing Governing Gender Equality Articles into the Constitution then it would be a Gender Equality Referendum.

Without that I don’t think I would be voting.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120328378#Comment_120328378

What monumental changes did the marriage equality referendum bring about for you?

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120329683#Comment_120329683

I think that's on the money. There's a strong family ethos still in this country and voters will judge this on the basis of possible effects on same.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120328742#Comment_120328742

You’ve just made a great case for the referendum.

tayto lover

Is the Citizens Assembly gender balanced?

Jazz Hands

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120329813#Comment_120329813

Yes.

FunLover18

No doubt a certain faction will try to make this about an issue that it is not, just as some tried to make marriage referendum about gay adoption (something that was already legal).

There's very little point speculating on this as we do not know the wording but you can either see the current wording as sexist because it adheres to old fashioned gender roles in which case a change is welcome or you can see it as a good thing to protect the role of the home maker in which case the change is welcome as it will extend that protection to men.

BattleCorp

I'd really need to see the wording of it to be able to comment properly but if the referendum is about rewording male/female pronouns such as he/she or him/her to non-gender specific pronouns such as people/them/person, then I'd more than likely be fine with it.

If it's about pandering to the 70+ makey-up genders, then it'll be a hard no from me.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120330889#Comment_120330889

100% guaranteed that will happen.

I remember the Children's Rights Referendum in 2012. Every single party backed it so in order to have a "balanced" debate about it they had John Waters on for the NO side ranting about Father's Rights - something that had nothing at all to do with the referendum.

Spanish Eyes

What is gender? An identity, not a biological scientific fact. Sex based equality is one thing, but gender based equality has me backing away slowly since the concept of the male and female biological sex is becoming neutered in favour of anyone identifying as man, woman or anything outside or in between now.

I am not comfortable with that. Trans ideology is not what the referendum is about, but we weren't told that the Gender Recognition Act included "gender" based rights rather than "sex" based rights when it introduced Self ID. Snuck in on the back of the rightly feelgood Marriage Ref if I recall correctly. Many are not aware of that either.

Just a feeling I have, and when the wording comes out I will know more, but my spidey senses are tingling just the same.

Loafing Oaf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120331325#Comment_120331325

It won't be about either of those things.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120331578#Comment_120331578

What will it be about?

Has there been suggested wording published yet?

Loafing Oaf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120331731#Comment_120331731

"I am pleased to announce that the Government plans to hold a Referendum this November to amend our Constitution to enshrine gender equality and to remove the outmoded reference to 'women in the home', in line with the recommendations of the Citizens Assembly on Gender Equality."

• Those recommendations stipulated that
• Article 40.1 of the Constitution should be amended to refer explicitly to gender equality and non-discrimination
• Article 41 of the Constitution should be amended so that it would protect family life, with the protection afforded to the family not limited to the marital family
• Article 41.2 of the Constitution should be deleted and replaced with language that is not gender specific and obliges the State to take reasonable measures to support care within the home and wider community

Okay so it's partly about amending the Constitution to make the language non-gender-specific but "to enshrine gender equality and to remove the outmoded reference to 'women in the home'" are the main planks.

Water John

Wording will become available in May.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058287346/referendum-on-gender-equality

"Does it work both ways - as in, if it is to ensure equal rights for women, does it also mean equal responsibility, and that there is no favouritism in the family court between fathers and mothers?"

This is the real issue here: women want it both way. Ireland has a long, long, long way to go before the courts give the same rights to children and the family home as women have. It's quite galling to hear this female victimhood when the reality of our highly secretive family law courts firmly, and repeatedly, victimise men. This recent judgment from Ennis, for instance, is utterly shocking. Can you imagine if it was a man who poured boiling water on the woman's face, or the man who threatened, with a knife, to kill his wife in front of the children? It's absolutely outrageous how men are discriminated by the judiciary of this State. And for this firmly misandrist family law system, all men must pay 23% on top of their legal fees in VAT to maintain this anti-male legal system:

https://www.limerickpost.ie/2023/01/11/limerick-worker-claimed-wife-stripped-and-assaulted-him-over-affair/

Two interesting things about this proposal, which hopefully will start the ball rolling on men achieving equality of treatment in the family law courts of this State:

1. Now that women's place in the home will not be protected, does this mean that in a divorce women will no longer have constitutional protection, in a court judgment, for keeping the family home and sending the man to the poverty of flatland until the youngest child is 23 years of age?
2. The Irish Times article [https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2023/03/08/referendum-on-womans-place-in-the-home-to-be-held-in-november/] says "that Article 41 should be amended to extend protection to the family, not limited to the marital family.". People seem to overlook how enormous this could be. It's a rare moment of constitutional revolution if the Constitution of this State will stop prioritising the "family" as defined by our Papist Taliban overlords in the form of John Charles McQuaid in 1937, and give all the rights of "the family" to, say, a single father who is raising children on his own. Will single parents get special tax treatment like married people in "real" families have been getting for decades? Will the divorce laws of this incredibly backward State finally change to stop punishing people who divorce? (no country in Europe makes it as difficult to divorce, which very much explains Ireland's divorce rate of 15.5% - compared to, say, Portugal's divorce rate of 91.5%.

One surprising thing about it:

1. The heavily taxpayer-funded women's rights' industry supports its removal. Watch the kickback from a substantial number of women who would much prefer to leave the wording as it is if it will continue to ensure that women have superior rights to the family home and children in the courts of Ireland. It has only lasted so long in the constitution precisely because it was useful for the women's rights' industry to cite, without irony, as "evidence" of how women are, eh, "victims".

Divorce rate in Europe by country in 2020: https://www.statista.com/statistics/612207/divorce-rates-in-european-countries-per-100-marriages/

So, yes, I look forward very much to this constitutional protection for female supremacy in Irish "family homes" being removed, the end to women keeping comparative palaces of homes while men are dumped, by judges, in substandard flats at obscence rents for decades - all sanctioned by our unaccountable judges who, like Judge Alec Gabbett in Clare, are a law unto themselves.

deirdremf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120328681#Comment_120328681

"For too long, women and girls have carried a disproportionate share of caring responsibilities, been discriminated against at home" says Varadkar.

Interesting words these, which bring two questions to my mind.

1. Are they planning to legislate for men and boys to carry their proportionate share of caring responsibilibites?
2. What does "enshrine gender equality" mean?

Clearly Q1 is rhetorical - they don't intend legislating for this as it would be impossible to implement or enforce, so these words are simply padding.

In other words, if there is anything meaningful in what he said it is "to enshrine gender equality". And, like the Marriage Equality referendum, there is no need for a referendum to do that - it could simply be legislated for. Moreover, a poster has already quoted this bit from the constitution: "All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law". While that doesn't specifically include foreigners, it certainly leaves room to include any and all genders.

In brief, given the officious response to TENI and the apparently less than legal use of NHS services by the HSE, in my mind the thrust of this proposed change is insert a section into the constitution specifying transgender rights. Unless very very carefully crafted, this could be a recipe for children to demand their "right" to transition. This could involve children having the "right" to take medication without parental consent (lifelong, potentially) and also to have bits cut off their bodies. Is anybody up for a bit of under-age Female Genital Mutilation (currently illegal, BTW) ?

Varadkar has already shown that he is quite happy to spend public money on gestures that will get him a lot of positive publicity. In this case though I feel that it won't gain the overwhelming support that the gay marriage referendum received.

Now let's go back to the word he chose to use: enshrine - to put in a shrine, which is a sort of altar where something is paid public homage to. Usually something you leave aside in your normal daily life. The man literally said this is an exercise in virtue signally, in modern parlance. That's fairly clear isn't it?

deirdremf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120329683#Comment_120329683

A very carefully worded post there, IG.

My hackles rise when I hear or see the word gender outside of the language classroom, because when somebody uses this word, they are choosing NOT to use the word sex. There is the problem that nobody knows just what the word gender means. This effectively takes us right back to Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland who said: "When I use a word... it means just what I choose it to mean".

Incorporating the word into the constitution will tie up the courts in knots, as there is no coherent accepted meaning for the word. And unlike legislation, the constitution does not have a section where the meaning of terms in it is explained.

In recent years we have seen the rise of transgender children. For several years, there has been a push to encourage vulnerable teenagers to transition, with medication and even surgery. This is now begining to be questioned widely in society, but our government doesn't seem to be aware of this yet.

I also wonder if this is another attempt by Varadkar to curry favour with younger people who have turned away from the traditional parties, and are now voting in their droves for SF. Maybe it should also be considered in the light of the Social Democrats having a popular, young, new female leader; a party and a leader that (unlike SF) do not have any tradition that can be easily attacked, and so might be an even greater threat to FFG in the next election.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120333586#Comment_120333586

The only thing that’s any way clear from your post is the convoluted lengths you’re going to, to try and make something of this that it isn’t. Leo used the word enshrine because that’s how inserting anything in the Constitution is referred to, it takes precedence over legislation which can be altered by the legislature at the whims of Government. That’s not such an easy thing to do with the Constitution which is why a referendum is required in the first place.

What’s meant by enshrining gender equality in the Constitution is provided in the context in which Leo spoke. It’s poor form to go inventing things that couldn’t possibly be reasonably inferred from what he said. What he said is more than enough to be considered dumb on its own merits. The suggestions of sanitising the Constitution to remove references to gender unless specified in certain provisions of the Constitution is going to be a major legal headache that goes well beyond just the idea of taking one provision out of context and inferring meaning from it which was never intended. It’s original intention has never been fulfilled by any Government because economic interests won our every time over social interests, or the interests of women working in the home and the Constitutional recognition they enjoyed. It was always a tokenism, and nothing more.

It seems like it’s going to be a few different referendums rolled into one anyway, which suggests it’s not going to be as simple as yes/no and be done with it. They’re having to tread a fine line between generating sufficient interest in the referendum (the turnout for the ‘Children’s Referendum’ was embarrassing), and making it more difficult for voters to understand what they’re being expected to vote on by presenting them with a whole rake of stuff. People in those circumstances tend to stick with what they know.

That’s why the Government and Roderic in particular have been humming and hawing and refusing to commit to a referendum for something that’s been touted for years now. They can’t afford to lose a referendum because the loss is a massive signal that they’re out of touch with the people. No Government or political party wants that stain on their reputation. That’s why Government are shìtting themselves, and Leo is doing what Leo does - determines whatever way the political winds are blowing and then decides what to say, and STILL can’t disguise his insincerity because what he’s being expected to do goes against everything he stands for.

Government knows this ones ripe for all flavours in the culture wars, and that’s why they’re being rather cautious about saying anything which might hurt their chances of a successful referendum.

deirdremf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120329902#Comment_120329902

How many genders are represented on it?

deirdremf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120331807#Comment_120331807

Was it some sort of a focus group produced those suggestions?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120333725#Comment_120333725

We haven't seen "the rise of transgender children". We've seen the rise in recognising transgender children. Trans children were always there - they just hid and crushed down this fundamental aspect of their persona, and spent their lives under huge pressure as a result.

Because for some strange reason, some other people think that the trans status of their neighbours and friends is public business.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120330889#Comment_120330889

It will almost certainly become a trans debate. Trans is the wedge issue dejour. If they anti referendum side know they can't make a good argument based on the actual topic, then they'll switch it to a different topic. Classic maneuver

deirdremf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120333947#Comment_120333947

Recent research suggests that the majority of children resile from their wish to transition. It seems that many of these children are gay and/or on the autism spectrum. Like most other adolescents they need time to sort themselves out. Medication and breast or genital mutilation is not the best route to go at this time in their lives, but of course adults wishing to go down this route should be fully supported in their choices.

In the meantime, there is the FGM Act which makes it a crime to interfere with the genitals of a girl under the age of 18.

This is the sort of ants' nest that Varadkar has stirred up with his comments, and which may turn into a quagmire for him. "Roderic" too, a man most of us will be extremely happy to see the back of at the next general election.

archermoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120334030#Comment_120334030

What's your source? Because all the studies I can find agree that only about 3% of people who transition go back to identifying as the gender they were assigned at birth. Nowhere near a majority.

Loafing Oaf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120333892#Comment_120333892

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120331807#Comment_120331807

recommendations of the Citizens Assembly on Gender Equality