Gendereferendum
On International Women's Day 2024, Irish people will vote on two gender-related referendums. This is the text of my speech from a referendum debate in SETU, Waterford on 21st February.
I was going to start my talk today with ‘ladies and gentlemen’ but I’ve been advised that this is unnecessarily gendered language and that I should instead say ‘folks’, thank you all for coming.
The clamour for gender-neutral language and a gender-neutral constitution, including by Labour Party leader Ivana Bacik, Sinead Gibney of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and Orla O’Connor of the National Women’s Council, is part of the justification for holding these referendums.
The drive for gender-neutrality is linked to the push for gender equality but should gender equality mean ignoring or negating important differences? Diversity without acknowledging difference is not diversity.
A move towards gender neutral language in the UK saw women in maternity wards being referred to as ‘clients’ rather than as mothers.
The poet Wendy Cope has a poem called He Tells Her about a man who tells a woman that the earth is flat. The poem ends: ‘She cannot win. He stands his ground/The planet goes on being round.’
Biology matters. Pretending it doesn’t won’t change that. Mother and baby homes, honour killings, female genital mutilation, Magdalene laundries, symphysiotomies, cervical smear scandals, female infanticide, menstruation, miscarriages, menopause – bodies matter. Mothers matter.
Pregnancy and childbirth have physical but also social and cultural consequences that are too often overlooked. There are other significant differences too – for example, punch power is 162% greater in men than women. To acknowledge facts like this is often considered sexist but why is it sexist to acknowledge difference?
Life and energy are created and sustained by the coming together of opposites, of difference. A gender neutral constitution is a neutered constitution, robbed of vitality, maturity and wisdom.
In Ireland, women are clearly not tied to the home. We have had two female presidents, a female Chief Justice, two of the top five earners in RTÉ in 2022 were women.
Some take exception to the idea of there being duties in the home but there are duties or responsibilities that come with having a home and having children. I would have welcomed acknowledgement of fathers or primary carers but the proposed amendment will see the word mother erased, the phrase ‘not be obliged by economic necessity’ gone and the word ‘home’ with all its connotations of hearth and heart deleted. Mothers are not the same as carers.
Carers need tangible supports but the proposed wording will render no obligations on the state and confers no legal rights on carers or on disabled people.
A few weeks ago, Neuralink, a company founded by Elon Musk, implanted a computer chip into a human brain. We are hurtling into a future where humans and technology are becoming increasingly entwined. Aldous Huxley in his novel Brave New World hinted at what such a future would look like with babies created as factory-like products outside of the womb in hatcheries. But we are not at that point yet. Every one of us in this room was gestated in a womb, not in a machine.
Joanne Hayes, Ann Lovett and Eileen Flynn knew that motherhood mattered.
If the proposed amendments are passed, what are the implications for maternity leave and for child benefit that currently automatically goes to the mother?
The proposed changes will also see State recognition of families founded on ‘durable relationships’. At what point does a relationship become durable? Are single parents included? If yes, does this mean durable relationships are not necessarily sexual? Can they be between friends, neighbours, colleagues? Can they include more than two people?
What are the consequences for tax, inheritance, guardianship, housing, debt, welfare, the division of farms and businesses? Is there an opt out clause for those who do not want their relationships considered durable?
The wording for the proposed amendments was finalised without pre-legislative scrutiny. This means that many issues were not teased out and questions remain unanswered.
I voted in favour of same sex marriage. I voted ‘yes’ to the legalisation of abortion. I was going to say that I am now in political no-man’s land but apparently, I should say ‘unclaimed territory’.
I approach this topic as I aspire to approach all - with consideration of evidence, with compassion, and with hopes of civil discussion. As John Stuart Mill said ‘He who knows only his side of the case knows little of that’.
Today’s debate epitomises what to me should be a key purpose of a university - to facilitate exploration of contested ideas and creeds in a spirit of civil disagreement. I am grateful that today’s debate is taking place.
Hey Colette,
Not sure if you read these comments but want to thank you for speaking out on this.
You are one of the few so far who has very rightly commented on the gender neutral language itself. It's certainly not without agenda. I saw Martine Rothblatt's video happily declaring that gender identity will open the gateway to transhumanism. It's so utterly mad!