Putting ‘Gender Equality’ into the Constitution

15.06.2023

If there’s one thing that sticks in the craw of Ireland’s progressive secularists, it’s the Irish Constitution, especially the bits about the role of women in the family and in society. In the name of “gender equality”, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar announced in March that three referenda will be staged next November to remove “outmoded” phrases about women’s role in the home and society. The offending passages are in Article 40 on human rights, read in conjunction with Article 41 on the Family: 

40.1 “All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. This shall not be held to mean, that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences in capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.” 

41.2.1-2 “In particular, the State recognizes that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.” 

41.3 “The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage on which the family is founded, and protect it from attack.” 

The so-called Citizens’ Assembly, guaranteed to arrive at the “right” conclusions, had recommended in June 2021 that these articles be “amended” to emphasise “gender-equality and non-discrimination”, that Article 41’s protection of family life should be extended to all forms of family, and not just the family based on marriage, that Article 41.2 be deleted and replaced by one that is not “gender-specific” and obliges the State to support care in the family and society. No surprises there! 

No doubt, Varadkar believes that these referenda will be passed by a large majority, similar to the referenda on the 8th Amendment and same-sex marriage, and will give his party valuable support in the coming general election.

Exactly, what did the 1937 Constitution say about “woman”? It didn’t state that women were inferior to men, or that they should not work outside the home, still less that they should be subject to men. It recognised that, while fully human, they are physically and psychologically different, and have different abilities to men, one of which is being a mother. It warned that forcing women to work outside the home would have serious consequences for children and the health of society. In other words, the Constitution recognised the irreplaceable work of a mother in the family based on marriage. 

Sadly, the modernisers want to get rid of “woman”, “mother”, “family” and “marriage” in the official language of the law, erroneously denounced as remnants of an age when women were ruled by Patriarchy and the Church. None other than the National Women’s Council of Ireland welcomed Varadkar’s announcement of “a referendum on care, gender equality, and the family…” Not giving much away to its members, if they bother to read it.

The Exclusion of ‘Trans Women’ from Women’s Sports

Martina Navratilova, Wimbledon tennis champion, has campaigned against allowing “trans women”, that is, biological males, from competing in sporting events reserved for women. If sporting authorities want to show how “open-minded” they are about transgender, then, she proposes, let them have an “open category” of competition that is open to all, male, female or whatever. Self identification should not allow competitors with male bodies to compete with biological women. Self identification should be banned in events based on biological sex. 

Question: Why are there separate women’s sporting teams and competitions? Why not have events open to men and women on an open field? The answer is Equality, and a level playing field giving equal opportunity. In school athletics, races are separated by sex and age. It would be manifestly unfair to put boys of all ages in one 100-yard race because the older are stronger, larger and faster than the younger. This has been recognised since sporting features became popular in the mid-19th century. 

The physical differences between male and female are science, hard facts that no sane person denies. When a biological man passes through puberty, his body develops very differently from that of a woman. His heart and lungs become larger, his bones stronger, his skin thicker and his muscle mass greater, and he is usually taller, all of which makes him stronger, faster and biologically more dynamic than a woman. These are the “hard facts” which form the basis of segregation of sports.

After puberty, no drugs, hormones or surgery can change the physical strength, power and endurance of a male body. 

If sports were not sex-segregated, how many women would be on athletic teams? Why do women protest about “trans women” competing and usually winning? Why don’t men have any objection to “trans men” competing against them? Isn’t it obvious? They aren’t a threat.