O’Connor stated at that 2018 meeting that NWCI consultations showed no disagreement about “the need for the sexist language in Article 41.2 to go.” She stated: “On this matter, everyone agrees.” Clearly, as the referendums showed, not everyone did agree.
“It is planned that legislative proposals arising from the Review of the Equality Acts will be brought forward shortly. Policy officials are seeking legal advice on a number of matters before proposals can be finalised."
Enter women. Women who fielded phone calls from people who decided to phone a friend before making their choice. Who thrashed out their ideas on forums and in WhatsApp groups.
People want the constitutional acknowledgement of women and mothers retained. Motherhood is not gender-neutral. Fathers in the home should be acknowledged too but not at the expense of mothers.
So much has changed in the world, but our biology - the fact that women are the ones who have babies and are primed hormonally to nurture them - that hasn’t changed. The basic needs of babies and children have not changed.
Article 41.2 has been of value to mothers and will be cited in an appeal to the Supreme Court in April by a mother who is seeking the full carer’s allowance, without it being means tested. So why is the Government rushing to have the referenda passed before this appeal is heard?
It's just too easy to fall in with the prevailing narrative that this sub-section of Art 41 consigns women to "duties in the home".
"Throughout the submissions, the proposal to specifically include gender identity within the Equality Acts was contentious.." Yet the Government gave a commitment to include it in our equality legislation in the 2020 Programme for Government. Do the public really have any say at all?
"The gender equality referendum is likely to be held in November and will focus on amending the Constitution to 'enshrine gender equality'.." But what does that actually mean and will it benefit women - or men?