Responses to the EHRC Code of Practice Consultation

These notes are being made by Dr. Sandra Duffy on 20th May 2025.

They are subject to update and change as time goes on and things become clearer.

They also may contain errors which are no-one’s fault but my own and which I am happy to correct.

They are intended to help people with filling in the EHRC consultation on their Code of Practice which began today. 

Trans people should be aware that filling in the consultation might be difficult or distressing, as might interacting with the EHRC’s documents. You do not have to put yourself through this if it is too hard. It is better for the community that you are healthy and happy than that there is another response logged.

With an eye to the above, I would strongly urge allies to fill in this consultation instead, because you are less likely to be as personally or emotively affected by it. All answers are anonymous so your positionality won’t affect your answers’ validity.

These notes are not meant to replace a thorough read of the documents, which are here, but they can be used as a guide to it and a helper:  https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/codes-practice/code-practice-services-public-functions-and-associations

One thing you may note as you go through this is that there are not very many good or personal answers. We need to stick as closely as possible to the framing of ‘accurate/not accurate… but also!’ in order to get the responses read. All the personal responses that we can put in are not likely to be read and counted, because they’re looking for responses with ‘accuracy’ or ‘clarity’ in. So use that framing, and then say your piece. 

There is a section at the end for ‘any other feedback’ in which you can put the personal things.

Massive thanks to Hafren from Trans Pride Bristol for reading through these as I wrote and giving constructive feedback on the places where I was unclear myself (ironically…)

Let’s get started. 

The survey link is here: https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/EHRC-code-of-practice-consultation-2025/ 

You’ll need to clarify that you want to give feedback.

It’ll then ask you some questions. 

I suggest clicking ‘sex,’ ‘gender reassignment,’ and ‘sexual orientation’ under the list of protected characteristics.

The first question discusses ‘Changes that apply across the Code.’

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/codes-practice/code-practice-consultation-2025-changes-apply-across-code

This means that the proposed change will apply to all instances of the term’s use across the Code of Practice. This is where they have laid out the updated definition of sex. It reads ‘legal sex is the sex that was recorded at your birth.’ 

It used to include the change of legal sex that comes with a GRC, but doesn’t any more.

The survey asks if you think the update is clear, and if there is ‘anything you would change to make this update clearer.’

I am going to reply: agree it is clear, and no, there is not.

Speaking legally, there is nothing unclear – specifically, inaccurate – about this statement (and we are, regrettably, speaking legally). If you would like to respond differently here, I would suggest:

  • It is unclear why the Supreme Court chose to remove the protection on sex discrimination conferred by a GRC from trans people. 
  • Legal sex as conferred by the GRC leaves the trans person in a state where he or she is one sex for the purposes of equality law, and the other sex for every other purpose. This is unclear.

Just an interjection here – again, the questions are set in terms of accuracy and clarity. That means that we have to be careful in how we respond if we want the responses taken into account. 

I can’t say I’m going to enjoy this as we go through, because my instinct is to tell them all the reasons I don’t like what they’re doing, but I am going to work with the assumption that we – the responders – want our responses to reach the Commissioners and not get thrown out by a Commission administrator.

Please feel free to answer any way you like, of course, and know I’m just writing this with that particular goal in mind.

The second question applies to ‘Changes to chapter 2.’

This section concerns Gender Recognition Certificates, sex at birth, and sexual orientation, and is here:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/codes-practice/code-practice-consultation-2025-changes-chapter-2

2.1. In this section they want comments on sections 2.1.6 to 2.1.9 only.

These sections are about the effects of Gender Recognition Certificates. They use the term ‘biological sex’ and say it is also referred to as birth sex. They say trans people are protected on the basis of gender reassignment as being trans, and from sex discrimination based on their birth sex.

You will be asked if you think this is clear and how you would change it otherwise. 

I am going to reply: strongly disagree, and

  • ‘Biological sex’ is a misleading and inaccurate term which does not in all cases correlate to the sex assigned/recorded at birth.

2.2. These sections are about asking someone’s sex at birth. 

I am going to reply: strongly disagree, and:

  • Asking for information about birth sex is likely to be unnecessary and disproportionate in many cases, leading to possible Article 8 ECHR breaches. There is no way to know when it is a proportionate response. This leaves legal jeopardy for service providers and is unworkable.
  • There is no way to ask someone’s birth sex that is not ‘rude… or offensive.’
  • ‘Genuine concern’ is a subjective metric and cannot be legally enforced.
  • The likelihood is if this section is carried through that trans people’s legal human right to privacy will be breached. I suggest it is not carried through.

2.3. This section asks about the definition of sex.

I am going to reply: strongly disagree, and:

  • ‘Biological’ is a term which has no precedential or statutory legal definition in this jurisdiction, cannot be properly or sustainably scientifically defined, and should not have been used by the Supreme Court. 

2.4. This section asks about the definition of sexual orientation.

I am going to reply: strongly disagree, and:

  • It is not possible to legally define or delimit the boundaries of a person’s sexual orientation.
  • This also removes protections for trans people in same-gender relationships and may interfere with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

The next question applies to ‘Changes to chapter 4.’

This section concerns sex discrimination by perception, and is here:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/codes-practice/code-practice-consultation-2025-changes-chapter-4

4.1 In this section they want feedback only on the example in part 4.1.3.

I am going to suggest you skip this one as it involves validating the misgendering of the trans woman in the example whichever way you answer it. Alternately, you could tell them that:

  • Holding that a trans woman is not a woman is a potential breach of Article 8 ECHR that could lead to legal jeopardy for service providers.
  • This example implies that only trans women who ‘pass’ can access indirect sex discrimination protections, while others cannot.

They may not listen to that, but, reader, there’s a long way to go and we need to get our shots in where we can.

4.2. This section concerns discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and maternity.

I am going to reply: strongly disagree, and:

  • It is unclear what case law was removed. Surely if the purpose is clarity, that would be referenced?
  • Repeat the bits around ‘biological’ from the above answers.

The next question applies to ‘Changes to chapter 5.’

This section concerns sex discrimination where there is a similar disadvantage between people who do not share the same protected characteristic, and is here:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/codes-practice/code-practice-consultation-2025-changes-chapter-5

5.1. They only want comments on the example in 5.1.3.

I am going to reply: strongly disagree, and:

  • If a trans woman experiences disadvantage ‘because she presents as a woman,’ this renders the whole paradigm of treating her as a man absurd.

The next question applies to ‘Changes to chapter 8.’

This section concerns harassment related to the protected characteristic of sex, and is here: 

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/codes-practice/code-practice-consultation-2025-changes-chapter-8

8.1 They only want comments on the example in 8.1.6b.

I am going to suggest you skip this one as it involves validating the misgendering of the trans woman in the example whichever way you answer it, or, 

  • If a trans woman experiences disadvantage ‘because she presents as a woman,’ this renders the whole paradigm of treating her as a man absurd.

Shots, my reader. Shots.

The next question applies to ‘Changes to chapter 12.’

This section concerns membership of women-only organisations, and is here:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/codes-practice/code-practice-consultation-2025-changes-chapter-12

12.1. They want comments only on the example in 12.1.3. 

I am going to reply: strongly disagree, and:

  • The example given is not clear and accurate because it is unclear how the women-only association knows the woman is trans. Finding that information out does not seem reasonable or proportionate for the purposes of most associations, and could amount to a breach of Article 8 ECHR. 
  • Equally, this could potentially exclude cis women who are ‘thought to’ be trans by women-only associations because they are cis but gender non-conforming.

The next question applies to ‘Changes to chapter 13.’

This section concerns membership of sports and single-sex or separate-sex spaces. Buckle up, it’s the long one. It’s here:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/codes-practice/code-practice-consultation-2025-changes-chapter-13

13.1. This section concerns competitive sport.

I am going to reply: strongly disagree, and:

  • This guidance is very dense and unclear. 
  • The definition of a ‘gender-affected activity’ is factually inaccurate. There is no marker of ‘physical strength, stamina, or physique’ which would intake all trans women or all trans men, nor one which would differentiate every member of those categories from cis people of the same gender. Many trans people change the physical markers of their sex such as hormone levels to such an extent that they are indistinguishable from those of a comparable cis person.
  • There is no reason to assume that allowing a trans person to enter a sporting competition would compromise ‘safety or fair competition’ for the reasons above.
  • The example in 13.1.17 is very unclear. After the Scottish Ministers decisions, such an event would be counted as mixed-sex and therefore no cause for complaint for the cisgender woman in question would exist. Note that this respondent considers this decision to be in error of fact and law and therefore that they do not hold the viewpoint that the event SHOULD be considered mixed-sex.
  • There is no legal definition of ‘the physiological differences between men and women,’ and such a phrase would also not hold scientific merit.

13.2. This section is about sex-differentiated separate and single-sex spaces.

I am finding it difficult to argue that anything in this section is unclear in law, despite disagreeing with it all on a moral level. The text of the Equality Act 2010 has not changed, and the way the Supreme Court has interpreted ‘sex’ as ‘birth sex’ leaves this with less doubt than some other sections.

I am going to reply: don’t know, or agree, and:

  • Feel free to add in any of the remarks you’ve previously added about how trans women are women, I guess. Without going too into the weeds.

13.3. This section is also about separate and single-sex spaces, on justifications.

I am going to reply: strongly disagree, and:

  • Under the guidance laid out in section 13.3, a trans man cannot use the men’s room as it is not for people of his birth sex, but he cannot use the ladies’ room as he may cause alarm to cis women using the facilities due to his male gender. He is therefore without a place to use the bathroom.
  • The example in 13.3.12 where the trans people must use the accessible toilet is unclear on two grounds. Firstly, this is likely to cause disadvantage to disabled or other mobility-restricted users who require the accessible facility. Secondly, this is de facto segregation of trans people from cis people with regard to bathroom use, and is unlikely to stand up to legal challenge. I recommend that this is not used as an example and likewise that the guidance relating to it is rethought.
  • It is unfair and inaccurate to say that a service which is open to cis women and trans women ‘could… lead to unlawful harassment against women who use the service’ on a basis which is any greater of a risk than opening the service solely to cis women. Trans women have no greater likelihood of committing harassment against cis women than cis women themselves, and are frequently themselves the victims of harassment.

13.4. This section is about policies and exemptions on single-sex spaces.

I am going to respond: strongly disagree, and:

  • The example given in 13.4.3 is unclear as it implies that young boys are unlikely to pose a threat to women’s safety therefore they can be included, whereas the implied opposite is that trans women will pose a threat to cis women’s safety therefore they cannot.
  • The example given in 13.4.3 is inaccurate in that it states that the inclusion of a male child does not render the space mixed-sex, but the inclusion of a single trans woman would. (thank you @astridsramblings for helping clarify this thought)
  • Paragraph 13.4.8 does not offer any solution as to what the service provider should do in that case and it is therefore unclear.

13.5. This section concerns gender reassignment and separate or single-sex spaces.

I am going to respond: strongly disagree, and:

  • Paragraphs 13.5.3-5 leave trans people in a position where they are unable to use the bathroom for their ‘acquired’ sex, or for their birth sex if the service provider believes that that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This would have to be tested in court as to its validity; meanwhile, the trans people would go on having no facilities in the meantime. See note on 13.3 regarding making trans people use accessible facilities.
  • In section 13.5.11 it is implied that a trans woman would not need to attend a gynaecological service. Trans women who have undergone gender affirmation surgery may need to see a gynaecologist or a urologist. The example is therefore wholly inaccurate.

13.6. This section concerns communal accommodation. 

I am finding little in here that I can define as legally unclear.

I am going to respond: agree, or don’t know.

The ‘any other feedback’ section:

Here is where you can put all the personal or other bits that you’ve been studiously removing from your answers. 

Please be aware that you should only be commenting on the CONTENT of the Code of Practice, so the bits you’ve read and responded to, not the LAW. 

However, this means you can talk about how it affects you or your loved ones or colleagues, etc. 

Please try to be civil (but forceful!) in responding to this, as abuse will just be thrown out. It will only reach someone at the level of a back-office administrator and it won’t have any effect on them or on their bosses in the Commission itself. 

P.S.: don’t enter your email at the end.

Thank you for reading if you’ve gotten this far! Please go and have a break now if you can, it’s been a long few pages. 

And maybe give a trans person a little slice of cake, when you see them – or have one yourself if you’re trans. There’s been a lot to deal with lately.

Extra feedback garnered from the wonderful people of Bluesky!

@Astridsramblings adds: “Regarding 12.1 – do you think it’s worth saying it’s also unclear because it fails to elucidate when associations can lawfully be trans inclusive? Clear the EHRC think never but even the example seems to only say the association may reject the application, not that they must?

Taking orgs like the WI (unexpected bastion of progressiveness) who continue to want to include ‘anyone living as a woman’ or words to that effect – reading this guidance it looks an awful lot like they can’t, but unclear whether that is true or just EHRC deliberately choosing exclusionary example?”

@Harry-is-human adds: “An additional thought if I may – as a Public Sector worker any decision I make must comply with Human Rights Act. If guidance is vague or unhelpful about whether it had properly accounted for Article 8, it’s unworkable for me.”

White trans comrades, fix your hearts

I was at Trans Pride Bristol last weekend and it was good for the soul. One of the things that struck me was the willingness of speakers and organisers alike to call out the genocide in Palestine as an issue of interlinked liberation along with transness, queerness, disability, etc. As a mark of solidarity in a public forum, it was very good to see.

We need to understand our struggles as inseparable. The same ideologies which underpin transphobia also underpin white supermacy, misogyny, ableism, and the other oppression which seek to divide people along invented demographic lines. Two corollaries flow from this: it is possible to be multiply marginalised, at the famous ‘intersection’ of discriminations; but equally, it is possible to occupy a space in the kyriarchy where one is privileged in some ways and oppressed in others.

White trans and nonbinary people can sometimes be oblivious to this. A good example struck me today when a friend online pointed out the racism visible in a trans public figure’s history of comments. She was immediately deluged in replies from fellow white people who felt that addressing the public figure’s racism was sowing division within the trans community and preventing us from showing a united front.

At a time when the trans and nonbinary community is besieged from all sides, it is definitely vital that we are able to face the world as a strong ensemble voice – but that voice cannot be one which excuses racism or excludes our comrades of colour. The trans and nonbinary community know what it is like to be excluded and marginalised from mainstream society, and I think sometimes the more relatively privileged of us believe that because of this, we are exempt from being able to marginalise others. That is simply not true. In activist and academic spaces, white voices still ring out louder than the voices of Black and Brown people, Asian and Latino and Indigenous people. White people are still given more credence for our statements and more grace for our mistakes. White people are allowed to be learning and to behave problematically; people of colour are expected to arrive fully formed and unimpeachable, or they are excoriated. It is an unfair double standard which threatens to divide potential communities even further.

The trans and nonbinary community cannot continue to prioritise the feelings of white people over the safety of people of colour. Since the beginning of the era of colonialism, white people have imposed gender roles and strict hierarchical binaries on communities of the Global Majority, contributing to the marginalisation, criminalisation, and erasure of queer and gender-diverse people around the world. Colonialism is seen as a universal bad among progressive-thinking people in the current day and age, but we do not seem to see the ways in which our own behaviours replicate colonial logics. In the West, by which I mean majority-white countries like Europe and the Anglosphere, we are born and raised in a white supremacist society. We are taught tropes, norms, and ways of thinking which range from benignly to perniciously racist. Rejecting this is a lifelong effort. Our other marginalisations do not exclude us from the work of rejecting whiteness and its trappings.

The neocolonial mindset prevails when white people are the ones chosen to speak, and the ones who are most listened to. It prevails when the opinions of white people are privileged over the lived experience of people of colour. It prevails when we look away from helping those in need in places like Palestine, or from talking about them in ‘polite company’ with our friends or at work. It prevails when evidence of racism is brushed under the rug for the sake of a false united community front. It prevails, in short, when we act like – just because we are trans and nonbinary – we are somehow immune to the conditioning of white supremacy.

It is natural to feel reflexively annoyed when this is pointed out. None of us like to think of ourselves as racist. We are told that Good White People are not racist, after all, and who doesn’t want to think of themselves as Good? That comfort needs to be disturbed. White people are insulated from the realities of racism.

White supremacy is a practice of exclusion. It works in blatant ways and small ones. It hides in plain sight. No-one is immune. Our societies have done their work on us well. It is a life’s work to inculcate discomfort in oneself, as a white person, with the way things are set up for us. It is a life’s work to cede the space we are given by virtue of growing up white in this world. Our academic and activist spaces are all the poorer for the epistemic injustice that has been done to scholars of colour and of the Global Majority – the deliberate exclusion and diminishing of the knowledges and work produced by these scholars. Can you imagine the pluriversal world of knowledge creation and activist communities there could be if globally diverse strands of knowledge creation were respected equally with the white academy and white activist traditions? Can you imagine how many brilliant minds have been lost to racism, exclusion, and even genocide, in the recent past? How many people have turned away from contributing to their communities because of thinly-veiled hostility and ignorance?

Choosing to excuse racism is choosing the comfort of cooperation with white supremacist social norms over the wellbeing of our comrades. Don’t let that be you. I am working on not letting it be me.

a change is gonna come: reflections on the Repeal campaign

i. today was just the day when all the numbers changed

When it’s all over, really, I’m by myself. At home – “home” home, not home base – in my parents’ house, not long off the late train from Galway. I’d voted in Galway that morning. On the way, nervous, quickly divesting myself of Yes and Lawyers for Choice paraphernalia, I’d wondered if I’d cry. I didn’t. I couldn’t stop smiling.

I’m not sure where the rest of the day went; next thing I know, I’m sat in my childhood bedroom and it’s 9.50pm. The exit polls are about to be released. I’m thinking we have it, but maybe by a margin of about 3%. 55%, if we’re lucky; 58%, if I let my imagination run away with me.

By the time the figures are announced on the Late Late Show, they’ve been online for several minutes. My mother calls me, have you seen? 69.4%!

I can’t speak. I genuinely can’t form words.

 

ii. the notion of a nation we now get to build

The words I have poured into this campaign, though. Sometimes I feel as if I’ve used up several years’ worth of words in one go. It’s been a river of language, a vast storm system of the stuff. Drunk with words, laden with meanings, I look up from my screen and feel at once smaller than I ever have and yet connected to a web of women all sending our thoughts into the ether, searching for someone to say yes, yes, I hear you, you are real. Your thoughts are valid.

I imbue words with a particular weight because semantics is the lawyer’s playing field of choice. We love words. We love reading things in context, and contemporaneously, and in the light of prevailing ideas and concepts. What, then, is 2018? 2018 is the year that the people of Ireland decided that the words in the foundational document of our country were not fit for purpose; that read in the light of the twenty-first century, Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution was a national embarrassment and deserved to be consigned to the history books.

Ireland’s legal system is founded on the principle of Constitutional supremacy: there is no law higher than the Constitution and it cannot be overturned. What is written in that text therefore forms the mainframe of Irish law. On the campaign trail, I often used the analogy of a house: within the house, you can decorate in whatever way you wish, but if the roof is eight feet tall, you can’t fit a ten-foot Christmas tree into it.

Like all created things, Ireland is, at its core, a story. Our modern narrative was born in revolution and forged out of the fellowship of rebels of all genders who campaigned for independence through repression and war. The 1916 Proclamation of Independence and the 1922 Irish Free State Constitution explicitly recognise the rights and contributions of Irishmen and Irishwomen. However, by the time the 1937 Constitution was written, the spirit of the times had changed and the narrative of glorious Celtic mythicism and storied heroes found itself twisted to meet the needs of a conservative government and a rising Catholic church. Women were relegated to a ‘special status’; it was made clear that the subject of Irish law had a gender, and that gender was male. With every new repression – illegality of contraception, legality of marital rape, mandatory retirement from the public sector at marriage – it became more evident that the women of Ireland were second class citizens, confined to our bodies and by our bodies. By the time of the passage of the Eighth Amendment, even those bodies were no longer our own.

 

iii. the second job of citizenry

But another narrative runs through the blood and the brains of Irish women, a lineage that calls back to the days of Queen Maebh and Brigid of Kildare; the spirit of Constance Markievicz’ exhortation to leave their jewels in the bank and buy boots and a revolver. Irish women were ready, and when the call came, they rose.

I felt it, the electricity in the air at the Marches for Choice in Dublin city centre. I felt it while addressing a lecture hall full of students in Cork and in every smile exchanged with a fellow Repeal jumper wearer, the secret flicker of the eye to the Yes badge on my lapel and the nod: she’s in. You’re in. We’re in.

Most of all, I felt it all the time I got to spend with my fellow Lawyers for Choice, an organised chaos of academics, solicitors, and barristers; comrades and heroes one and all. Working off the clock, distracted from our Real Jobs by this volunteer group that was suddenly our Very Real Job, travelling and writing late into the night, we ran on caffeine and adrenaline right to the wire. It’s difficult to describe the kind of camaraderie you develop in a tight-knit group under extreme pressure, but there are thousands of people around Ireland who’ll understand because their canvassing or advocacy or friendship groups became the focal point of their lives for several months in the spring of 2018. They’ll tell you that they get it. They’ll tell you that you had to be there.

 

iv. the thanks I get is to take all this shit for you

Vignette: I am standing in the sun in Tuam, Co. Galway. It is the last weekend of the campaign. I am wearing a Lawyers for Choice badge and a t-shirt which will ill-advisedly add to the campaign sunburn I can still see in certain lights. I am standing in the sunlight at a crossroads holding my leaflets and wearing my particular campaign smile.

There is a young man standing about a foot from me, bellowing in my face.

He is telling me that I am a failure of an academic because he disapproves of our not footnoting our plain-English explanatory leaflet.

It takes me a lot longer than it should to walk away.

 

v. come senators, congressmen, please heed the call

I get to experience – no, that’s not enough. I get to live inside the campaign discourse in a very particular way. I have a secret identity.

In early 2016 Ruth asks me if I’d like to take care of the Lawyers for Choice twitter feed. I’m a beginning PhD student and I’ve only been in the group a few months; I am both thrilled and a little intimidated, but I start and it’s brilliant.

I sometimes experience a certain amount of (hopefully) affectionate fun-poking for my internet life, but I can’t deny it – Twitter is a medium I instinctively get. Twitter is democratic and viral. It can be as impactful as you make it. Twitter allows for banter and photo sharing and friendship formation, but where I see the most potential is as a medium for education. I love to teach, love to see students grasping principles and learning the subtle logic of the law. But law isn’t just for classrooms and courtrooms; law is made by the people and in turn it shapes us. And law like the Eighth Amendment is something people feel, before they have the words for it. For or against, abortion law is visceral. It forces us to confront our feelings about the deepest parts of ourselves; makes us think about stresses and breaking points: of our relationships and our families and our bodies.

The challenge, then, is to engage and inform without taking away from, or distancing people from, this instinctive interest. So I settle in. I crack jokes, I do layman’s terms threads, I answer questions. I discover that there is no underestimating the lack of knowledge amid the public about the Constitution and the legal system. (Over the past few years, in my head, I’ve rewritten about five separate CSPE curriculums for schools.) But the lack of knowledge doesn’t imply either a lack of interest or a lack of ability – in fact, the @LfC followers are engaged and acute and very quickly law-literate. We do Irish law and international law; we talk about the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations. When the Mellet and Whelan decisions come down from the UN Human Rights Committee, we go through the findings and point out the standards Ireland is breaching. We do more or less a Fundamentals of the Irish Legal System course over the months – separation of powers, legislative process, hierarchy of laws, our interactions with the international bodies, fundamental rights in the Constitution. And we do it all with humour, with gifs, with frequent requests that people send us dog pictures.

And then the deliberative process begins for real around the potential for a referendum and law reform, and out of some misguided and possibly masochistic whim, we decide to livetweet it – partially as note-taking, partially as communication. What we do not expect is that it becomes a virtual meeting-place, news studio, and lecture hall all at once. The Citizens’ Assembly, the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the 8th Amendment, and the Oireachtas deliberations, via the medium of twitter, become a feature of our lives and our followers’ weeks. What this means in practice is that I (most often – or Máiréad, or Ruth, or Gearóidín) spend a lot of time sitting on my sofa, hopped up on espresso, sometimes loudly cursing into the empty room, and typing until my hands beg me to let them fall off. I become familiar with TDs of whom – with apologies – I’ve never heard. I become familiar with procedural rules about which I do not care, still. I learn the hard way that trying to keep up with certain Senators once they’re off on one is a fool’s errand. I invent the Mullen Stream of Consciousness style of tweet.

All through it, in another tab, our notifications stream is updating too fast for my browser to handle. People laughing, people asking questions and for clarifications, people bemoaning their bad luck in being represented by these luadhramáns. Kerry, Tipperary, Louth, and the entire alumni population of NUI are loudest among those. We listen to the testimonies of experts before the JOC and talk through their facts, point to sources when we find them. We sit in collective tears as the representatives of Terminations for Medical Reasons discuss their harrowing experiences seeking abortion in England. We fact-check claims and call out bogus remarks. Some Senators and TDs are following along. It’s a little thrilling to interact.

Under the handle of LfC, a nebulous dispenser of sarcasm and information, I am braver and brasher than I can ever be as me. People respond to me/us/it – I raise a crisis alert one day because I have run out of biscuits. People offer to send me biscuits. I love twitter more each week.

It’s not easy. It’s frustrating, time-consuming, saddening. By the end of a Committee session I am exhausted from the flow of information, the speed of the interactions, and the heavy weight of a lot of the testimonies. They talk about women dying, about losing wanted pregnancies, about trying to quantify risks to pregnant people’s health. They try to quantify how suicidal is suicidal enough, how close to the brink of sepsis and death can you let a person go before you allow her a termination. I want to throw my laptop out the window. They talk about how there isn’t that much child abuse happening in Ireland. I swear to myself I’ll never go on the internet again. They announce an extra sitting the next day. I sigh and promise twitter I’ll be there.

From the livetweeting I develop a new sense of the relationship between population and law, something which deepens my theoretical understanding of the field as well as making me a better educator. I learn to simplify concepts into 280 characters while getting the information across accurately. I make friends, too. @LfC establishes an ongoing banter with some of our fellow professional groups, something which strengthens us as a campaign. I hope we contribute in some part toward the number of people who say human rights law was one of their reasons for voting Yes. And it’s good craic.

I seriously do consider defenestrating my laptop during some McGrath monologues. But I wouldn’t swap the job. It’s the biggest contribution I make to the campaign, @LfC social media. Sometimes it feels like my only contribution, but if that’s true, I make it count. I have to make it count.

 

vi. I know you’ve got a little life in you yet

I don’t look back fondly on 2018. The campaign ate up the spring to all intents and purposes, but at home I was dealing with a severe relapse of chronic health issues with all the attendant fuss and worries. I remember it mostly through a haze of exhaustion and medicated fuzziness. Days of monotone rain lashing my windows and nights of crushing panic that the referendum would fail and it would be My Fault. Or that it would pass, and I would be watching from the sidelines, too ill to work, unneeded and unnoticed. I pour all my negative feelings about myself and my illnesses into my feelings about the campaign, and I don’t notice until it’s over and I feel like crying every time someone tells me I should be proud.

I’m not the only one. Stories start coming out. Canvassers phoning home, phoning each other, in tears after being berated or disappointed. A colleague who couldn’t face speaking about Repeal again until asked to for a talk six months later. Worries about jobs, parenting, relationships. The constant weight of anti-choice rhetoric and insults and posters and being called a murderer and stony silences across dinner tables.

Picking up my PhD again and wondering who this stranger was, who wrote so eloquently on a topic entirely unrelated to repealing the bloody Eighth Amendment. Wondering how long it would take me to become her again.

 

vii. one day like this a year would see me right

And then there were the gorgeous, technicolour moments, and it was worth it. (Was it? Was it worth it all? It was.) Standing at a stall by the Spanish Arch in blazing sunshine while a band played Stand By Me. Laughing until I ached at the Twitter responses to our livetweets. Watching the Radical Queers and the Angels for Repeal show up in a carnival of Pride flags and Irish flags and banners to block out graphic photos held by anti-choicers. An old man leaning his head in close, inviting confidences, and saying “it’s not right. You should have your choice.” A woman my parents’ age saying her vote was for her baby granddaughter’s future.

And then the day of the count, the wall of noise entering the RDS, shuffling ballots and excited campaigners and impatient reporters. Dodging cameramen and meeting Repealers I’d only known through the internet but who were already friends and giving a year’s worth of hugs in an hour. Roars of approval when campaign leaders walked in. A photo of Savita, poignantly, hanging in a corner – later hidden from view. A whole gaggle of Lawyers for Choice, dispersing and reuniting around the hall within the crowd’s Brownian motion. A moment where it’s all too much and I find myself sitting down outside the scrum, teary-eyed, until my friends come and find me again.

We’re carried to the Together for Yes reception in the flow of people – more uproar, more jubiliation, and Katie and I end up sitting on the floor of the hotel drinking white wine and wondering when this became our lives and whether it’ll ever be normal again. Later, some of the group go to Dublin Castle for the official announcement, but for a handful of us the day’s been enough already. I finish up the afternoon reclining against sofa cushions in Katie’s house, a snoring French bulldog supine in my lap, and I look up at the ceiling, and realise we made it –

and for the first time in months, I feel like I can breathe.

 

viii. when love became an act of defiance

January 2019. Since New Year’s Eve this post has been sitting at the edge of my consciousness much as the tab has been sitting in my browser. Every time I sit down to write my actual research notes, I can’t concentrate until I add something to this. What is it, this compulsion toward narrative? Is it the new year making me pensive or is it a need to cleanse all of this from my brain? I make only one resolution for this year – I will finish my PhD thesis. My wall planner is new, blindingly white, alternately a warning and a promise when I consider its boxes. There will be no campaigning turning my life upside down in 2019. I miss it. Theoretically.

The referendum wasn’t the end of the story, of course. The Oireachtas debates drag on for weeks and weeks, and the anti-choicers who know they’ve lost attempt to filibuster the Bill out of existence. They relitigate the same points over and over – so I livetweet the same points over and over until it’s enough and I refuse to publicise them any more. The Seanad presides over the last stage of debate. It’s filibuster city. I stay awake until 1.30am one night and they’re still talking when I fall asleep. They get up and come in the next morning anyway and do it all over again. When it finally, finally passes, I’m at the laptop and I follow the closing speeches from the pro-choice stalwarts who are seeing the culmination of decades of work. @LfC, for all her snarky bravado, is a bit misty while tweeting this (then Ivana Bacik gives us a mention in her closing speech, and @LfC sheds a full-on tear or two).

The Bill has a rake of problems; there’s nothing stopping protests at clinics yet; people from Northern Ireland will face large fees to access abortion down south. We know this, but at the same time, it’s like a heavy weight has been lifted off me. It’s not enough, but it’s so much more. We’ll fix the problems. We can work on this now, we can talk about abortion openly, we can walk people to the doctor past the protesters with our heads held high. We’re not hiding in the shadows any more.

I would like to stop thinking about abortion law for a while. I would like to stop thinking for a while, full stop. In autumn 2018 I take a leave of absence from my PhD for a few weeks. 2018 has been a heavy year. Illness, referendum, research, teaching, more referendum, dealing with the deferred grief over losing my grandmother in 2017. My brain is tired. I go home to my family and hang out with my dog; I read a lot of consequence-free mystery novels; I sit on Nimmo’s Pier in the sun on the last good Saturday of autumn.

And of course, then the Oireachtas debates start and I have to put my lawyer hat back on again. But that, I’m coming to understand, is life.