So I’ve been going through the proposed 18th Amendment and have been learning lots of things about the Constitution that I did not know before.
One thing I have learned is that the Constitution assumes that everyone in the universe is male. See for example Article 62, which describes the necessary qualifications for members of parliaments – each clause in it starts with “he is this…” and “he is that…”.
This creates a bizarre situation when referring to candidates for seats reserved for women. Article 62 (b)(ii) reads in full:
he is, in the case of the National Assembly, not less than twenty-five years of age and is enrolled as a voter in any electoral roll in any area in a Province from which he seeks membership for election to a seat reserved for women
The 18th Amendment tries to rectify this somewhat, but isn’t too successful at it:
he is, in the case of the National Assembly, not less than twenty-five years of age and is enrolled as a voter in any electoral roll in any area in a Province from which she seeks membership for election to a seat reserved for women
To be fair, all the way at the end of the Constitution, in Article 263, you will find this qualifier:
In the Constitution, words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females
Ok, sure.