Thread by @Katja_Thieme

What "sex-based rights" would these be, Colin?

"The Equality Act...would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation & gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, & the jury system."

I have been puzzling about this concept of "sex-based rights" that anti-trans campaigners are working so hard to establish. As far as I can see, it is only anti-trans campaigners who use the phrase. 2/

Let me point out the slight of hand that is the phrase "sex-based rights", based on what I understand about the Canadian legal situation. 3/

The proposed Equality Act is about battling discrimination. It widens the areas in which some groups can fight discrimination, and it widens the identity criteria on which discrimination is understood to occur. 4/

The Equality Act is about securing people's right not to be discriminated against when they seek employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and participation in the jury system. 5/

The actual legal issue that Colin Wright and others seem to be touching on with their term "sex-based rights" is that in some situations, discrimination of one form might be attempted to be addressed with discrimination of another form. 6/

Here is where I think from Canadian legal cases. I have not followed US legal debates closely. In the Kimberly Nixon case, the Vancouver Rape Relief Centre's ability to discriminate against trans women was upheld based on a group rights exemption. 7/
scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/i…

(Customary disclaimer: I'm no lawyer.)

(Another aside: if you would like a historical vignette about Kimberly Nixon's work, see here:

https://twitter.com/Katja_Thieme/status/1316889575441100801?s=20

) 8/

What is this group rights exemption?, you may ask. Here is the relevant section from the BC Human Rights Code. This group rights exemption is both precise and open. You have to be a charitable, educational, fraternal, religious, or social organization to claim such exemption. 9/

The primary goal of your organization should be promotion of the interests of an identifiable group, a group characterized by any one or several criteria from a wide range of identity categories. 10/

In British Columbia, Colin could create a charity to advance the interests of white, cishetero, male weightlifters. When this imaginary charity is then looking to fill a position or a room in its housing project (with a fine gym), it can discriminate. 11/

In other words, according to section 41 of the BC Human Rights Code, Colin's imaginary charity can claim group rights exemption from the rule that there should be no discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation in the distribution of employment or housing. 12/

While the BC Human Rights Code contains a list of criteria that limit when such a group rights exemption can be claimed, it also allows for a wide range of possibilities.

Any single person alive in Canada can be part of such a group. (Wait, do they even have to be alive? 🙃) 13/

To the best of my understanding, in a Canadian legal context, what anti-trans campaigners refer to as "sex-based rights" are no more than one single combination of the many possibilities of claiming a group rights exemption from legislation that prohibits discrimination. 14/

I hope it's clear that what anti-trans activists (like Colin Wright) are attempting with the phrase "sex-based rights" is to rhetorically enshrine as fixed and tied to biology what, legally, is only one among several possibilities for an exemption that shifts with situation. 15/

Apologies for mixing together a proposed US act with Canadian provincial legislation. I have limited resources. This is just a Twitter thread. The underlying point is the same: the US & Canada have anti-discrimination legislation; they also have exemptions to its application. 16/

Such exemptions do not "sex-based rights" make. 17/

Please chime in if you're better trained in this discussion than I am and think I've gotten something wrong.

Thanks for reading. 18/

@threadreaderapp unroll

PS: Lisa is right, of course. The transparent purpose of trying to call it „sex-based rights“ over using accurate legal terms is to exclude trans folk and by refusing to include them in essential advocacy make them more vulnerable than they already are.

https://twitter.com/lisaquestions/status/1317616361158266880?s=20

PPS: This thread.

https://twitter.com/sineadactually/status/1271429168295751682?s=20