Thread by @MorganeOgerBC

@IngeWood11 Some advocates misrepresent CEDAW article 1 as addressing female-sex only. Trans women are already protected under this under sex, #GBA+ reflects it in Canada.

Bill C16 prohibits of discrimination due to gender (identity + expression) for everyone.

un.org/womenwatch/daw…

@IngeWood11 CEDAW's prohibition is discrimination against women ON BASIS of sex, not discrimination ON BASIS OF female sex. Caps for emphasis. Yes, human rights orgs leveraging female-specific discrimination to address women's rights makes sense.

It is not, however, prescribed by CEDAW.

@IngeWood11 UN #CEDAW provides no international convention upholding discrimination against transgender persons because of their sex.

In fact, CEDAW protects ALL trans persons.

This is why Canada and a significant number of other countries protect trans women under sex and under gender.

@IngeWood11 And if you read everything or anything I have written on the matter, you will see the position I consistently take is rights legislation protects FROM discrimination based on sex, whereas those opposing my position specifically clamor FOR discrimination based on sex.

@IngeWood11 You specifically mention the charter protection from discrimination on the basis of sex. Reflecting CEDAW, not on the basis of any one SPECIFIC sex since that would be the opposite of how modern legislation is framed.

@IngeWood11 And section 15 protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights applying to trans women was upheld in the 7 decisions of
Oger v Whatcott (BCHRT), which are widely cited across Canada's Jurisprudence landscape:

canlii.org/en/#search/tex…

@IngeWood11 Whatcott has applied to the BC Supreme Court for a judicial review. I responded, telling the court I believe his application is incoherent and baseless. I provided a thorough legal analysis in an argument for upholding the ruling.

Due to #COVID19, timelines are stretched.

@IngeWood11 @threadreaderapp unroll