Haven’t read this yet, what do you think? @MForstater, @dancingmaharani ,@JayneEEgertonhttps://twitter.com/5050oD/status/1143868247848247296 …
Article does the usual thing of presenting the idea that there might be any problem with losing human rights protections based on sex as being " a fear that women will break out of their “traditional roles” as mothers and caretakers, and seek education or employment instead" 
-
-
This from the letter from the 150+ NGOs!
Really guys? You think the definition of sexes is opaque? And thats the reason for lack of successful prosecutions? And so you want to replace it w something about deeply felt internal & individual experience imperceptible to others??pic.twitter.com/jCI0Ejbqt9
-
The special rapporteur doesn't seem to have thought it through at all
Basic argument seems to be hijras etc... should be protected, therefore lets pretend we can't define sex.pic.twitter.com/mpmTLdrpBP
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There was a big advocacy campaign, mainly spearheaded by CUNY. While some (incl me) submitted letters expressing concern, the lobbyists had taken up the space. Their concern about altering the meaning of sex is greater than their concern about ensuring the success of the treaty
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Oh my god. This is horrible.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.