The Mackereth decision did not just say that the employer had a legitimate aim to restrict expression of the view, it named *the view itself* incompatible with human dignity. And this is the precedent you work with. The Christian Legal Centre poisoned the well for you.
-
So you think that the "gender identity" part was intended to apply to trans men, who are, in your view, female people with a different gender identity? This is not, however, how the CEDAW Committee uses it in practice. The recommendations for Georgia http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2FPPRiCAqhKb7yhsldCrOlUTvLRFDjh6%2Fx1pWDqKYdAsZCi%2FpTG5mONu7rLEgGDzc4uYj4EX9q0OwgEtztAerYJ0NdpVEHSESZXwGVBSGu0UKju%2FbfiY1zaPP1F … say:pic.twitter.com/UMMVpdu79C
I expect like most organisations and institutions they haven't thought it through properly. Why would CEDAW decide that "women" includes transwomen but not transmen - how does this apply in relation to article 12 for example?
-
-
You certainly can believe that the major women's rights organizations have all "not thought it through properly" and the Vatican and others did. But you can not push this belief at work in an organization whose values align with said organizations.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.