barbara findlay Q.C.
  • Home
  • About barbara
    • Awards and Honours
  • Services
    • Family Law >
      • Cohabitation Agreements
      • Poly families
      • Separation Agreements
      • Divorce
      • Adoptions
    • Donor Insemination Agreements
    • Immigration for Lesbians and Gay Men
    • Estates
    • Employment Law and Wrongful Dismissal
    • Equality and Human Rights >
      • Transgender Issues: a Work in Progress
    • What We Don't Do
  • Out/Law Legal Guides
  • Case Chronology
  • Unlearning Oppression
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Articles
  • Contact

Do Words Matter?  "Gender identity" and "gender expression" in human rights law

11/18/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
The federal government has said it will add 'gender identity' to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Good news!

But is it good enough?

The private member's Bill that Randall Garrison has spent eight years fighting for in Parliament included both "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the Canadian Human Rights Act.  Does it make a difference if "gender expression" or "gender presentation" is not included?

The short answer is that no one knows for sure, since there are no cases which have considered the question (which of course is the only way lawyers know anything...if a judge has decided it!)

The long answer is ...probably it makes no difference.

The first thing to remember is that trans people are ALREADY protected from discrimination in ALL human rights laws in the country on the ground of "sex".  The law does not make a distinction between "sex" and "gender".  So from a legal point of view, trans people already have all the protection against discrimination that they need.

Having said that, all of the cases so far have concerned trans people who identify with either M or F.  There aren't so far any cases dealing with non-binary trans people, ie people for whom neither M nor F will ever adequately describe their gender.

So...does this mean the result might be different for non-binary people?

No...because the law says now that one's sex/gender for legal purposes is dependent on one's gender identity.  So anyone who identifies as trans, whether binary or non binary, is protected from discrimination.
So far so good.  A trans person is protected from discrimination whether the language in the human rights law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, or prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity, or both.

Does adding the phrase "gender expression" or "gender presentation" make a difference?  
​
The Ontario Human Rights Commission has a policy document that says:
Gender identity is each person’s internal and individual experience of gender. It is their sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum. A person’s gender identity may be the same as or different from their birth-assigned sex. Gender identity is fundamentally different from a person’s sexual orientation.
Gender expression is how a person publicly presents their gender. This can include behaviour and outward appearance such as dress, hair, make-up, body language and voice. A person’s chosen name and pronoun are also common ways of expressing gender.


What about a man who identifies as male, but wants to wear lipstick to work? Could an employer tell him he cannot come to work wearing lipstick, because he is a man and men don't wear lipstick? 

Since the person who is doing the discriminating against trans people probably does so on the basis that the person doesn't look, gender-wise, like what the discriminator expects, it seems likely that the way one expresses one's gender is part of, or protected by, the term 'gender identity'.  

Follow the example of the cisgender man who wears lipstick.  Suppose that another person (say, the identical twin of the cisgender man) identifies as nonbinary and gender fluid. That person, too, wears lipstick to work but would otherwise be read as male.

The employer tells both people that they can't wear lipstick to work.  The nonbinary genderfluid person says that it is part of their gender identity to wear accessories customarily associated with female people.  So they would win a human rights case if their employer fired them for wearing lipstick.

The cisgender man does not claim that wearing lipstick to work is part of his gender identity as male; but he says it is part of his gender presentation.  Would the employer be entitled to fire him for wearing lipstick because lipstick is not part of a male gender identity?  

I think human rights tribunals would decide, in both cases, that the employer had no right to fire the person who wore lipstick to work.  And I think that is true whether the statute contained protections on the basis of sex, on the basis of gender identity, on the basis of gender presentation, or some combination.

So does that mean it doesn't matter whether gender identity is added to human rights legislation?   Not at all.

Though 'sex' protects trans people, hardly anyone knows that.  Not trans people, not their employers or their lawyers or their service providers.  It is essential that protection for trans people be explicit, not implicit.  Unless people know they have rights, the rights they have are empty.

So we applaud the federal government for adding 'gender identity' to the Canadian Human Rights Act.  
As with all legislation passed by the new government in the House of Commons, the legislation must also get the approval of the Senate.  It is an open question whether the change will survive Senate scrutiny since so many Senators are Conservative appointees.

But remember: whether they pass a law to add 'gender identity', or whether the law fails again, trans people are NOW protected from discrimination.

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    RSS Feed

    Subscribe to our blog

    Archives

    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    February 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012

    Categories

    All
    Aboriginal
    Access
    Accountability
    Adoption
    Aids
    Alberta
    Amnesty International
    Apology
    Appeal
    Assisted Human Reproduction Technology
    Bathrooms
    Birth Certificate
    Bisexual
    Board Of Education
    Breast Cancer
    British Columbia
    Broadcast
    Bullying
    Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
    Catholic
    Charter Of Rights
    Charter Of Values
    Child Protection
    Children
    Child Support
    Child Welfare
    Christian
    Citizenship
    Civil Rights
    Civil Union
    Coca Cola
    Colonialism
    Comedy
    Common Law
    Confidentiality
    Courts
    Criminal Law
    Custody
    Depilation
    Disability
    Discrimination
    Divorce
    Donor Insemination
    Education
    Egg Donor
    Egypt
    Employment
    Equality Rights
    Ethnic Origin
    Family Law
    Family Law Act
    Family Relations Act
    Federal Court
    Feminist
    First Nations
    Freedom Of Conscience
    Freedom Of Expression
    Freedom Of Religion
    Freedom Of Speech
    Gay
    Gay Straight Alliance
    Gender Expression
    Gender Identity
    Gender Marker
    Genderqueer
    Genetic
    Genetic Testing
    Greyson
    Harassment
    Harper
    Hate Speech
    Health
    Hiv
    Holocaust
    Homophobia
    Homosexual
    Homosexuality
    House Of Commons
    Human Rights
    Idaho
    Immigration
    International
    Intersex
    Jail
    Jewish
    John Baird
    Judge
    Kansas
    Kenya
    Kris Wells
    Kuwait
    Law
    Law Society Of Bc
    Law Society Of Ontario
    Leaflet
    Lesbian
    Loubani
    Malaysia
    Marriage
    Mary Bryson
    Medical Plan
    Minority
    Music
    Muslim
    Nepal
    Obama
    Ontario
    Pansexual
    Parenting
    Passport
    Power Of Attorney
    Prejudice
    Pride
    Prison
    Property
    Publication
    Public Opinion
    Quebec
    Queer
    Race
    Racism
    Rae Spoon
    Refugee
    Registered Domestic Partnership
    Religion
    Representation Agreement
    Reproductive Technology
    Research
    Retirement Home
    Russia
    Same Sex
    Same Sex Marriage
    Saskatchewan
    School
    Schools
    Seniors
    Sexism
    Sex Reassignment Surgery
    Sexual Assault
    Sexual Orientation
    Sharia Law
    Sikhism
    Slander
    Social Assistance
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Speaking Out
    Special General Meeting
    Sperm Donor
    Spousal Sponsorship
    Spousal Support
    Sun Dance
    Supreme Court Of Canada
    Surrogacy
    Surrogate Mother
    Tarek Loubani
    Tenancy
    Tennessee
    Three Parents
    Trans Alliance Society
    Transgender
    Transition
    Transsexual
    Trinity Western University
    Tweet
    TWU
    Uganda
    United States
    Viet Nam
    Visa
    Voice Therapy
    Washroom
    Wills

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photos used under Creative Commons from phalinn, quinn.anya, tedeytan, ToGa Wanderings, Jason Spaceman, Tim Reckmann | a59.de, Enokson, Abulic Monkey, Nina Matthews Photography, _DarkGuru_, Gribiche, whiteafrican, Sweet One, jk+too, Stephane Gaudry, DonkeyHotey, Moon Wolfe