Addressing an Ordinance on CEDAW in San Diego County

by Kara Dansky

SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Public Forum
March 19, 2022

On Friday March 18, I learned that San Diego County was considering an ordinance to enshrine the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms Against Women (CEDAW) at the county level. CEDAW is an international treaty designed to prohibit discrimination against women and girls all over the world. Every country in the world has signed it except for the United States and five other countries.

On its face, this appears to be good news for signatories to the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights (Declaration), which is grounded in CEDAW’s legal protections for women and girls. However, the proposed ordinance contains a definition of women and girls that flies in the face of the Declaration. One provision of the ordinance defines “women and girls” to mean:

those who identify as women and girls, and shall include Transgender Women, gender nonconforming women, youth, and girls, and those assigned female at birth which includes Transgender Men and Intersex communities.

This appears to be an attempt to define women and girls out of existence under the pretext of enshrining CEDAW in law at the county level.

I was connected with a member of the staff of the county Board of Supervisors, who suggested that we discuss this the next day, Saturday, March 19, in anticipation of a public forum that was scheduled to take place at 2:00 p.m. that Saturday. The Board, which consists of three Democrats and two Republicans, had notified members of the public the previous Thursday that the public forum was scheduled for that Saturday. Members of the public received almost no notice from the Board of this public forum, and had almost no time to prepare. The staffer invited me to speak during the meeting, and I agreed. With approximately one hour to prepare my remarks, I joined the online public forum.

The panel consisted of approximately six members, each of whom spoke before opening the floor up to the public. Most of the presentations covered exactly what one would expect them to cover – the importance of prohibiting discrimination against women and girls. One panelist, however, went further. She emphasized the importance of protecting “all women, including transgender women.” At one point in her presentation, she equated the shackling of pregnant women during childbirth in jail with “misgendering a trans person.” The only panelist who did not speak at all was a man wearing a pink boa and sparkly earrings. He just sat there smiling the entire time. 

They opened it up to the public, I raised my hand, and they invited me to speak. Drawing heavily on the language of the Declaration itself, this is what I said:

Hello, thank you for allowing me to address you today.

My name is Kara Dansky. I currently serve as the president of the U.S. chapter of Women’s Declaration International (WDI), the leading global organization that works to advance the sex-based rights of women and girls. 

WDI is a non-partisan organization. The U.S. chapter consists of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Greens. Speaking solely for myself, I am a lifelong Democrat and a feminist. Our organization seeks to advance the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights all over the world (the Declaration). Our central purpose is to reaffirm women and girls’ sex-based rights and to challenge the discrimination we experience from the replacement of the category of sex with that of so-called “gender identity.” Furthermore, CEDAW itself is designed to protect women and girls on the basis of sex and nothing else.

The Declaration reaffirms the sex-based rights of women which are set out in CEDAW, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 18 December 1979, further developed in the CEDAW Committee General Recommendations, and adopted in the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

Article 1 of CEDAW defines discrimination against women to mean “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil, or any other field.”

Sex is defined by the UN as the “physical and biological characteristics that distinguish males from females.”

Article 2(f) of CEDAW places obligations on state parties to take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs, and practices which constitute discrimination against women. Article 3 of CEDAW requires parties to take appropriate measures to ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men. None of this is intended to include men who lie by saying that they are women. 

It has long been understood in the area of human rights that the stereotyped sex roles of men and women are a fundamental aspect of women’s inequality and must be eliminated. Saying that some men are actually women because they adopt the stereotypes that are typically associated with the female sex (which this ordinance does) is, therefore, a human rights violation. 

Article 1 of the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights reaffirms that the rights of women are based on the category of sex. It asserts that governments should maintain the centrality of the category of sex, not “gender identity,” in relation to women’s and girls’ right to be free from discrimination. 

Relying on CEDAW, it asserts that governments should understand that the inclusion of men who claim to have a female “gender identity” into the category of women in law, policies, and practice constitutes discrimination against women by impairing the recognition of women’s sex-based human rights and that the inclusion of men who claim to have a female “gender identity” in the category of women results in their inclusion in the category of lesbian, which constitutes a form of discrimination against women by impairing the recognition of the sex-based human rights of lesbians. 

The Declaration calls on governments to retain in law, policies, and practice the category of woman to mean adult human female, the category of lesbian to mean an adult human female whose sexual orientation is exclusively towards other adult human females and the category of mother to mean a female parent, and the exclusion of men who claim to have a female “gender identity” from these categories.

Including men who claim to have a female “gender identity” in the category of women erodes women’s rights to safety, dignity, and equality, and constitutes discrimination against women. Further, the category “women and girls” includes all women, regardless of race or ethnicity. Whereas so-called “gender identity” is entirely subjective and malleable, race is not changeable. 

For all of these reasons, although we completely support the enshrinement of CEDAW in law at all levels of government, we oppose the following aspects of this ordinance:

– Any use of the word “gender” to mean “sex.”

– Any inclusion of the phrase “gender identity,” including in the Definitions Section (d).

– The definition of “women and girls” in section (e). The phrase “women and girls” must be defined to include only human female minors and adults, including women and girls who do not conform to sex stereotypes. It must not include any men and boys who claim to “identity as women and girls.”

The residents of San Diego County know the truth and the board must not obscure it. Everyone in the United States knows, for example, that Lia Thomas, who is competing in the NCAA women’s swimming championships, is a man and we should not need to be afraid to say so. Woman is not an identity. It is the state of being an adult human female. 

This ordinance, while claiming to enshrine CEDAW in law, constitutes discrimination against women in violation of CEDAW, and is therefore itself a human rights violation.

Thank you for your time and attention. 

Interestingly, they permitted me to read through my entire remarks. I did not expect that; I expected them to silence me, and they didn’t. 

Several other members of the public spoke about matters pertaining to disabled women, women of color, and elderly women, and not a single panel member or member of the public addressed my remarks. I have no way of knowing how many people attended that virtual public forum, but at least some members of the San Diego community must have listened to my efforts to protect women and girls on the basis of sex when discussing matters like the enshrinement of CEDAW in local U.S. law.

Subscribe