How does a pro-prostitution organisation who put under-aged girls into a brothel and who has been accused by police of keeping a brothel receive a human rights award?

montanarablog

This is not a new story but, with the recent events surrounding a UNAIDS advisor being imprisoned for 15 years for pimping and sex trafficking, it is pertinent. Alejandra Gil was the founder of APROASE and Vice-President of NSWP, a group which advised UNAIDS. WHO acknowledges Gil as having assisted them in writing their recommendations. When Amnesty International was asked to name the groups with which it had consulted to reach its decision on decriminalisation, UNAIDS and WHO were the names it consistently trotted out—as did its supporters. As a side note, it’s interesting that the majority of sex worker rights organisations are staunchly defending the innocence of Gil. I have yet to see any of them defend the prostituted women who were brave enough to give evidence against Gil.

India, a country where conditions for prostitutes are wretched. Rural families with not enough to eat often give up their…

View original post 2,233 more words

“Gender identity” legislation and the erosion of sex-based legal protections for females

“This definition of “gender identity” does not require any objective proof. Rather, it merely requires the person seeking protection to assert that he or she identifies as the sex opposite his or her sex at birth. Further, because Title 11 only permits discrimination in sex-segregated facilities based on sex, a person asserting gender identity as a basis to avoid “discrimination” must be permitted to use the rest room or bath house of their chosen “gender identity” – without regard to any action taken on the part of that individual to change their physiology to “become female” (i.e., sex reassignment surgery.)”

Radfem Hub

Guest post by Cathy BrennanandElizabeth Hungerford. This is an edited version; complete submission here.

In response to the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women’s call for communications dated June 14, 2011 regarding allegations of human rights violations affecting the status of women,[i] we write to advise you of a legal development in the United States that compromises hard won sex-based classification protections for females.[ii]  This legal development – in which gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (“GLBT”) organizations[iii] and individual activists work to enact protections based on “gender identity” – thus far has occurred in Minnesota,[iv] Rhode Island,[v] New Mexico,[vi] California,[vii] District of Columbia,[viii] Illinois, [ix] Maine,[x] Hawaii,[xi] New Jersey,[xii] Washington,[xiii] Iowa,[xiv] Oregon,[xv] Vermont,[xvi] Colorado,[xvii] Connecticut[xviii] and  Nevada.[xix]

View original post 2,748 more words