Reem Alsalem - the definition of woman

[Justme56]

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/women/sr/statements/20240404-Statement-sr-vawg-cedaw-convention.pdf

Reem Alsalem (UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls) was asked by the Australian Human Rights Commission (re Giggle versus Tickle) to give input into the meaning of the word ‘woman’ in the CEDAW. This is her response.

Does anyone else read that four pages as saying.
"It says woman depends on biological sex in our treaties, but everyone deserves not to be discriminated against, therefore the definition of woman must include everyone so as not to be discriminatory."

It feels very much like if you want a large hole in something that's difficult to make holes in you start by making a tiny hole, and then shove something into that hole and wiggle it around as much as you can, and the act of wiggling the thing makes the tiny hole larger and larger.

if you want a large hole in something that's difficult to make holes in you start by making a tiny hole, and then shove something into that hole and wiggle it around as much as you can, and the act of wiggling the thing makes the tiny hole larger and larger.

You could give that thing a name. Might I suggest "dilator"?

Adult female human is catchier.

(definition)

Is she saying woman = adult human female? Seems she is but it's almost Starmer-like in its dancing about. So it might not be!

It seemed absolutely clear that Alsalem's opinion is that in the treaty, "woman" is a biological category. And the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sex is an absolute right, which cannot be limited for any reason.

She also explicitly says that being a woman, not identifying as a woman, is what attracts the protection of CEDAW rights.

And she says that the treaty differentiates between sex and gender - "gender" being the social construct.

This is great for Tickle v Giggle.

Yeah thanks for that Cranky. That mental image has now made me cranky :)
I was thinking in far less graphic terms. Putting an extra new hole into a leather belt, making a hole in a wall or something for home improvement ( don't you dare use the word glory! )
Your suggestion was depressingly appropriate and inappropriate at the same time.

@Snowypeaks
I hope you're right.

Here's the thing.

In English, the word "woman" comes from Old English and predates the Norman Conquest by hundreds of years. If you were to travel back in time to Saxon England and try to have a conversation with someone there, not many words would be intelligible to you, but "woman" probably would be. The same is true of "frau" in German and "femme" in French, and I assume most other languages.

This is because it is a word which is absolutely fundamental to our understanding of the world and our place within it. It is not a "nice to have" word, such as "consequence" or "regal" or "suspicion". It is not a word for something that has been recently invented or discovered, such as "computer" or "antibiotic" or "passport". It is a word which even the most primitive human societies needed to have in their daily vocabulary, which is why in most languages it is a simple word with an etymology which can be traced back for thousands of years through multiple predecessor languages, and with a meaning that has remained utterly stable until the 21st century.

If your "definition" of the word "woman" runs to four pages and doesn't even produce a clear answer at the end of it, your definition is not good and you need to go back to basics.

People living in the 21st century need a word for "adult human female" just as much as the Romans, the Saxons, the Vikings and the Ancient Greeks and Egyptians did.

If some of them feel they also need words for new concepts, such as the 72 recently invented "gender identities", that's fine. They're free to invent them.

But the word "woman" is taken, and has been for thousands of years.

Your reply is exactly why I love Mumsnet! You can't be cranky! That's MY IDENTITY!
And you brought glory holes into the conversation, I'm not taking the fall for that.

Thanks Snowy. It was the final line that got me as she mentions "intersex".

I too agree that that is what she was saying, but she was trying to say it in a non TERFy way, which doesn't really work.

It reads to me as twam and tmaw so intersectionality is important but under the category of biological women and that includes trans and intersex people who are biologically women.

Exactly, Baroness

MissScarlet,
It's a legal opinion on the interpretation of a treaty. She has to justify her conclusions with reference to the words in the treaty, the guidance about the interpretation of the treaty and concepts of international law. A politician can just say "adult human female" as in the EA2010, but that's not the legal instrument in play here.

It seemed succinct and clear to me, really well written and no wiggle room for the Federal court. They will have to accept it entirely or reject it entirely.

Alsalem has also previously written about people with trans identities in a very compassionate way, so Tickle's team will struggle to portray her as a raging bigot who can be ignored for that reason.

Here's a much nicer image of something to make holes bigger, a stepped drill bit. I confess I bought a set from the middle aisle in Lidl just cos I thought they looked like cute little Xmas trees. But I did actually use one of them the other week in a DIY project.

Thank you. I read it and couldn't make any sense of it.

@Emotionalsupportviper
To be honest I wouldn't put much faith in my reading of it. Others in this thread seem to have taken a different meaning from it, and I would tend towards trusting their interpretation more than mine.
There does seem to be this skill that when you are paid a lot of money, you make it more difficult to understand what you are saying. Justifiying all the money perhaps? Academics love doing it, the more words they use, the more authority they think they convey while the rest of us just scratch our heads wondering what on earth they are saying. I guess if you've not really got much to say, or little proof of what you are saying, padding it out with tons of words, especially embiggened words is perfectly cromulent, and who's going to know?

I'm quite surprised to read that. Anyway, it's written to assist the Aus Fed Court judges, who of course will be familiar with this kind of thing and will no have no issues with understanding it.

I know what a woman is but I also want a career.

What do you mean, please?

So it takes FOUR pages to describe something that dictionaries can describe in three words? Bloody hell, they like justifying their wage packet don't they 😳

I read it the same way as Snowypeaks, as a relatively clear (for legalese!) statement that "woman" in the treaty refers to sex, that protections against sex discrimination may not be set below any other claimed rights, and that "lesbian" refers to females attracted to other females. She also refers to "intersectionality", but in the context that lesbians may be at particular risk of discrimination due to being both female (sex) AND lesbian (sexual orientation).

The 3rd paragraph on P3 is especially clear and relevant to the case (tried to copy/paste but can't get it to work on phone!). The bit about "reference to lesbian women can only be understood to mean biological females that are attracted to other biological females"!

All I can say is, I hope Reem Alsalem never reads this thread! She has been a strong voice for women and she is being criticised unfairly IMO for writing in a professional manner. She was not asked to elucidate "What is a woman?". She was asked "What is the meaning of the word "woman" in CEDAW?". Unlike the EA, CEDAW does not give a definition of the word woman. So she had to look at the wording of the treaty and analyse it, along with the official guidance. She has to show her workings, if you like, so it's bound to be a longish answer but I think it is very clearly expressed and succinctly argued. She doesn't waste words.

If she had written "Dear Australian Human Rights Commission, a woman is an adult human female. HTH. Regards, Reem Alsalem", (I exaggerate to illustrate my point) they would dismiss it. This is a serious, comprehensive paper which anticipates and deals with potential objections and resolves possible ambiguities. And her conclusions about CEDAW are:

1. CEDAW is unequivocal that a woman is a biological female
2. That her right not to be discriminated against is based on sex, and that this right cannot be restricted.
3. That Gender is not Sex, and woman is not a gender or to be equated with it.
4. All biological females are protected.

As a legal opinion as to what a woman is in CEDAW, it couldn't be any better for Sall Grover's side.

The defence have been sent a copy as well as the AHRC, so the AHRC can't pretend they haven't received it or had time to read it.

whoops - and as ahagwearsapointybonnet said (very important, this) - a lesbian is a woman. A biological female.

Here it is, ahag

Building on the implicit understanding that the word “woman” refers to biological females, the CEDAW Committee’s reference to lesbian women can only be understood to mean biological females that are attracted to biological females. Such a conclusion can be inferred from its description of the term “lesbian” as reflected in the Committee’s view under article 7(3) of the Optional Protocol concerning communication No. 134/2018, which refers to “same sex sexual activity”.
In expressing its view, the Committee mentions lesbian women as one of the groups
of women that experience discrimination (in addition to bisexuals, transgender, intersex, and others).