Gender-Based Discrimination Assessment Answer

Introduction

Through the ages, people all around the globe have had to deal with the effects of discrimination based on their gender. The gender identity of any person is referred to as the person’s inner feelings about his sex, which includes his body which may consist of any sort of bodily modification either done through surgeries, medicines, or any other means. However, gender expression is referred to as the way one feels and expresses his feelings, his physical appearance, and his personal preference to be identified as any specific gender. however, the sex of any person has nothing to do with the gender identity of any person. However, people are often discriminated against on the basis of the person’s gender identity (Castro et. al., 2019). Gender-based discrimination is a major human rights issue that has serious consequences for both people and communities on several levels of analysis, including philosophy, sociology, and the law (Hernandez, 2014). There have been many laws formulated in the UK to prevent gender-based discrimination such as the Equality Act 2010, and Human Rights Act 1998, and various other regulations such as the UN Convention on all forms of Discrimination against Women, and the European and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). Gender discrimination is a pervasive societal problem with deep roots in established social mores and customs, according to sociologists. When people are discriminated against based on their gender, it leads to uneven opportunities, resources, and social standing for both sexes. Gender-based discrimination takes many forms, such as acts of violence against women or girls or uneven compensation for equal labour. Discrimination based on gender inhibits women and other oppressed groups from reaching their full potential and contributing to society as a whole. Philosophically speaking, discrimination based on gender is seen as an attack on basic human rights such as respect for human dignity and equality. Human rights are based on the principle that every person has inherent worth as a human being and, as such, deserves protection and benefits. However, when it comes to gender discrimination, the ethical viewpoints that prioritize individual liberty may clash with those that prioritize communal benefit (Izolda, 2019). Questions regarding the nature of gender and the construction and acquisition of knowledge also emerge in discussions about gender-based discrimination, leading to ontological and epistemological arguments. International law prohibits discrimination based on gender, however, there are conflicts between this law and the laws of different countries, and hence, stricter laws are needed. The right to inherit property or to acquire a passport without the agreement of a male guardian, for example, may be openly discriminated against in certain nations' legislation (Dewi, 2022). In conclusion, discrimination based on gender is a human rights issue with far-reaching intellectual, social, and legal consequences. Different countries and regions have different ethical standards, ontological and epistemological disputes, social norms and practices, and legal frameworks to deal with this problem. Individuals, communities, and governments must work together to respect human rights norms and promote a more inclusive and fair society if gender-based discrimination is to be eradicated.

Philosophical Perspective

Philosophers have argued that discrimination based on gender is a problem for human rights because it undermines fundamental values like respect for human worth and equality. Human rights are based on the principle that every person has inherent worth as a human being and, as such, deserves protection and benefits (Onwuachi-Willig, 2020). Equal protection under the law, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are all included here. These protections are undermined when people are treated differently because of their gender. Gender, according to these thinkers, is something that is socially constructed and acquired (Phipps, 2019). They claim that discrimination based on gender is the product of socially constructed gender norms and expectations that are developed and reinforced via encounters between people of different sexes (Monios, 2022). Some philosophers contend that gender is not a social construction but a set of innate biological characteristics. They contend that biological differences explain why people are treated differently depending on their gender, and that these biological differences also underlie traditional gender roles and expectations. However, we saw from the ethical perspective, ontological, and epistemological conflicts characterize philosophical discussions of gender discrimination. These discussions aim to dissect the dynamics of gender and the learning process. Philosophers have argued that discrimination based on gender is a problem for human rights because it undermines fundamental values like respect for human worth and equality. therefore, according to scholars and the philosophical point of view, gender-based discrimination infringes on equality of the individuals, but this infringement is the outcome of the old societal values or patriarchal thinking. The gender-based discrimination is mostly done according to the biological identity of an individual. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is an international treaty guiding the work of the UN. It guides the signing countries to eliminate all forms of discrimination based on gender and promotes the countries to uplift the dignity of women and girls (UN Women, 2016). The issue of discrimination was addressed in the case of Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v. Khan (2001) In this case, the House of Lords held that any sort of police policy requiring males to have minimum height requirement was discriminatory in nature and violates the principle of equality against the women police officers. House of Lords in the case of Rv. R (1991) held that marital rape is a criminal offence against the women’s right over their bodies and it possesses an adverse impact on the dignity and integrity of the women.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014) is a seminal case because it forced us to ask fundamental concerns about how to strike a fair balance between individual freedom and the common good. The argument focused on whether or not The requirement in the Affordable Care Act that businesses provide contraceptive coverage via their health plans is legal (Phipps, 2019). The devout family that owns the for-profit company known as "Hobby Lobby" claimed that giving insurance coverage for certain kinds of contraception, such as those that they feared may cause abortions, contradicted their religious views. Using the RFRA, which stipulates that unless the authorities can show a compelling interest as well as employ the least restrictive ways to accomplish that purpose, it cannot materially impede a person's practice of religion, the plaintiffs in the case argued that the contraceptive mandate violated their religious freedom (Marchesan, 2018). Because of the severe hardship it placed on the plaintiffs' religious convictions, the Supreme Court ruled that the contraceptive requirement violated the RFRA. There were philosophical problems brought up by Case in Point: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., decided by the Supreme Court. One interpretation of the judgment is that it protects the right of the plaintiffs to freely practice their religion without interference from the state (Phipps, 2019). According to this line of thinking, the government shouldn't have the power to compel people or businesses to go against their religious convictions by providing insurance for activities they strongly disagree with. On the other hand, the ruling may be seen as giving plaintiffs' rights more weight than the interests of their workers and the general public. The goal of the contraceptive mandate is to provide women with easier access to contraception and other forms of preventative care that may reduce the likelihood of unwanted births and thereby improve their health (Xenidis, 2020). The ruling might have consequences detrimental to the health and well-being of women and their families since it exempts certain companies from the obligation. Concerns were voiced regarding the level of religious freedom guaranteed by the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores decision, Inc. Although the RFRA safeguards religious liberty, it must be weighed against competing objectives like equality and non-discrimination. It might be argued that the Court's judgment in favour of the plaintiffs in the contraceptive mandate case gives more weight to the plaintiffs' religious convictions than to the reproductive rights and health needs of their workers, many of whom may not share the same religious beliefs as the plaintiffs.

In sum, the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. brings into sharp relief the difficult philosophical concerns raised by the tension between individual rights and collective good in the face of discrimination on the basis of gender. Public policy should be crafted to advance the well-being of all members of society, including those who may not share the same religious convictions, while yet protecting the religious freedom of people and businesses (Phipps, 2019). The complex ethical and philosophical concerns at play need a thorough evaluation of these opposing ideals before a compromise can be reached. Finally, philosophical discussions on gender discrimination focus on different ethical viewpoints, as well as ontological and epistemological disputes. These discussions aim to dissect the dynamics of gender and the learning process. Philosophers have argued that discrimination based on gender is a problem for human rights because it undermines fundamental values like respect for human worth and equality (Goodnight, 2017).

Sociological Perspective

Gender discrimination is a human rights issue, according to sociologists, since it reinforces existing patterns of economic and social inequality. When looking at gender discrimination from a sociological viewpoint, attention is paid to the social and cultural norms and practices that help to maintain inequality and restrict possibilities for women and other marginalized groups (Cheema and Ismail, 2021). Gender bias manifests itself in many forms across society. For example, Gender-based assault encompasses a wide range of forms of discrimination against women, including but not limited to sexual assault, rape, domestic abuse, as well as female genital mutilation. (Bilan et al, 2020). Cultural ideas and customs about the proper placement of women and men in society are at the foundation of these violent practices. Unequal remuneration for equal labour and fewer possibilities for women to develop in their careers are two examples of how gender discrimination plays out in the workplace (Pinto, 2022). Women are less likely to be promoted to management positions and earn lower wages than males, according to sociological research. Because of these inequalities, women have a higher rate of poverty. As well as face financial instability. Girls and women, especially in poorer nations, face obstacles in their pursuit of an education due to gender bias, Sociologists have shown that females are less likely than males to finish their formal education (Karakilic, 2019). This lowers their chances of securing gainful work and economic security. Access to healthcare, especially reproductive healthcare, is impacted by gender-based discrimination. Contraception, abortion, and prenatal care are just a few examples of how women's access to reproductive healthcare is often restricted (Cheema and Ismail, 2021). There is a direct correlation between this and the high rates of maternal death and morbidity that result.

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986) is a seminal case that sheds light on the societal context of discrimination based on gender in the workplace. The complainant in this case, Mechelle Vinson, claimed that her boss, Sidney Taylor, engaged in sexual harassment against her. Taylor had frequently extorted Vinson for sexual favours in return for promotions and raises in salary (Cheema and Ismail, 2021). After first giving in to his demands, Vinson eventually resisted and was dismissed. She sued, saying that she had experienced sexual harassment and discrimination because of her gender. The case prompted serious sociological inquiries on Workplace sexual harassment and its causes and frequency. Sexual harassment was not previously defined as unlawful discrimination under federal law before this case. Discrimination based on a person's race, colour, national origin, or religion is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, disability, marital status, age, pregnancy, or gender identity or expression (Cheema and Ismail, 2021). "unwanted sexual favours, demands for sexual favours, including additional physical or verbal behaviours of a sexual nature," this is considered sexual harassment, the Court considers this to be sexual harassment and a form of discrimination. The Court's ruling, in this case, brought attention to the pervasive problem of workplace sexual harassment as well as the damage it can do to a woman's chances of getting ahead in her chosen field. Vinson's professional prospects were negatively impacted by her supervisor's requests for sexual favours since she was denied promotions and eventually fired for refusing to give in to his demands. The Supreme Court's judgment in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson further reaffirmed the need for legislation to combat sexual harassment and sexism in the workplace. The Court's decision made clear that businesses might be held accountable for sexual harassment in the workplace even if management was unaware of the problem (Cheema and Ismail, 2021). This meant that businesses had to be on the front lines against sexual harassment and provide enough support for victims. It wasn't until the ruling in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson that sexual harassment was officially recognized as a form of discrimination against women. As the #MeToo movement gathered steam in 2017, the public became more aware of the pervasiveness of sexual harassment and assault in many areas of society, including the workplace (Henn, 2019). The necessity for safeguards against sexual harassment and other types of gender-based discrimination became more widely recognized as a result of this campaign. Finally, Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson illustrates the societal aspects of discrimination against women in the workplace, including sexual harassment. The ruling made clear that sexual harassment may be considered a form of discrimination against women under federal law and highlighted the necessity for legislative safeguards to avoid it (Spencer et al, 2021). Important concerns concerning sexual harassment in the workplace and its effect on women's abilities to succeed in their careers were also addressed by the case. A lot of work has to be done before all people may work in conditions free from discrimination and harassment, even though tremendous progress has been achieved in recent years to address sexual harassment and other types of gender-based discrimination. The reproductive rights problem and the conflict between international and national legal systems were at the heart of the landmark case. The lawsuit aimed to overturn legislation that made illegal a specific kind of abortion known as partial-birth abortion. The bill, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2003, outlawed a method known as "intact dilation and extraction," sometimes known as a "partial-birth abortion (Pinto, 2022). Fetuses with serious abnormalities or situations where the woman's health was in danger were the most common reasons for the surgery. While the legislation made an exemption for situations in which a woman's life was in danger, it did not do so when her health was in jeopardy. Challenges to the bill were filed immediately, and numerous federal courts ruled that it was illegal. However, the Supreme Court accepted the case in 2006, had oral arguments the next year, and announced its ruling the following year, in 2007 (Pinto, 2022).

Gender discrimination limits women's and other marginalized groups' participation in society by denying them equal chances. This reinforces low income, increases the gender pay gap, and marginalizes women alongside other minorities. Governments, corporations, and non-governmental organizations must all work together to eradicate gender-based discrimination, which has deep roots in entrenched social and cultural norms and practices. Equal pay for equal labour and policies encouraging women to enter the workforce are two ways to help close the wage gap between the sexes and provide women with more economic independence (Zanghellini, 2020). In the case of Begum v. The Headteacher and Governing Body of Denbigh High School (2006) the rights mentioned under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) were incorporated in the Human Rights Act of 1988 by the UK courts. In this case, a Muslim girl was forbidden to wear a hijab in the school as it does constitute the school uniform. House of Lords ruled in favour of the school however, the Supreme Court of the UK recognized the principle of equality mentioned under the ECHR, CEDAW treaty and held the act of the school as discriminatory in nature and possessing an adverse effect on the social and religious beliefs of the society. In conclusion, discrimination based on gender is a human rights violation that aids in the maintenance of economic as well as social disparities. Gender discrimination limits women's and other marginalized groups' participation in society by denying them equal chances. Governments, civil society organizations, and the corporate sector must work together to eradicate prejudice based on gender through implementing legislation and educating the public on the need of doing so.

Legal Perspective

Millions of individuals all around the globe face prejudice because of their gender. When people are not afforded the same chances and privileges based on their gender identity or sex, this is a kind of discrimination. The privilege to be accorded kindness and compassion and the freedom from discrimination are all violated when people are treated differently because of their gender. In this article, we'll analyze gender discrimination from a legal standpoint, looking at relevant international and regional conventions as well as national legal systems and the conflicts that arise from them. The international legal framework provides the basis for addressing discrimination based on gender at the national and regional levels. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, everyone is born free and equal in dignity and rights. All citizens are afforded the same legal safeguards, and discrimination of any type is outright outlawed. Both the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant for Social, Cultural, and Economic Rights, both adopted in 1966, provide further protections against sex discrimination (Pinto, 2022). As a historic international treaty, In 1979, the General Assembly of the United States passed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which requires all nations to work towards eliminating discrimination on the basis of gender. Discrimination, exclusion, or limitations based on sex that attempt to or do lessen or cancel the pleasure of human rights and basic freedoms is considered discrimination against women according to CEDAW (Pinto, 2022). States are obligated under CEDAW to take steps to end discrimination against women in all spheres of society, including but not limited to formal and informal learning environments, the workplace, health care, and politics.

Conflicts between international law and regional and national legal systems help explain why discrimination based on gender exists in many nations. Laws that limit women's ability to inherit property or acquire a passport without the agreement of a male guardian are examples of the overt sexism that exists in certain nations. There are also variations in the legislative systems that regulate discrimination based on gender across different regions. In the European Union, for instance, Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is outlawed under both the Convention of Europe on Rights of Humans as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Renz and Cooper, 2022). Nonetheless, linguistic social norms frequently perpetuate gender stereotypes and prejudice in several African nations where the legal frameworks do not give clear protection against such discrimination. It is still difficult to ensure compliance with international agreements and regulations forbidding any kind of bias based on a person's gender. Despite the fact that protecting human rights should be a priority for any nation, many have failed to do so. Violence against women and other members of marginalized gender identities persists even in nations that explicitly outlaw such behaviour via legislation. A key obstacle to the effective implementation of international legislation barring discrimination against gender is the lack of international mechanisms for accountability (Pinto, 2022). CEDAW and other human rights accords have been monitored by UN committees, but their conclusions are not binding, and there is no international court to hear claims of discrimination based on gender (Monios, 2022). Millions of individuals throughout the globe are subjected to prejudice because of their gender. Gender-based discrimination can be addressed according to the worldwide legal structure, which consists of the general declaration of Human Rights, as well as the UN Charter on Civil and Political Rights, an International agreement on Social, Cultural, as well as Economic Rights, and the Treaty on the Avoidance of any Kind of Discrimination In opposition to Women, at both the regional as well as national levels (Tastsoglou et al, 2022). However, international rules and different regional as well as national legal systems sometimes conflict, and international law enforcement is difficult.

The Supreme Court ruled in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the statute did not infringe on a woman's freedom to choose abortion under the Constitution. The Court's ruling went against universal human rights principles that protect a woman's right to receive lawful abortion care. Gonzales v. Carhart's ruling prompted serious discussions regarding the connection between domestic law and international human rights standards. This case demonstrated the gravity of violating international human rights norms and the difficulty of settling conflicts across different legal systems. The lawsuit hinged on the question of whether or not women should have full autonomy over their reproductive choices. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit claimed that their right to abortion was infringed by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (Pinto, 2022). They said the rule was too general and did not provide enough allowances for situations in which a woman's health was in jeopardy. In this case, the defendants asserted that the rule was required to safeguard the public and the reputation of the medical community from potential damage associated with the operation. They argued that other abortion methods were available and that the operation was unnecessary to safeguard women's health. In Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court's judgment was based on the justices' reading of the Constitution. The Court decided that the government did have an interest in regulating the medical industry and encouraging respect for human life. The Court also found that the legislation had sufficient protections in place for situations when a woman's life was in jeopardy. However, Gonzales v. Carhart prompted serious consideration of how international human rights standards relate to domestic legal systems. The ruling went against universal human rights principles that guarantee women the right to receive lawful abortion care (Pinto, 2022). This case demonstrated the gravity of violating international human rights norms and the difficulty of settling conflicts across different legal systems. Broader sociological problems concerning the state's role in controlling reproductive rights were also addressed by the case. The Gonzales v. Carhart judgment reflected prevailing cultural and political beliefs that valued safeguarding human life more highly than protecting the rights of the unborn. The ruling echoed wider discussions over the state's proper role in policing matters of morality and decency. Gonzales v. Carhart, in conclusion, prompted serious consideration of the friction between domestic and international law and the possible fallout of violating international human rights standards. As was the case here, case outcomes often reflect larger disputes regarding opposing principles of individual autonomy and collective welfare.

The government of the UK has framed various legislation to prevent instances of Gender-based Discrimination in compliance with the various international treaties formulated by the United Nations and the European Union. The Equal Pay Act (1970) was formulated to ensure equal pay to all workers irrespective of their gender. Sex Discrimination Act (1975) prohibits and penalizes any sort of discrimination based on gender in the workplace. Human Rights Act (1998) was framed in convention with the norms prescribed under the European Convention on Human Rights. Transgender is also protected in the UK from any sort of discrimination that may arise any question about their biological identity under the Act of Gender Recognition (2004). 

Conclusion

The above case law examples given show how multifaceted gender-based discrimination is and how many different lenses may be used to examine it and devise effective responses. Philosophy problems regarding the connection between individual liberty, religious liberty, and the common good were brought to light by the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. In its ruling in favour of the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court emphasized the need of striking a balance between opposing interests in situations of gender-based discrimination, especially where religious convictions are at stake. The case of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson illuminated the societal implications of sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination against women in the workplace. By defining sexual harassment as a form of discrimination against women, the Supreme Court established a precedent and brought attention to the need for legislative safeguards to avoid it. Conflicts between global and domestic legal systems over women's reproductive rights were on full display in Gonzales v. Carhart. Questions concerning the link between national legal systems and international human rights norms have been raised in light of the Supreme Court's decision to maintain the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which ran counter to international human rights standards. Taken as a whole, these incidents stress the need to look at gender inequality from many angles. Gender-based discrimination has far-reaching social and ethical ramifications, and although the legal view offers a framework for resolving discrimination, the sociological and philosophical perspectives are equally crucial in comprehending these. A more fair and equitable society in which people of all genders may flourish requires that we keep looking at gender-based discrimination from different angles. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to alter both the legal safeguards and the societal norms and practices that support discrimination based on gender.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Begum v. The Headteacher and Governing Body of Denbigh High School (2006)

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)

Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v. Khan (2001)

Civil Rights Act 1964

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 1979

Equal Pay Act 1970

Equality Act 2010,

European Convention on Human Rights 1950

Gender Recognition Act 2004

Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)

Human Rights Act 1998

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986)

Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

Secondary Sources

Bilan, Y., Mishchuk, H., Samoliuk, N. and Mishchuk, V., 2020. Gender discrimination and its links with compensations and benefits practices in enterprises. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 8(3), pp.189-203. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=975963

Castro-Peraza, M.E., García-Acosta, J.M., Delgado, N., Perdomo-Hernández, A.M., Sosa-Alvarez, M.I., Llabrés-Solé, R. and Lorenzo-Rocha, N.D., 2019. Gender identity: the human right of depathologization. International Journal of environmental research and public health, 16(6), p.978. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060978

Cheema, Z.I. and Ismail, S.M., 2021. Legal Effects of Muslim States' Reservations to the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Manchester Journal of Transnational Islamic Law & Practice, 17(1). https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=17423945&AN=157881479&h=Qh1QlhsgGPL32R53J7ECwmEgC%2B5leiqxHfhcqWKMoPls%2F1PIGQBQitwJWklWoMonZjk8PLB2DZrLdnUdtFDRcw%3D%3D&crl=c

Dewi, A. A. S. L. (2022). Legal Assistance by Advocates in Gender Mainstreaming: A Reflection. Sociological Jurisprudence Journal, 5(2), 139-145. https://www.ejournal.warmadewa.ac.id/index.php/sjj/article/view/5726/3875

Goodnight, M.R., 2017. Critical race theory in India: Theory translation and the analysis of social identities and discrimination in Indian schooling. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 47(5), pp.665-683. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2016.1266926

Henn, E.V., 2019. International Human Rights Law and Structural Discrimination (Vol. 240). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-58677-8_4

Hernandez, J., 2014. 20 The Alien Exclusion. The Affordable Care Act Decision: Philosophical and Legal Implications, p.298. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315885124

Izolda, T., 2019. Juris aequalitas inter sexum et sexum Philosophical and Practical Issues of Human Rights, Anomalies, Excerpts from Criminal and Labor Law. International Journal of Pedagogy, Innovation and New Technologies, (6 (2), pp.90-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.6846

Karakilic, N.Y., 2019. The relationship between gender discrimination perception and mobbing from the perspective of the European Union and Turkey. Research Journal of Business and Management, 6(4), pp.213-231. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/rjbm/issue/51249/667039

Marchesan, L., 2018. Women's rights and corporate social responsibility: a case of gender-based violence. http://dspace.unive.it/handle/10579/13863

Monios, J., 2022. The Moral Limits of Market-Based Mechanisms: An Application to the International Maritime Sector. Journal of Business Ethics, pp.1-17.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-022-05256-1

Onwuachi-Willig, A., 2020. Harassment Because of Sex: Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 US 57 (1986) Judgment. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2019.1602074

Phipps, K.A., 2019. The limitations of accommodation: the changing legal context of religion at work in the United States. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 16(4), pp.339-347.

Pinto, M., 2022. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, disponível https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/icescr/icescr.html

Renz, F. and Cooper, D., 2022. Reimagining gender through equality law: What legal thoughtways do religion and disability offer?. Feminist Legal Studies, 30(2), pp.129-155. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10691-021-09481-3

Spencer, K.G., Berg, D.R., Bradford, N.J., Vencill, J.A., Tellawi, G. and Rider, G., 2021. The gender-affirmative life span approach: A developmental model for clinical work with transgender and gender-diverse children, adolescents, and adults. Psychotherapy, 58(1), p.37. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-35621-001

Tastsoglou, E., Falconer, C., Sisic, M., Dawson, M. and Wilkinson, L., 2022. The Gender of Canadian Legal and Policy Gender-Based Violence and Immigration Frameworks. In Gender-Based Violence in Migration: Interdisciplinary, Feminist and Intersectional Approaches (pp. 85-111). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-07929-0_4

UN Women. 2016. Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2016/12/cedaw-for-youth#:~:text=The%20Convention%20on%20the%20Elimination,women's%20and%20girls'%20equal%20rights.

Xenidis, R., 2020. Tuning EU equality law to algorithmic discrimination: Three pathways to resilience. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 27(6), pp.736-758. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1023263X20982173

Zanghellini, A., 2020. Philosophical problems with the gender-critical feminist argument against trans inclusion. Sage open, 10(2), p.2158244020927029. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244020927029

You May Also Like:

 Human Rights Essay Writing Service

How to Write the Insurance Law Research Essay?