What are the Yogyakarta Principles?
The Yogyakarta Principles (often called “YP”) are a set of 38 principles plus 111 extra state obligations created in 2006 and updated in 2017. They claim to show how existing international human rights law should apply to sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics.
They are not a United Nations treaty. They are not law. They were written by a small group of 29 (later 33) independent experts, academics and activists at a private meeting in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Who created them and what was their purpose?
The original 2006 document was organised by two NGOs – the International Commission of Jurists and the International Service for Human Rights. The main author was Irish human rights lawyer Professor Michael O’Flaherty.
Their stated purpose was to provide a “universal guide” for governments on how to protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The 2017 update (YP+10) expanded the scope and added much stronger demands, especially around self-identification and medical transition.
Key ideas
The Principles say:
- A person’s “gender identity” (how they feel inside) should replace biological sex in almost every area of life.
- Governments must allow people to change their legal sex on birth certificates, passports and official documents by self-declaration alone – no surgery, hormones or medical diagnosis required (Principle 31).
- Toilets, change rooms, shelters, prisons and sports must be based on gender identity, not biological sex.
- “Gender-affirming” medical care (hormones and surgery) should be treated as a human right with very little gatekeeping.
- Any rule that separates people by biological sex can be seen as discrimination against those who identify as the opposite sex.
In short, the Yogyakarta Principles treat biological sex as irrelevant wherever someone asserts a different gender identity.
They are not binding international law
The Yogyakarta Principles have never been adopted by the UN General Assembly or the UN Human Rights Council as a whole. They are simply an opinion written by a small group of experts. Many countries have rejected them. They cannot override real, binding UN treaties.
The big conflict with CEDAW
Australia ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1983. CEDAW is a binding international treaty that Australia must follow.
CEDAW protects women as a distinct sex class – that is, adult human females – and recognises that women and girls need single-sex spaces, services and sports for safety, privacy, fairness and dignity.
Here is how the Yogyakarta Principles directly clash with CEDAW:
| Issue | CEDAW (Binding on Australia) | Yogyakarta Principles Demand | Resulting Conflict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition of “woman” | Biological sex – adult human female | Anyone who identifies as a woman | Erases the protected category of women |
| Single-sex toilets & change rooms | Allows and protects women-only facilities for safety and privacy | Must be open based on gender identity | Removes women’s privacy and safety protections |
| Women’s sports | Sex-based categories for fairness | Must allow participation based on gender identity | Undermines fair sport for biological females |
| Prisons & shelters | Sex-based placement for safety | Placement based on gender identity | Puts women at risk in female-only spaces |
| Medical transition for children | Protects children from harmful practices | Treats gender-affirming care as a human right with minimal limits | Conflicts with child safeguarding |
Specific critiques from UN experts:
CEDAW Committee itself has never adopted the YP as official interpretation. Some of its concluding observations mention SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity), but always within the framework of sex-based discrimination against women — not replacing sex with gender identity.
Reem Alsalem (current UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, 2023 statement): Explicitly warned that the Yogyakarta Principles “do not create binding obligations on States” and are being misused to push “unrestricted self-identification processes” that harm women’s rights. She noted that at least one original signatory has since withdrawn support because the impact on women was insufficiently considered.
Broader Conflicts in International Law
- Treaty hierarchy: Binding treaties (CEDAW, ICCPR, CRC) take precedence over non-binding expert declarations. The YP cannot legally override CEDAW.
- State sovereignty: Many states argue the YP attempt to create new obligations that were never agreed to by governments.
- Women’s rights vs. gender identity: The YP framework treats any sex-based distinction as potential discrimination on grounds of gender identity. This directly undermines the entire architecture of women’s rights built on biological sex (pregnancy, breastfeeding, female-only shelters, sports, prisons, data collection, etc.).
- Feminist critics (including women’s human rights organisations) argue the YP effectively disappear the category of “woman” as a sex class and label sex-realist feminism as “prejudicial”.
Why this matters for Tasmanian women and girls
Women Speak Tasmania exists to protect the safety, fairness and dignity of women and girls. The Yogyakarta Principles push exactly the opposite approach: they demand that biological sex be replaced by self-identified gender in law and policy.
This is why we see:
- All-gender toilets and change rooms at the new Northern Community Hub
- Males competing in women’s sports and pageants
- Pressure for self-ID on birth certificates
- Gender ideology in schools
These policies do not come from binding UN law. They come from the Yogyakarta Principles – a non-binding document that contradicts Australia’s obligations under CEDAW.
Conclusion
The Yogyakarta Principles are an activist reinterpretation of human rights law. They are not binding on Australia. They directly conflict with CEDAW, the actual treaty Australia signed to protect women as a sex class.
Tasmanian women and girls deserve policies based on biological reality and CEDAW, not on a private declaration that erases sex-based rights.
If you care about women’s safety, privacy and fairness, please share this article and support our work to keep sex-based protections in Tasmanian law and public spaces.
References:
The Yogyakarta Principles plus 10 (YP plus 10) – Yogyakarta Principles
United Nations. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women –https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-elimination-all-forms-discrimination-against-women