No, I don't believe it would be contrary to the agreement. Again, the choice of language was to be consistent with the language in the Customs Act, where the term “sex” is used, but interpreted in a manner that is intended to recognize and respect gender identity. We do recognize that the law is evolving in this area and language usage is evolving in this area, but the decision from a drafting perspective was to be consistent with existing language.
On June 14th, 2017. See this statement in context.