CEDAW. Consequently, the dress codes for these personnel were amended in accordance with the Enforcement Act of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the resolutions made during the meeting, and trousers were introduced as a uniform option for policewomen and female firefighters. 54 e. Conclusion In summary, the dress codes of the Taiwanese airlines violated CEDAW and the Gender Equality in Employment Act, constituting gender discrimination. According to CEDAW, distinctions, exclusions, or restrictions made on the basis of gender are considered differential treatment regardless of whether they are intentional or employers have discriminatory intent. Discrimination can be direct or indirect (i.e., merely by being detrimental to women), and includes outcomes that are relatively disadvantageous to women or that reinforce gender stereotypes. All of these constitute gender discrimination. In both the domestic and international dress code cases, it is notable that sexualized or gender-specific uniform regulations often led to the exclusion of women and those with differing gender identities from the labor market or placed them at a disadvantage. In the case addressed here, the Taiwanese airlines’ differing dress codes for male and female cabin crew constitute differential treatment. Such differential treatment is not permissible under Article 4 of CEDAW, which only applies to temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women (affirmative action), and it adversely affects female cabin crew, constituting adverse differential treatment as specified in Articles 7 and 9 of the Gender Equality in Employment Act. No exceptions justifying such gender discrimination were presented by the airlines as a defense, confirming these acts as constituting gender discrimination. 2) 54 Health and safety risks associated with female cabin crew’s Minutes of the Executive Yuan’s 19th CEDAW Regulatory Review Task Force Meeting on July 17, 2014. 63