US Stands Alone at UN over Gender Definition Debate

In early March, the United States found itself isolated at the United Nations when a European-led initiative prevented a vote aimed at defining gender in biological terms during a key discussion on women’s rights.

During the UN Commission on the Status of Women’s discussions, the U.S. was the sole nation to oppose the commission’s annual “agreed conclusions.” The U.S. expressed apprehensions that the language diverged from the biological definitions of women and girls. Interestingly, not a single member state backed the U.S. position.

The crux of the matter revolves around how the UN interprets “gender.” Officials from the EU contend that the existing UN framework, established by the 1995 Beijing Declaration, lacks a definitive description, instead relying on evolving interpretations linked to broader gender identity concepts.

In contrast, the U.S. put forward a resolution called “Protecting Women and Girls with Appropriate Terminology,” which aims to more clearly define gender within UN policy.

This draft proposed that “gender” should be understood “as referring to men and women in accordance with normal and generally accepted usage.”

However, this proposal didn’t proceed to a vote. Belgium, representing the European Union, introduced a “no action motion,” effectively blocking debate and halting any consideration of the U.S. resolution.

This procedural move proved successful, preventing the U.S. resolution from being discussed.

The implications of this disagreement are significant, as UN language sets global guidelines related to development finance, humanitarian efforts, education policy, and anti-discrimination measures.

Bethany Kozma, director of international affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, remarked that the maneuver reflects a wider trend to suppress discussions at the UN.

“While our concerns were overlooked, the U.S. will not remain passive while harmful ideologies use multilateral platforms to undermine national sovereignty,” Kozma asserted. “We will persist in protecting women and girls from harmful gender ideologies and uphold biological truths.”

She continued, suggesting that the decision to block the vote was politically motivated.

“The EU obstructed our attempt to define gender as male and female due to worries that we might succeed where they would not,” she stated. “Even when standing alone, as we did last week, we will never waver in our commitment to safeguard women and girls from radical gender ideologies.”

Officials from the State Department noted that this event was part of a larger collaborative strategy spearheaded by European nations.

According to one official, “These are procedural tactics that smaller delegations may not be prepared for,” signifying the complexity of such voting processes.

They emphasized that the opposition’s strategy allowed them to block the vote, despite a belief that U.S. support was increasing—though these assertions could not be independently verified.

The EU pushed back against U.S. criticism, deeming the proposal to be flawed and hastily constructed.

“The draft resolution by the United States is factually incorrect,” stated Belgian Foreign Ministry spokesman David Joordens, claiming it “misquotes and contradicts” the understandings of the 1995 Beijing Declaration.

Joordens added, “While the EU respects the right of member states to propose initiatives, member states should not be pressured into making rapid decisions on such an important topic arising from one state’s unilateral efforts without adequate consultation.” He reiterated that the term “gender” lacks a universally agreed definition, highlighting the need for inclusive dialogue moving forward.