US Struggles at UN Over Gender Definition
In early March, the United States found itself isolated at the United Nations after a European-led initiative blocked a critical vote aimed at defining gender in biological terms within the context of women’s rights.
During the UN Commission on the Status of Women’s discussions, the US stood alone, opposing the commission’s annual “agreed conclusions.” The primary concern involved language diverging from the biological understanding of women and girls, and notably, no other member states sided with the US in the vote.
The heart of the dispute lies in how the UN interprets “gender.” Officials from the European Union argue that the existing framework, which is tied to the 1995 Beijing Declaration, refrains from offering a fixed definition, preferring instead a more fluid approach aligned with evolving gender identity concepts.
The US formally proposed a resolution titled “Protecting Women and Girls with Appropriate Terminology,” seeking to establish a clearer definition of gender across UN policies.
However, this proposal didn’t make it to a vote. Belgium, representing the EU, introduced a “motion without action,” a procedural maneuver effectively shutting down debate and halting the US resolution before it could be considered.
This clash is more than just a procedural issue; it holds significant implications. The UN’s language contributes to global standards that influence development finance, humanitarian aid, educational policies, and frameworks against discrimination.
Bethany Kozma, a director at the Department of Health and Human Services, stated that this incident reflects a wider strategy aimed at stifling discussion at the UN. She expressed that, despite disregarding the US’s concerns, the government wouldn’t passively accept the exploitation of multilateral institutions for ideological aims.
Kozma remarked, “While our red lines were ignored, we will always stand firm in protecting women and girls from radical ideologies.” She noted that the decision to block the vote seemed to be a political strategy, suggesting that the EU feared a potential loss in the vote.
State Department officials indicated that this was part of a collaborative effort among European countries. They mentioned that smaller delegations might lack the experience needed for navigating complex procedural voting, which allowed the opposition to effectively block the US proposal.
The EU countered US accusations, labeling the proposal flawed and hastily crafted. A spokesman for the Belgian Foreign Ministry criticized it for being “factually incorrect” and for contradicting previously agreed-upon language in the Beijing Declaration.
Further, the EU emphasized that members shouldn’t be rushed into decisions based solely on one state’s unilateral initiatives without prior negotiation. They highlighted that the term “gender” lacks a universally accepted definition and should be approached with care and inclusiveness.
