by Gergana Tzvetkova*
Due to extensive, well-orchestrated, and deceptive campaigns aimed at blocking anti-discrimination legislation and impeding laws and policies promoting gender equality and women’s rights, the term “gender” and the concept behind it – that of socially constructed roles, behaviors, and attitudes – have been largely negated and discredited by certain groups in many countries. In Poland and Hungary, “gender” has been directly juxtaposed against “the family,” while in Bulgaria, it is increasingly used by far-right and anti-LGBTI+ groups as a pejorative noun to describe persons belonging to the LGBTI+ community, feminists, or those advocating human rights and gender justice.
These campaigns’ success is often attributed to the steady rise of a global anti-gender movement. Departing from purely religious arguments and justifications, it now confidently positions itself as a social current, leveraging citizens’ deep-seated anxieties and fears – the well-being of their children, the intactness of their family, the defence of national identity and state sovereignty. Anti-gender groups are also increasingly aligning themselves with some populist parties and movements (and vice versa). Thus, their positions and ideas are frequently heard on prominent platforms – national parliaments, meetings of international organisations, and speeches delivered by prime ministers.
The anti-gender movement has been described as “a transnational coalition of conservative activists and organizations working to counter and undermine political and social gains made by local and international feminist and SOGIE (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Expression) rights advocacy” (McEwen and Narayanaswamy, 2023, p. 3). It “has primarily focused on rolling back policy and norms, eroding global and national feminist and queer social movements, and preventing further advocacy for gender equality, reproductive rights and LGBTIQ+ rights” (McEwen and Narayanaswamy, 2023, p. 7).
Proponents of similar views rarely identify as “anti-gender”; instead, they frequently frame themselves as pro-life and pro-family. These organisations, groups, and individuals call for preserving traditional values, the (Christian) family, and national identity, which they see as threatened by feminism or, more commonly, by attempts to curb domestic violence and gender-based violence and protect the rights of women and children. Thus, they oppose what they term “gender ideology”, deemed particularly dangerous when supposedly introduced into educational programmes that include topics such as gender equality and sexual health.
The body of research to support such observations is expanding. After an in-depth exploration of various cases, Corredor concludes that “antigender campaigns are flourishing across geopolitical regions, and the deployment of gender ideology propaganda is an effective counterstrategy for mobilizing mass support against feminist and LGBTQ policies (2019, p. 629). Kováts and Põim (2015, p. 11) argue that anti-gender movements brand gender equality as an “ideology” and “introduce the misleading terms “gender ideology” or “gender theory” which distort the achievements of gender equality”. They vehemently oppose advocacy on LGBTI rights, sexual and reproductive rights, and sexual and equality education, which negatively impacts legislation on gender equality (Kováts and Põim, 2015, p. 11).
Next, we should look at the successes that the anti-gender movement has had in the last decade. In Bulgaria, anti-gender rhetoric was employed by various actors (political parties, conservative NGOs, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, intellectuals, etc.) in a persistent campaign that blocked the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention). Manipulative messages claimed that adopting the Convention meant advancing “gender ideology,” including in schools through sexual education, introducing a “third sex/third gender,” and legalising same-sex marriage. As a consequence, Bulgaria still lacks a solid legislative and policy framework to counter violence against women and domestic violence.
The ratification of the Istanbul Convention faces significant opposition in the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovakia as well, largely driven by these countries’ Catholic churches (Mead and Park, 2023). The formative influence of the Catholic church on the anti-gender movement should be underlined – as Corredor acknowledges, more than 20 years ago the term “gender ideology” was used by the Vatican (2019, p. 615). In Poland, the anti-gender movement’s advance has led to serious restrictions of sexual and reproductive rights, resulting in one of the most stringent anti-abortion laws in Europe. A devoted opponent of reproductive justice, women’s and LGBTIQ+ rights, and anti-discrimination laws in Poland has been the ultra-conservative Ordo Iuris Institute – identified as a part of the global anti-gender movement, which includes “religious fundamentalists (Catholic, Protestant, evangelical or Orthodox); secular NGOs (including La Manif Pour Tous in France, Demo für Alle in Germany and Ordo Iuris in Poland); and organisations with transnational reach” such as the World Congress of Families (US), the Tradition, Family and Property organisation (with roots in Brazil) and CitizenGo, active in Europe and Africa and based in Spain (Korolczuk, 2022).
Indeed, the influence of the anti-gender movement outside the EU is just as strong, or even stronger. Armenia is another country where the Istanbul Convention remains unratified (despite being signed in 2018), which was largely attributed to the campaigns against progressives and civil society carried out by “right-wing, homophobic, religious and regressive groups” using anti-gender rhetoric (Khalatyan et al., 2020, p. 6). In Turkey, arguments from the anti-gender movement playbook have been utilised to justify the country’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention in 2021. AKP, Turkey’s long-time ruling party, has embraced anti-genderism, influenced by anti-gender groups spearheading the campaign against the document “with slogans such as “stop the Istanbul Convention,” “Istanbul Convention kills”, and “family above everything” (Unal, 2023). Furthermore, in fact, it has been found that many organisations and groups at the transnational anti-gender movement’s forefront were founded in countries from the Global North, but are very active in the Global South (McEwen and Narayanaswamy, 2023, p. 4).
The narratives and messages of anti-gender actors have been widely adopted by populist and/or far-right parties and formations around the world. At the heart of what they call “opportunistic synergy” (observed in multiple countries), Graff and Korolzcuk find the alliance of populist right-wing parties with ultraconservative religious actors and the usage by the first of anti-gender rhetoric to depict themselves of as the protectors of ordinary people against malevolent elites (2022, p. 7). Recently, an investigation revealed that anti-gender actors in Europe sought to provide advice to political figures on how to oppose the ratification of the Istanbul Convention and cheered when campaigns in this direction succeeded in Latvia and Bulgaria (Norris, 2024). Another recent report extensively explores how the fight against gender ideology “as an empty signifier has been employed and utilised by right-wing nationalist, populist and anti-democratic governments, illiberal political parties, conservative think tanks, and other anti-gender actors in and from Russia, Poland, Kazakhstan, Hungary, Turkey, and many more countries.” (Seitenova, Kobel, Bernarding, 2024, p. 1)
Certainly, conservatism and populism have been around for a long time and the rights to expression and to opinion are fundamental. But how can we effectively challenge deceptive or false narratives spread by the anti-gender movement?
Firstly, civil society’s efforts aimed at combatting antiquated and harmful gender stereotypes, preventing gender-based violence and domestic violence, and protecting victims should be vigorously supported by governments and/or regional and international organisations. With respect to countries governed by authoritarian regimes, concerted efforts are needed to empower and amplify the voices of those individuals and organisations who expose violations. Secondly, human rights activists, politicians, and journalists who champion gender equality, justice, and women’s rights deserve particularly strong protection; it must be ensured that they are not silenced, abused, or attacked for their views. Thirdly, scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and media should collaborate to formulate and disseminate positive and clear messages to endorse women’s rights, gender equality, and gender justice and to stress the need to eliminate gender-based violence, in ways that connect to citizens’ emotions, conscience, and real-life experiences. One of the key messages must be that domestic violence is not a private matter, but a public health issue and a violation of women’s rights. Thus, combatting domestic violence does not mean undermining the family structure or infringing upon the individuals’ right to privacy. Last but not least, governments should ratify international documents aimed at tackling gender-based violence and violence against women or fulfil the existing obligations (the Istanbul Convention, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the European Convention on Human Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Maputo Protocol, the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women, to name just a few).
The snowballing growth of the anti-gender movement and the increasing propagation of its ideas through populist slogans, narratives, and policies can continue to have grave implications for efforts seeking to promote gender rights, women’s rights and the rights of vulnerable groups. Ultimately, it can also contribute to the erosion of democratic principles through the silencing of civil society and human rights advocates.
Funding
The research for this opinion peace has been carried out within the framework of the project Stereotyping, Disinformation, and Politicisation: links between attacks against the Istanbul Convention and increased online gender-based violence (RESIST), which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 945361. This paper reflects only the author’s view and that the Agency and the Commission are not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.
*Gergana Tzvetkova, PhD, MSCA-COFUND/Global@Venice Research Fellow
