Chiara Capraro- Gender Justice Programme Director (Amnesty International UK)

What is the anti-gender movement? 

The UK has traditionally been a champion for gender equality in multilateral spaces. However, as the anti-gender movement spreads moral panic and influences policy, media and elections, the new UK government must reorient its actions to successfully strengthen multilateral consensus on human rights protections for women and LGBTI+ people. 

The anti-gender movement is an ecosystem of organisations (both religious and secular) and state actors that believe patriarchal norms are natural and immutable. It opposes those who question this framework to advance women’s right to bodily autonomy, human rights protections for LGBTI+ people and social justice more broadly. While the motivations of anti-gender actors are varied, they are united in fighting the enemy of ‘gender ideology’, namely an ‘attack on the nation and traditions, as well as an attack on the family, marriage, and religious freedom’.  

Anti-gender actors operate transnationally and can count on huge funding flows. For example, anti-gender actors from Russia, the US and Europe invested US$707.2 million between 2009–2018 to campaign to overthrow laws related to abortion and LGBTI+ rights. Alliance for Defending Freedom, a major anti-gender outfit that campaigned to overthrow Roe v. Wade, increased its spending in the UK from £390,000 in 2020 to £770,000 in 2022. In contrast, feminist and human rights organisations can count on much less money. The Global Philanthropy Project found that, in the period 2013–2017, LGBTI+ movements worldwide received $1.2 billion, while the anti-gender movement received $3.7 billion.

In the context of the United Nations (UN), concerns about ‘gender ideology’ – a concept developed by the Holy See– first arose in the 1990s. The 1990s and early 2000s saw progress for women’s rights with the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, and the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security. However, since then anti-gender groups have progressively gained influence and progress has stalled. 

Fighting the backlash or business as usual? 

While feminists have sounded the alarm about anti-gender actors at the UN for a long time, it was not until 2023 that the previous UK government explicitly recognised the threat posed, as part of the International Women and Girls Strategy. The strategy includes a commitment to use the UK’s role in the UN General Assembly, the Security Council, the Human Rights Council and other multilateral forums to ‘stand up for the rights of women and girls’. The strategy also explains that ‘systematic attempts by regressive actors to roll back on women’s and girls’ rights have gained momentum at the international, national and community level, and are amplified online’ While we certainly agree with this analysis, we want to interrogate this new interest of the UK to fight the anti-gender movement. Why now? Is it serious? Is it credible? In the context of the Commission of the Status of Women (CSW), the UK has routinely worked with ‘like-minded’ member states, such as the EU, Canada, Norway and Iceland, to advance – or at least protect – agreed language on gender equality, women’s rights, and sexual and reproductive health and rights. However, the UK has also refused to agree to and champion language on economic justice issues that require transferring resources from North to South, such as climate financing, debt relief or access to COVID vaccines.  

This behaviour contributes to entrenching a divide between the Global North and the Global South, which anti-gender actors are ready to exploit. One tactic used by anti-gender actors is to take a legitimate concern and twist it to advance their agenda. In this case, concerns about the ongoing legacy of colonialism and resource extraction from South to North is twisted to paint the protection and promotion of the human rights of women and LGBTI+ people as a Western imposition that must be resisted. There is irony in this, as most of the funding for anti-gender actors in Africa comes from the US.

The UK uses its advocacy for gender equality in multilateral spaces to paint itself as a champion for gender equality and human rights. At the same time, it ignores its role in creating and upholding structural economic and power inequalities that impact women, girls and gender minorities the most. According to Meghan Doherty, Director of Global Policy and Advocacy at Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights , as we face multiple connected crises ‘many states are looking for ways to justify the forceful defence of their national interests while maintaining the illusion of working for the shared global good’. These states use their commitment to gender equality and the pursuit of a feminist foreign policy as a way to show that ‘they are “the good guys”’ (ibid). However, the mask quickly slips once the game gets tough – as we have seen with the UK’s continued sale of arms to Saudi Arabia and Israel. The UK also has a credibility problem, considering the rise of domestic anti-trans narrative in politics and the media and attempts at rights stripping.  

Looking ahead  

As the UK continues its advocacy for gender equality in a silo, its commitment to fighting anti-gender actors is tested further.  

Having gained power in spaces dedicated to gender equality, anti-gender actors are expanding their reach and aiming to influence other multilateral processes dedicated to different issues. Ipas analysed 13 cases of anti-gender actors campaigning in unexpected places, including the Committee on World Food Security, the World Health Organization’s global strategy on infection prevention, and even UN internal policies and budgets. This approach is successful because all multilateral processes at least nod to gender equality and many states, like the UK, still see the ‘women and girls’ agenda as separate from broader structural issues.  

The new UK government must seize the opportunity to change direction and place its advocacy for gender equality within a wider framework of protection of human rights, international justice and accountability mechanisms. This will require an honest look at the damage of its policies and legislation and unequivocal and credible action to remedy harm caused. This reckoning is more urgent than ever, as CSW69 will be chaired by Saudi Arabia in March 2025. We will see then if the UK is putting its money where its mouth is.