The UN-appointed Independent Expert on on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity presented a report this week deeply steeped in the doctrine of gender identity. Here is an excerpt from the press release (my comments in bold):
“Gender theory is a powerful tool to address the oppression of female or non-normative identities,” the report says. “Feminist struggle and the fight to live free from violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity are deeply intertwined, and they reinforce each other.”
[This gobbledygook is typical for the report. Throughout, the report conflates the feminist analysis of gender as a tool for women's oppression on the basis of their sex and the doctrine of gender identity as "gender theory". It is at times impossible to parse which meaning of "gender theory" is being referred to. It also uses gender to mean the sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes imposed on us by society as well as sex and gender identity throughout the report, in a way that makes it difficult to understand what exactly is being referred to.]
By grounding his report in international human rights law, Madrigal-Borloz hopes that his report will dispute certain current popular arguments that he said “are plagued with misconceptions, stigma and prejudice.” The report was based on submissions by more than 500 individuals and groups with a wide variety of opinions.
[The report dismisses feminist objections to the doctrine of gender identity and its political implications for the rights of women and girls as unfounded, anecdotal, discriminatory and prejudiced. Despite the claim above, there is no actual engagement with our arguments and no real analysis. The report also emphatically rejects the argument that there is any evidence that women's and girls' sports are under threat if males are included. The report concludes its sparse acknowledgment of feminist objections to the doctrine of gender identity and its political implications for the rights of women and girls by demanding that state actors assess all measures taken for women through an intersectional lens that considers the needs of male transgender people as integral to the measures. Again the report refers to inclusion in sport.]
[The report also misrepresents CEDAW, which refers to sex and pretends throughout that sex no longer exists as a concept in law. It also ignores completely the 2017 judgement of the European Court of Human Rights which explained at length why states have a right to insist on safeguards and safekeeping before allowing a change of legal sex.]
For a tiny percentage of the world’s population, he said, gender norms result in privilege, but “for most of humankind – particularly women and people whose gender identity and/or expression do not fit squarely within the male/female binary – they will lead to discrimination and violence.”
[Although the feminist analysis of gender posits that males both as a group and as individuals are also harmed by stereotypes, it rightly recognises that such harm does not lessen the much more damaging use of gender as a tool for the oppression of females in a male-dominated world. By this framing of the issue, male domination on the basis of sex disappears.]
Madrigal-Borloz called on States to adopt a gender-based analysis to address the root causes of violence and discrimination against persons because of their gender, gender identity and/or gender expression and sexual orientation. He also called for a world accepting gender diversity based on self-determination.
[Doubling down on erasing sex as the basis of women's oppression and ignoring that male violence against women and girls happens on the basis of their sex.]
[The report also claims that the Yogyakarta Principles were adopted on the basis of a standard interdisciplinary identification methodology that considered all relevant international and national laws. We know, however, from a lengthy interview with one of the authors of the Yogyakarta Principles that women's rights were not considered at all in the drafting process.]
“States must do more to provide legal recognition of gender identity consistent with the rights to freedom from discrimination, equal protection of the law, privacy, identity and freedom of expression,” he said. “This means, among other things, that the administrative process must be simple, based on the applicant’s choice, and must not require intrusive or abusive measures such as surgery or hormone treatment. The gender identity of minors must also be respected under the law.”
[The requirement for a medical diagnosis or divorce are also included under abusive measures. Whether the latter includes provisions such as the UK's spousal exit clause is not clear from the report.]
Governments have a fundamental duty to prevent, prosecute and punish violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, the report says, “and to recognise every human being’s freedom to determine the confines of their existence, including gender identity and expression.”
[Sex as the basis of women's oppression is frequently ignored in this report, even though it purports to be about protecting women. We are referred to as "female and non-normative genders" in the expert's speech.]
[In its demands, the report also does not distinguish between countries where male and female transgender people have equal rights just like all other people and countries where they have none at all. A differentiated approach would have been much more useful.]
In many countries of the world, June has been designated the month of pride, “meant to signify the ability of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and gender diverse persons to occupy public space in full freedom and equality, and the recognition of the value of their contribution to the social fabric,” he said.
[Despite a heavy emphasis on women being one of the groups to be protected, we are dropped from the narrative as and when it seems expedient. Just as here.]
To make these a reality, “States must uphold rights related to gender and sexuality as universal and inalienable, and ensure recognition of the right to bodily and mental integrity, autonomy and self-determination of everyone,” said Madrigal-Borloz.
[This includes a demand for recognition of sexual rights for everyone. The report does not distinguish between children and adults and the special protections children are placed under by UN law, especially in regard to sexual exploitation and abuse.]
------
The press release is here: www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=27215&LangID=E
The report can be downloaded on this page: www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/SexualOrientationGender/Pages/ReportGenderTheory.aspx
It seems to only be available as a Word document.
Finally, for a report that purports to be about "gender theory" and has been lauded as providing empirical evidence that so-called "gender critical" views have no basis in fact, it is disappointingly light on actual theory.
And of course, it does no such thing. It's a policy document that provides neither empirical evidence supporting the doctrine of gender identity nor empirical evidence refuting the belief that sex is real and matters. There is no empirical evidence of that kind presented in the report itself, neither in the text itself nor its references. If there is supporting material connected to this report that provides such evidence, I haven't found it.
P.S. The repeated reference to cis lesbians throughout the report annoyed me immensely. The sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes associated with the female sex frame heterosexuality as the norm. This is one of the, if not the most important expectation society places on women and girls. That we love and desire men. A woman-loving-woman cannot therefore be cis by definition.