confusing terms

[GCmiddle]

I have been asked to contribute ideas on an academic project on "gender-based violence and harmful practices (against people of all genders) across the globe". In my experience, the term gender-based violence refers to male violence against women. So, if you are looking at violence against people of all genders, then it is no longer gender-based violence, just violence. Yet the examples the academics give are clearly violent acts against women eg foot binding, honour based killing, breast ironing. The muddled thinking evidenced here has put me off trying to help them...

I agree, OP. My response would be to point this out, as clearly as you have here. They obviously mean sex-based but are scared to say it.

Becomes rather meaningless when you don't reference sex.
As you say, it's 'just' violence otherwise when you remove the frame of reference.
Can you say something?

You don’t have to get embroiled in wokey cokey gender wars - just claim the pedantic high ground and complain for purely academic (and valid and important ) reasons, that they mean sex, not gender, and the title should reflect that. You could point out how incorrectly using gender muddies the water.

Could you ask for clarification of terms used? Ask if they are using gender as sex or do they mean something else?

I would push them on what definitions they are using and claim you don't want to waste their and your time by assuming wrongly what they are asking you.

My contribution would be to state that an academic journal has the responsibility to use plain English and intelligible terms, otherwise they are contributing towards the problem.

They may want to use the term 'gender based violence' as 'sex based violence' might be misinterpreted as sexual violence. And using 'gender' to describe a behaviour typically exhibited by or acting upon one sex may be be correct technical usage. However, the actual sex of the victims and perpetrators in the various examples should be clear.

There are various discussions of this sort of thing. The first one relates mostly to scientific/medical research, by someone at the Office of Research on Women’s Health, National Institutes of Health.

jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2577142

And a short question and answer.

www.editage.com/insights/should-i-use-the-word-sex-or-gender-in-my-scientific-research-paper

Nope, using "gender" to describe a behaviour typical to (or typically used against) one sex is completely misleading in a world where "gender" is now used by most organisations etc to mean what you "identify" as.

A transwoman sexually assaulting a transman would fit a typical pattern of crimes based on their sex, but would be against normal patterns for their gender, for example.

Also, because "gender" is meant to be identifiable only by the individual (it's not meant to be judged from how they look, dress etc, only how they "identify"), that would mean we can only be sure it is "gender-based" violence if the perpetrator knew beforehand how the victim identified (if the attack was based purely on the person's visible sex, that proves it is NOT gender-based but sex-based surely, as the perp didn't care how they identify?), and if there is reason to believe that it would not have happened if they knew the victim identified differently to what they assumed. Do we have any evidence of people being asked how they identify before having violence perpetrated on them? In addition, it ought to imply that the same violence is also (or might be) committed against people of the other sex if they identified as that gender.

For example, has anyone ever avoided foot-binding or breast ironing by saying they feel like a boy actually, thanks very much? (On the contrary I read about at least one very sad case where a transman was raped by a man despite protesting repeatedly to the attacker that they were not a woman...). Similarly, has anyone EVER ironed the breasts or bound the feet of a transwoman?

If the answer to these questions is no, it's very clear that this is SEX-based violence, not gender (at least not in the current most-used sense of the term).