'Gender apartheid' - risks and benefits

[ArabellaScott]

Recent calls for 'gender apartheid' to be made a crime against humanity.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/gender-apartheid-must-be-recognised-crime-against-humanity-un-experts-say

“State laws, policies and practices that relegate women to conditions of extreme inequality and oppression, with the intent of effectively extinguishing their human rights, reflect the very core of apartheid systems,” the experts said.

'existing forms of gender-specific crimes, including gender persecution, while useful and relevant, do not fully capture the institutionalised and widespread nature of the deprivation of rights involved in systems of gender apartheid. “Only the apartheid framework can fully grasp the role of intent, ideology and institutionalisation in gender apartheid regimes as seen in Afghanistan,” they said.'

The idea is that this would make it easier to criticise Afghanistan.

Are there any potential downsides? Will it actually help the situation?

I can't for the life of me see how this isn't just hyperbole. 'Emotional pull of the situation of women in Afghanistan' It's a bit more than that I would have thought.
It has nothing to do with single sex spaces etc. How do you see it being employed increase women's oppression.

I don't think its at all deliberate. I am sure the UN and these organisations want to help women and girls in Afghanistan. But it's an example of the way that ideology - gender ideology in particular but also the "cut and paste" approach to taking one situation and applying it to another not just as analogy and for emotional resonance but literally and legally - can turn good intentions into a worse situation for women.

can turn good intentions into a worse situation for women.

Could you explain how?

Do you mind if I answer you with a couple of questions?

Are the women and girls of Afghanistan and Iran oppressed and brutalised because they have a feminine gender identity, or because they are female?

Would you describe the worldwide problem of male violence against women as sex-based violence or gender-based violence?

Is misogyny the hatred and fear of women, or of anyone with a feminine gender identity or sex characteristics?

I wish I didn't, but I think it is deliberate.

IMO they've used the 'gender' word because it's part of the water in which they swim: they literally don't see it.

It's harmful.

It makes the predicament of Afghan women seem less horrifying because gender is a matter of choice and sex is not.

It promulgates the idea of gender as a real thing.

It annoys the hell out of me (a key consideration😉) because it implies that transwomen can suffer from misogyny. No. They can suffer from misandry, or transphobia, or perceptive misogyny, or from living in a society that enforces strict sex norms. But misogyny? No.

As lots of others have said, meaningless and pointless unless they make it about sex. Gender is irrelevant.

@theilltemperedclavecinist

That's not how international law works. The law will be applied to cases where there is an institutionalised system of discrimination, oppression and domination as well as inhumane acts

They'll see gender as biological women and those who identify as women. If the law comes into effect, Afghanistan will be condemned as committing acts of Gender Apartheid and crimes against humanity.

Debates about gender ideology won't be taken into consideration because they're irrelevant. I also agree that the law can apply to other countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia and it's about time the international community made a stand.

As Gender Apartheid, that would be:

The United Nations defines Gender apartheid as a crime against humanity that involves the systematic oppression of women and girls and the use of inhumane acts to establish and maintain domination by men over women and girls.

If it was about gender any woman or girl who didn't want to be oppressed could just self-define as a transman and all would fine and dandy. It is about sex.

And apartheid is a very weasely and dishonest word to use for this, on a planet where lack of single-sex provision of toilets and hospitals and other spaces is a facilitator of a lot of inhumane and violent acts and domination.

The groups of men who stage mass abductions of schoolgirls are not going to liberate them from their single-sex spaces..

You have used the word sex, the UN has used the word gender.

Sex and gender have been used interchangeably in the past but it would be foolish to trust that the UN are referring specifically to humans of the female sex when they use the word gender in relation to women and girls.

I see. So you think that the UN are not aware of the difference and the law could apply to anyone? Even though they have reported on this situation and are perfectly aware it's the oppression of women and girls. Everyone will be hoodwinked by the word 'gender' and it will render the law meaningless.

Sex and gender have only been used interchangeably (in serious conversation, as opposed to arch or mildly smutty wordplay) in the last couple of decades - my best guess is 2003 - and I am increasingly convinced that doing so was part of a long-term mission to eradicate first sex, then women and girls.

I see. So you think that the UN are not aware of the difference and the law could apply to anyone? Even though they have reported on this situation and are perfectly aware it's the oppression of women and girls. Everyone will be hoodwinked by the word 'gender' and it will render the law meaningless.

Rendering the law meaningless will be the first benefit, but the UN have been doing the pharma and porn industries' work most diligently for some years.

Yes, I do believe that's possible.

See the post further up the thread which references Amnesty's take on the persecution of women and girls in Afghanistan.

Why would the UN try to bring in a meaningless law?

I suppose, when you think about it, anything is possible. That specialists in human rights haven't got a clue what a woman is and simply wouldn't be able to apply a law, because they can't work it out.

You're right in practice, because transwomen are rare, but that doesn't mean that choosing the wrong word can't cause harm. It can undermine the message, or cause confusion, or perpetuate a bad idea.

As a thought experiment, imagine that half of all Afghan men have declared a female gender identity and forced their wives to declare a male gender identity, but nothing else changes. Et voilà, Gender Apartheid solved.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/office-prosecutor-launches-public-principles-advance-understanding-crime-gender-persecution

'The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Mr Karim A.A. Khan KC, is pleased to announce a new initiative to advance accountability for the crime against humanity of persecution on the grounds of gender. This initiative will culminate in a comprehensive set of principles on gender persecution to provide guidance for increasing its prevention, and ensuring protection and participation of its survivors.
Complementing and building on the 2022 Policy on the Crime of Gender Persecution, this new initiative will help to further promote accountability, transparency and predictability in the work of the Office in this crucial area and serve as broader guidance internationally. The principles will be developed on the basis of international criminal law and human rights law, drawing from applicable treaties and general principles and rules of international law. It will also draw on the jurisprudence of the Court and other relevant human rights and accountability mechanisms.

'In this first round of external consultations, the Office welcomes and encourages comments on the substance of the initiative early in the drafting process and prior to the first draft being produced and circulated for further input. The Prosecutor is of the view that external consultations on its policies and working methods are important for maintaining and furthering transparency and predictability, and generating the most comprehensive principles and policies. Comments will therefore be sought during the drafting process: first before the draft has been formulated, and a second round to solicit more specific and focused feedback.

Comments can be sent to [email protected] by Friday, 22 November 2024, midnight, CET. All input received by the deadline will be carefully considered in the internal review and revision process.'

The law will be applied to cases where there is an institutionalised system of discrimination, oppression and domination as well as inhumane acts

But not only to those countries and not only to genuinely inhumane acts. There's perceived inhumanity as well. Australia for example.

They'll see gender as biological women and those who identify as women.

And that nails the problem - the second bit. Some of "those who identify as women" - mainly the ones who are not women - have so far proved to be very effective at promoting their cause at the expense of women and girls.

(edited to highlighted quotes)

There's already an internal crime against humanity of 'gender persecution'. Leaving aside the 'gender' issue, why is there now a push to change this to 'apartheid'?

Why would the UN try to bring in a meaningless law?

In an attempt to bamboozle women and those concerned for women in, for example, Afghanistan or India or Iran, while not doing anything to antagonise the hugely wealthy and power-hungry pharmaceutical and porn industries. Or men.

https://www.ejiltalk.org/gender-persecution-and-gender-apartheid-in-afghanistan-seeking-the-appropriate-legal-basis-for-international-accountability/

'The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Ljubljana Convention on the investigation and prosecution of international crimes both include gender-based offences, particularly within the definition of crimes against humanity (CAH). Notably, CAH includes the offence of gender persecution (GP), which is defined as the severe deprivation of women’s fundamental rights based on their gender.
Hence, the severe deprivation of women’s fundamental rights can serve as a legal basis for pursuing the individual criminal responsibility of Taliban members who commit this crime, whether through direct or indirect involvement. Additionally, any State that aids the Taliban’s de facto regime in perpetrating gender persecution may be held internationally accountable for failing in its obligations to prevent CAHs as outlined in the Ljubljana Convention – provided that this State ratifies the new convention
However, part of the public discourse surrounding the plight of women in Afghanistan does not centre around the concept of GP, but instead focuses on a relatively new expression: “gender apartheid” (GA). The concept of GA was popularised by Dr. Karima Bennoune within the context of Afghanistan, and it has since been adopted by numerous governmental and non-governmental organisations.
As of today, GA lacks a legal basis. While the Rome Statute and the Ljubljana Convention both address the CAH of apartheid, their definitions do not currently incorporate gender. However, despite this notable limitation, Dr. Karima Bennoune and other scholars advocate for efforts to be made towards the inclusion of GA within international conventions, aiming to pursue accountability for the actions of the Taliban. While I fully support the collective sentiment amongst part of scholarship regarding the need to unequivocally condemn and punish the Taliban de facto regime, I find myself questioning whether this call would be more efficient if grounded in relevant legal frameworks.'

But not only to those countries and not only to genuinely inhumane acts. There's perceived inhumanity as well. Australia for example.

It's not just about inhumanity. The law is in three parts which I described above. They have to apply for the law to take effect. You would have to prove that there was an institutionalised system of oppression such as the Taliban has created. Alongside the other aspects of the law.

And that nails the problem - the second bit. Some of "those who identify as women" - mainly the ones who are not women - have so far proved to be very effective at promoting their cause at the expense of women and girls.

This is turning into a rabbit hole. I could for example, say that people are committing genocide against me because I can't use men's toilets. I wouldn't be able to find a lawyer to take my case to court because the elements of genocide haven't taken place.

People are free to claim whatever they like, they have to prove their case in a court of law. If it was an individual claiming oppression, it would more likely be seen as persecution. Systemic oppression would include more than one person.

Even if a group of individuals came forward and claimed Gender Apartheid, they'd have to prove all the elements of the law were in place.

'the challenge lies in effectively implementing existing legal frameworks rather than in the creation of new ones.'

'Civil society’s involvement is key to exerting pressure on the ICC prosecutor and urging the court to prioritise addressing the dire situation in Afghanistan – recently ranked the saddest country in the world. A targeted campaign, grounded in the legal jurisdiction of the ICC, focusing on gender persecution regarding women’s plight could be effective. Advocating for the issuance of arrest warrants against key Taliban leaders would hit two birds with one stone, addressing this issue and potentially achieving two objectives simultaneously.
Firstly, it would constitute a significant stride towards accountability, marking the initial step to secure international recognition of the Taliban’s international crimes.
Secondly, it would preclude any possibility of diplomatic relations between State Parties to the Rome Statute and the Taliban’s de facto government – ensuring their non-recognition. If arrest warrants are issued, State Parties would be obligated to arrest the Taliban leaders and surrender them to The Hague if they were to enter their territory, as there are no immunities within international criminal law amongst State parties.'

Sorry for the unrelated image/link. I can't seem to delete it.