Washington Fails Once Again to Redefine ‘Gender’ at UN CSW 70 Gathering

By Damilola Banjo

March 19, 2026 – The United States again suffered a blunt blow as member states at the annual United Nations conference on women’s rights rejected Washington’s proposal to narrow the definition of “gender” to mean “men and women.”

The proposal was left on the table as the 45-member Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) ended its 70th session on March 19. The reaction in the windowless UN conference room, crammed with diplomats and civil society groups, erupted with whoops and clapping amid the US defeat.

Washington’s draft text seeking to redefine the word “gender” for use in UN documents immediately followed a vote by the CSW on a resolution on how HIV continues to disproportionately affect women and girls, especially in Eastern and Southern Africa.

The resolution, “Women, the girl child and HIV and AIDS” was presented by South Africa on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) as a technical update to an earlier CSW resolution on the topic. The resolution passed by an overwhelming majority of 43 yes votes. Only the US voted against it..

As to the US draft text, seen by PassBlue, it notes “the many meanings or connotations of the term ‘gender’ that have become common in recent years and that are different from accepted prior usage.” Additionally, it notes that the term was defined by the preparations for the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action of the CSW conference and in Annex IV of the report of the Fourth World Conference on Women to mean men and women.

The informal group set up by the CSW in 1995 concluded that the word “gender” is used and understood in its “ordinary, generally accepted usage” in numerous UN documents and that there is “no indication that any new meaning or connotation of the term, different from accepted prior usage, was intended in the Platform for Action.”

“Accordingly, the contact group reaffirmed that the word ‘gender’ as used in the Platform for Action was intended to be interpreted and understood as it was in ordinary, generally accepted usage,” the statement of the president of the conference said in Beijing 31 years ago.

Cristal Downing, the gender director at the International Crisis Group think tank, said member states at the time “agreed to disagree — they were more comfortable with leaving the term open to interpretation than they were with any attempt to create a shared definition.”

Downing added that the US attempt at this year’s CSW session to impose a strict definition on the word is “something of a smoke and mirrors strategy . . . to reinforce the narrative that the way the word ‘gender’ is used in recent UN texts reflects a more progressive and indeed divisive interpretation of the term than its previous usage.”

At the March 19 final session of the nine-day women’s rights conference, the representative of Belgium said that Washington’s draft “is factually incorrect as it misquotes and contradicts Annex IV of the Fourth World Conference on Women, and attempts to rewrite what was carefully agreed and reflected in Beijing over 30 years ago.”

Belgium, speaking on behalf of 26 member states of the European Union, called for a “no action motion,” a procedural tactic used to prevent action on a draft document; in this case, Washington’s proposal. The Belgian-led initiative was also supported by Brazil.

Belgium’s motion passed with 23 votes in favor, 3 against and 17 abstentions, killing the US plan. (Mozambique did not vote and one CSW seat is vacant.) Joining the US vote against the motion were Chile and Pakistan. Chile’s new president, José Antonio Kast, is a conservative who appears to be allying with the Trump administration. Pakistan’s position on this matter was unclear.

Brazil and Belgium both said that Washington failed to seek fellow member states’ input in the draft text and circulated the document just before the deadline for a vote. The representative of the US who presented the draft dismissed the criticism that no negotiation or consultation had been done before the text was presented, saying it was part of the amendments to the agreed conclusions voted on at the beginning of the CSW session, on March 9, thus “no further consultation was needed.”

Some of the 17 countries on the CSW that abstained from voting on the no-action motion said they did so because Washington failed to follow due process even though their own national policies aligned with the gender definition proposed by the US.

“We supported the no action motion presented by Belgium to highlight those concerns on process,” Italy’s representative said. “However, Italy shares the interpretation of the term ‘gender’ and related expression as set out in the resolution proposed by the United States; namely, as referring exclusively to male, female, binary based on sex at birth.”

The failed US proposal was part of eight amendments that the Trump administration presented on March 9, which also fell apart in a forced vote by the US. The amendments not only sought to define gender narrowly but also proposed deleting phrases like “multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination” from the agreed conclusions that the CSW adopted last week.

The first day of the CSW session had started with mixed feelings as many member states expressed regret on the departure from its 70-year tradition of adopting its “outcome document” by consensus rather dealing with a forced vote pushed by the US. That regret was repeated on March 19 by many CSW members amid more forced votes, yet the conference theme on expanding access to justice for all women and girls appeared to have resonated positively with participants.

Despite the geopolitics disrupting the first and final days of the conference, it seemed to end on a high note for most women’s rights advocates globally.

“We pay tribute to the experts and civil society for their sustained engagement and advocacy throughout the process,” Britain’s representative said at the gathering on March 19. “We regret, however, the efforts to block adoption and the unprecedented decision to force a vote. The UK looks forward to implementing the agreed conclusions, together with you all, to strengthen access to justice for all women and girls and advance gender equality and the empowerment of women.”

WUNRN

Washington Fails Once Again to Redefine ‘Gender’ at UN Gathering – PassBlue