How Gender is Misunderstood, Abused, and Forgotten in Security Policymaking—and What We Can Do About It
“Policies and projects intended to assist communities that are fragile or affected by violence are more successful when they consider the different effects conflict has on men, women, boys, girls, and gender and sexual minorities.” – United States Institute for Peace
Women’s History Month is a complicated month for me. On one hand, this month allows me to urge the general public to critically examine gender and sexuality’s social role — not as “given” identities but as salient forces that intimately inform every part of our lives. It is also the month when I notice the most (often very well-meaning) performance of gender and sexuality inclusion without meaningful reflection. Women’s History Month should celebrate how far gender equality has progressed and encourage critical reflections of gender and sexuality issues. Only by doing both will we create a more just and equitable future.
In that spirit, this article explores three ways gender is misunderstood, abused, and forgotten in security policymaking. Focusing on the role of gender in violence prevention and redress, it illustrates how critical analyses of gender can empower policymakers to create more inclusive policies.
Misunderstood: Gender Mainstreaming & Side-Streaming
Gender mainstreaming is the process of incorporating gender-equal and gender-aware approaches to policymaking. Proponents of gender mainstreaming argue that people of different genders have distinct lived experiences based on their gender identity. By explicitly naming and incorporating gender into all stages of policymaking, proponents argue that policymakers can create policies that better serve the needs of all genders. First introduced at the 1985 Nairobi World Conference on Women, gender mainstreaming is now a key feature in many government and international organization policies.
However, gender mainstreaming efforts have sometimes been applied in ways that perpetuate gender inequality. The most cited definition of gender-mainstreaming, provided by UN ECOSOC in 1997, describes it as “the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action.” This definition and the analyses it derives often neglect genderqueer people. The term “genderqueer” encompasses the broadest scope of people who do not identify with cisnormative ideas of gender. LGBTQ+ people and gender researchers also use terms such as “gender and sexual minorities” (GSM) and “diverse sexual orientations and gender identities (SOGI).” Thus, the UN ECOSOC binary presentations of gender identity in its authoritative definition can have legal implications beyond semantics. Not only does this definition erase the rich diversity of gender identities across individuals and cultures, but also leaves little room for policymaking that includes genderqueer people. If this is the definition used by policymakers and researchers to make policy, write research reports, or assess priority issues for contracted work (e.g., Requests for Proposal; tenders), we will continue to neglect gender diverse peoples’ distinct needs and experiences — or worse yet, fail to see them as distinct and important. For example, narrowly-gendered definitions can exclude genderqueer activists from participating in major international forums dedicated to gender and peace issues (e.g., UN Women’s Commission on the Status of Women), thus perpetuating an exclusionary cycle for gender mainstreaming conversations.
Words shape how we understand our realities: a gender-inclusive definition that explicitly names gender and sexual minorities will equip policymakers with the framework to consider their needs as well.
Second, gender mainstreaming efforts without a critical perspective on gender essentialization can lead to gender side-streaming. Gender side-streaming refers to the deliberate or unintentional process of sidelining gender minorities into low-ranking positions or peacekeeping roles. Researchers who analyze this phenomenon note how gender essentialization — considering gender as a biological trait and thus associating them with certain “intrinsic” characteristics — can sort people into gender-specialized roles based on gender stereotypes. For instance, military servicewomen across the world are disproportionately tasked with roles traditionally associated with femininity (e.g., affective labor), such as peacekeeping and non-combat positions. This is despite robust empirical evidence suggesting that women peacekeepers do not behave markedly differently than men, and that societal acceptance of peacekeeping missions based on peacekeepers’ gender breakdown differs across cultural contexts and conflicts.
To be sure, this is not to disparage any security roles socially perceived as “feminine” or undercut women’s important part in advancing them. However, gender side-streaming women into a limited number of roles does mean women are systemically excluded from positions of power and lack representation in decision-making levels. While the U.S. military’s gender demographic shows record numbers of non-male soldiers, several recent studies suggest that women and genderqueer people’s mobility remains constrained. A 2020 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) research publication found that when military promotions between women and men soldiers were controlled for time in service and other demographic factors, women soldiers experienced higher attrition and lower promotion rates over time. Such trends lead to less diverse perspectives at the highest levels and, in turn, perpetuate a system that fails to adequately account for women and genderqueer soldiers’ experiences.
Note here that gender side-streaming can be deliberate and unintentional. To meaningfully target both types of side-streaming — regardless of policymakers’ intent — it is critical to reject stereotypes that essentialize gender. Unlike biological sex, which is determined by the person’s reproductive organs, gender is an identity that is deeply personal and socially constructed. Therefore, gender is not an “inherent” or biologically infallible “truth.” As researchers and designers of security policies, understanding the “what” and “how” of gender will further enhance our ability to create, measure, and apply effective security policies.
Abused: Femonationalism & Exclusive Feminisms
Broadly speaking, feminism advocates for equal treatment for all genders. But what if this idea is deployed to demonize minorities and migrants and offer “equal” rights and access for only certain types of women? This phenomenon refers to what sociologist Sara Farris calls “femonationalism,” a term she coined to describe European far-right parties’ invocation of gender equality (and sometimes even LGBTQ+ rights) to advance xenophobic and Islamophobic ideas. Although most Western far-right political groups champion traditional gender norms, reject LGBTQ+ rights, and disparage feminist movements, Farris noticed that certain far-right politicians co-opt certain feminist ideas in their anti-immigration campaigns. Blending feminist terms with far-right politics, femonationalists particularly demonize Muslim men. Muslim women are often portrayed as victims of the supposedly-inherent misogyny of Islam, but still “Other enough” to not warrant full welcome. Meanwhile, femonationalists depict white non-Muslim women as being under “attack” from Islam and migrants, and needing protection from “Talibanisation…and the terrifying retreat of women’s rights.”
While Farris’s work focuses on European countries, key characteristics of femonationalist politics permeate globally. For example, Hindu nationalists associated with India’s BJP party advance a conspiracy theory called “love jihad,” which falsely alleges that Muslim men are seeking to create a Muslim-majority India by “tricking” Hindu women into marrying and converting them to Islam. This conspiracy theory informed policy in 2020 when Uttar Pradesh state passed a bill making interfaith marriages, especially with Muslim partners, more difficult. In both Europe and India, claims of protecting women’s rights and safety have been used to enact Islamophobic laws and incite violence against the Muslim community.
In this light, it is critical for security scholars and policymakers to better understand how and why femonationalism — and other political distortions of feminism — are used by bad actors. First, autocrats and extremists exploit terms and imagery associated with feminism to (ironically) advance illiberal policies and gender inequality. For instance, many autocrats use “autocratic genderwashing,” which is the process of implementing superficial women’s rights reforms to convince international partners that they embrace established international norms. Paul Kagame (Rwanda) and Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud (Saudi Arabia) practice autocratic genderwashing as part of a foreign policy strategy to legitimize their government and draw attention away from their undemocratic regimes.
Second, rejecting exclusive feminisms requires us to uphold a more inclusive gender equality framework: intersectional feminism. A concept pioneered by feminists scholars of color, intersectional feminism examines how disparate identities like religion, race, sexuality, and class intersect with gender to create distinct experiences. As Sojourner Truth argued in her seminal 1827 speech “Ain’t I A Woman?”, those who analyze race (Black) and gender (woman) in separate silos do not acknowledge how those at its intersections — in her case, Black women — face double-marginalization due to racism and misogyny.
We hear echoes of Truth’s speech today in gender equality policies that neglect intersectional lenses, and thus benefit only a small group of women. In some cases, it even comes at the cost of other women’s rights and safety. For instance, to tackle South Korea’s plummeting birth rate — a concern often framed as a national security threat — the South Korean government introduced a pilot program in May 2023 that would suspend minimum wage requirements for employers of Southeast Asian domestic helpers. The policy was meant to alleviate childcare burdens disproportionately placed on women, which many South Korean women cited as a key disincentive to having children. Although expanding childcare access would provide immediate assistance to South Korean working mothers, this policy faced criticism for lacking protections for the (predominantly women) Southeast Asian workers in question. Without comprehensive anti-discrimination laws (which South Korea does not have), critics warned that the program could put Southeast Asian women workers in abusive, discriminatory, and labor-precarious situations similar to those observed in Singapore and Hong Kong. In other words, to “help” alleviate the gendered burden borne by one group of women, South Korean lawmakers introduced a policy that exploited labor from another group of women.
In sum, policymakers seeking to create robust security policies should reject identity-exclusive feminisms and adopt an intersectional lens to gender equality. Without this, we only protect certain kinds of women and leave “other” women and genderqueer people at continued risk of violence, neglect, and insecurity.
Forgotten: Genderqueer People
‘Gender’ is not synonymous with ‘women.’ Researchers, scholars, and policymakers working on gender and sexuality security issues have beat this drum for decades. Nevertheless, many policymaking circles still conflate gender with womanhood. In turn, many research funding projects concerning “gender” almost exclusively deal with issues that impact cisgender women and girls. This approach risks disproportionately burdening women for peace-making and maintenance, disregards the critical role of men and masculinity in peace processes, and marginalizes genderqueer people’s distinct experiences and needs.
Genderqueer people face pervasive omission in research and policymaking spheres. Failing to consider how they experience violence and insecurity has reverberating repercussions. Recent studies have shown that genderqueer people (and LGBTQ+ people more broadly) are 1) uniquely at risk of experiencing gender-based violence and harassment in conflict and non-conflict zones; 2) enjoy less legal rights and protections; and 3) often encounter high legal, social, and economic barriers to key healthcare services.
However, there are significant gaps in conflict research and evaluations that account for genderqueer peoples’ experiences with violent conflicts. Take conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) research, which historically focused on female survivors. One 2020 study that examined 26 CRSV evaluations for survivors found that only nine studies included male survivors, and none explicitly considered LGBTQ+ survivors. This was despite (or due to) the fact that these two groups have less visibility, social acceptance, and resources to overcome CRSV-inflicted traumas. Another 2023 systematic review of CRSV research found that despite facing increased risk of CRSV, gender diverse peoples’ experiences were usually analyzed together with cisgender men and boys’ data.
Policymakers can adopt concrete recommendations to ensure that genderqueer peoples’ experiences are given adequate attention and funding. In the realm of counter-CRSV policymaking, policymakers can require funded research projects to gender disaggregate their data collection and analysis (i.e., not lumping genderqueer people’s data with cisgender peoples’). They can also set aside time and financial investment to create targeted interventions for genderqueer survivors. Finally, policymakers can reserve spaces for activists, researchers, and survivors from underrepresented CRSV groups when evaluating or proposing counter-CRSV policies. By critically analyzing gender’s profound role in perpetuating and suffering CSRV, policymakers can create solutions for all CRSV survivors.
Looking Ahead
To know gender is to name it. As long as we take gender for granted, we cannot critically interrogate our gendered assumptions. In turn, these assumptions contribute to ineffective or harmful security policies. As researchers, evaluators, and designers of security policies, understanding how gender is misunderstood, abused, and forgotten in security policymaking will enrich our ability to spot critical gaps, invite gender minorities as key stakeholders, and push for more effective policies.
Views expressed are the author’s own and do not represent the views of GSSR, Georgetown University, or any other entity. Image Credit: Canva Images