Gender Ideology as a Political Weapon: The Global Rise of the Anti-Gender Movement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

Introduction

In recent years, the anti-gender movement has emerged as one of the most coordinated and consequential global backlashes against progressive understandings of gender and sexuality. Once confined to the margins of political discourse, anti-gender rhetoric has rapidly moved into the mainstream, shaping national policies, influencing international agreements, and transforming electoral campaigns. While its manifestations can vary by region, the underlying premise remains the same: a rejection of the idea that gender is a socially constructed category and a concerted effort to reinstate traditional binaries of sex and norms of family life. This paper traces the historical and ideological roots of the anti-gender movement, explores its entanglement with rising right-wing populism, and analyzes its transnational evolution. It will specifically assess the movement’s increasing influence on American politics through figures like Vice President JD Vance and institutions such as the Claremont Institute.

 

By examining the intersections of ideology and political strategy, this analysis reveals how “gender ideology” has become a powerful tool for conservative actors seeking to mobilize resistance to perceived liberal overreach. Far from being a singular or spontaneous backlash, the anti-gender movement operates as a symbolic unifier among diverse actors who might otherwise disagree. To understand how “gender ideology” became such a potent ideological tool, it is essential to trace how the concept was deployed by early reactionary actors.

​

The History and Ideological Foundations of the Anti-Gender Movement

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Ideological Foundations

The term anti-gender itself, as defined by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, “captures the forms of resistance and preemptive opposition that have emerged against women’s sexual agency, gender and sexuality diversity.”[1] This movement is not led by one large organization or group. Rather, as described in a report by SecurityWomen, the anti-gender movement is a “symbolic glue” that brings together “different conservative actors who would not normally collaborate towards a common goal.”[2]

 

Conservative actors who support the anti-gender movement, utilizing the terms “gender” and “gender ideology,” share overlapping goals of preserving “the hetero-patriarchal sex and gender power hierarchy in all areas of social, political, economic, and cultural life.”[3] This hetero-patriarchal social structure is explored by Shengdi Ge further in her report, “Who Holds the Knife? TERFs, Trans women, and the Patriarchy.” The foundations of the anti-gender movement are characterized by conflict and tension. Gender and gender ideology are often presented as morally corrupting excesses of the global elites that pose a threat not only to the lives of “ordinary” individuals but also to societies, economies, and whole nations.[4] Anti-gender actors often target laws and legal institutions related to gender mainstreaming and equality, as well as those essential for challenging gender-based violence and discrimination.[5]

 

History

The anti-gender movement can be traced back to the United Nations World Conference in the early 1990s, where it began as a response to feminist gains. Vatican representatives were the first to leverage resistance to “gender ideology” to fight policies related to sexual and reproductive health. Vatican opposition stemmed from the Catholic church’s belief that the feminist movement’s progressive views on gender, sexuality, and sex posed a threat to its dogma.[6] Conservative Catholic organizations feared that conceptions of gender as a social construct, instead of a biologically determined characteristic, were dangerous for a “religiously defined gender order.”[7] In this “order”, homosexuality and gender fluidity are rejected, instead the idea that men and women are “separate beings with distinct social and biological roles” is embraced.[8]

 

The anti-gender movement continued to develop and spread, taking root in Europe in the 2010s. Since then, the European anti-gender movement has been increasingly associated with the growth of right-wing populism. Supporters of this movement generally oppose “gender theory,” which views “biological sex” and “gender” as different concepts.[9] Political changes resulting from this movement include Poland’s creation of “trans-free” spaces.[10]

 

The growth of the anti-gender movement over the past decades is not unique to the European continent. The concept of “gender ideology” has also been a cornerstone for far-right forces in Latin America. As in Europe, references to “gender” have been used to justify political attacks on the rights of women and members of the LGBTQ community. Such attacks are typically conducted with the claim of protecting the traditional family.[11] However, such efforts do not defend women. Rather, these efforts to remove gender ideology from government programs are indicative of an attempt to promote traditional gender norms.[12] In Hungary, for instance, the government modified the National Core Curriculum to remove gender ideology by doing away with all exam questions pertaining to gender, as well as emphasizing the biological nature of sexual identity.[13]

 

Right-Wing Populism and the Anti-Gender Movement

Right-wing populism and the anti-gender movement have increasingly intersected over the past couple of decades, reinforcing one another through shared opposition to liberal institutions and values. These political phenomena share three overarching characteristics: anti-institutionalism, nativism and nationalism, and conservatism.[14]

 

Right-wing populism engages anti-establishment sentiments to mobilize ordinary individuals and turn them against institutions, norms, and values. As part of this agenda, right-wing populists criticize international institutions like the European Union for promoting “gender ideology” and infringing on national sovereignty.[15]

 

Additionally, populist movements utilize nativist and nationalist sentiments to gain favor. Beyond resisting the EU, populist parties link the protection and promotion of the gender binary to the preservation of native culture, claiming that feminism, LGBTQ+ rights, and abortion weaken national identity.[16]

 

Finally, though populism is often associated with illiberalism and authoritarianism, right-wing populist parties tend to be classified as conservative due to their leaning toward the right side of the political spectrum. The anti-gender movement is recognizably conservative, with its promotion of heteronormative gender roles, allowing the two movements to operate in tandem.[17]

 

The effectiveness of gender ideology as a political tool is made clear in Saskia Brechenmacher’s piece for the Carnegie Endowment:

Ultimately, the popularity of the gender ideology concept lies in its flexibility and ambiguity. It conveys a general sense of discontent with progressive gender norms and allows opponents to frame these norms as out of sync with both science and common sense. It also makes gender a useful stand-in for perceived problems with progressive equality politics more broadly and taps into fears about rapid cultural and social change.[18]

 

As captured by this excerpt, “gender ideology” functions as a powerful and strategic tool for right-wing populist actors. Its ambiguity is precisely what makes it politically effective. Because the term lacks a concrete definition, it becomes a catch-all term for a wide array of progressive policies, from sex education to LGBTQ+ rights to reproductive freedom. This vagueness allows political actors to tailor the term to different national contexts and mobilize diverse constituencies under a shared sense of cultural threat. Framing gender equity as a source of societal decay, right-wing populists use emotionally charged rhetoric to stoke fears about the erosion of family values, the endangerment of children, and the loss of national identity. “Gender ideology” becomes more than just a critique—it transforms into a moral panic that justifies restrictive, heteronormative policies and reinforces the authoritarian and conservative impulses of the populist right.

 

International Effects

The growing influence of the anti-gender movement is evident in its impact on international agreements. For example, take the opposition to the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention).[19] The Convention defines violence against women as a form of gender-based violence rooted in inequality and obligates states to prevent such violence, protect victims, and prosecute perpetrators. While primarily focused on women, as they are disproportionately impacted by domestic violence, it encourages protection for all victims of domestic violence.[20] In March 2021, Turkey withdrew from the treaty, taking issue with the “foreign word” of “gender.”[21] This development underscores how the term “gender” has been weaponized as a symbol of foreign interference and used to reject international frameworks that promote equality under the guise of protecting national values.

 

The growing support for anti-gender positions among UN member states—support that now extends to major coalitions such as the G77, the League of Arab States, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and the UN Africa Group—demonstrates the influence of anti-gender actors on the global stage.[22] Furthermore, during the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the UNSC Resolution 1325 in 2020, a landmark resolution that recognized the impact of armed conflict on women and girls and emphasized the importance of their equal participation in conflict resolution, peacebuilding, peacekeeping, and post-conflict reconstruction,[23] Russia restated its support for women to remain in traditional roles and its belief in the importance of the family.[24] This statement highlights the promotion of traditional gender roles by major powers on the international stage, signaling a push to normalize such perspectives.

 

The U.S. New Right & Its Adoption of Anti-Gender Ideology

The alignment between the anti-gender movement and the American New Right stems from their shared rejection of liberal social norms and institutions, as well as their mutual emphasis on traditional family structures and gender roles. This ideological overlap has allowed anti-gender rhetoric to become an increasingly central feature of discourse amongst the New Right in the United States.

 

Defining the New Right

The New Right in American politics is vividly personified by Vice President JD Vance. The New York Times delves into this political phenomenon in its article “What’s So New About the ‘New Right’?” The New Right is characterized by a belief that “most of what ails America can be blamed on a liberal elite that has burrowed into the federal government, the news media, Hollywood, big business and higher education.”[25] Similar to the anti-gender movement, the New Right advocates for a nationalistic return to traditional values.

 

Chief among the New Right’s concerns is the perceived attack on American families by the liberal social model. Supporters of this populist view advocate for the reassertion of old-school gender roles.[26] According to this perspective, men must reclaim traditional “masculine” virtues, and proponents argue that the state should play an active role in restoring these values by promoting marriage and fatherhood.[27]

 

Case Study: JD Vance and the Claremont Institute

​

​

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

The Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank that, as described by The New York Times, has become “increasingly influential in Republican circles” appears to influence JD Vance’s political views.[28] This institute is home to scholars who believe that the “American republic has been dismantled, the Constitution corrupted by left-wing ideas, a viewpoint that is increasingly in step with that of the broader American right.”[29] Like members of the New Right, including Vance, Claremont Institute scholars contend that liberalism has resulted in a “permanent class of unelected experts” of which the government is composed. They claim that the big government is not aligned with the American principle of self-governance.[30]

 

The Claremont Institute's scholarship aligns with the ideas of the anti-gender movement, reflecting the broader resonance of such themes within contemporary American political thought, particularly during a period marked by the rise of right-wing populism. A 2022 publication titled “Family Policy for a Great Country” claims that “Family decline is evident all over the Western world…The idea that there is no relation between one’s sex and one’s gender identity seems to be making itself immune from public disapproval.”[31] By linking concepts associated with “gender ideology” to the perceived decline of the Western family, the publication positions gender nonconformity as a civilizational threat. This framing exemplifies how the concept of “gender” can be strategically exploited to evoke cultural anxiety and resistance, reinforcing the anti-gender movement’s growing influence in American discourse.

 

The same publication launched pointed attacks on feminism, claiming:

Feminism means erasing the difference between men and women, females seeing themselves as economically and emotionally independent from the family, and bringing about an end of all sexual taboos…Equal opportunity has never been the real goal—it has always been an intermediate goal that helps feminists peddle their revolutionary goals at a particular time. Rooting out these deeper revolutionary goals is necessary to recover family life. Thinking about the world without feminist ideology is necessary for national conservatives in our context.[32]

 

This passage’s portrayal of feminism not as a struggle for equality but as a revolutionary force undermining traditional values suggests that it, like the concept of “gender ideology,” is a cultural threat, particularly to the family and national identity. This rhetoric aligns with broader New Right efforts to reassert traditional family structures by opposing feminist ideals and women’s rights. Notably, individuals who espouse these views have gained influence at the highest levels of government, exemplified by the close ties between the Claremont Institute and Senator J.D. Vance.

 

The close ideological and professional relationship between JD Vance and the Claremont Institute underscores the growing influence of the American New Right’s anti-gender politics—an alignment that mirrors the broader global backlash against gender equality and liberal democratic norms. Vance has been a frequent speaker at Claremont Institute events and has appeared with its scholars.

 

Following the announcement that he would be Trump’s running mate, Claremont Institute President Ryan Williams referred to Vance as the ideal pick, adding: “It’s hard to find a more articulate and passionate advocate for the politics and policies that will save American democracy from the forces of progressive oligarchy and despotism.” Consequently, JD Vance’s ascension to the role of Vice President was a turning point for the New Right. His addition to the Trump Administration marked the closest the New Right’s ideology has come to the seat of the executive.[33]

 

Policy Implications

During the early days of the second Trump presidency, anti-gender sentiment had already become intertwined in U.S. policy. On January 20, 2025, the same day as his second inauguration, Trump signed an executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” The order directed all federal agencies to use “sex” instead of “gender” in official policies.[34] The Trump administration claimed the order was created to protect women by preventing men from gaining access to “intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women.”[35] The order further claims that eliminating the “biological reality of sex” constitutes an attack on women, stripping them of their “dignity, safety, and well-being.”[36] This phenomenon is also further explored in Shengdi (Esther) Ge’s paper “Who Holds the Knife?”.

 

However, such efforts fail to help women as their proponents claim. Insisting on biological definitions of sex can hinder discussions about the social norms and structures that contribute to inequalities in politics, the workforce, and society as a whole. Moreover, brushing aside these issues as simply gender ideology restricts efforts to tackle the various ways in which gender norms negatively impact men and boys, ranging from increased social isolation to poorer health outcomes.[37]

 

Conclusion

The global rise of the anti-gender movement reflects more than just resistance to changing norms around gender and sexuality. It signals a broader ideological effort to reassert traditional hierarchies under the guise of protecting national identity, family values, social order, and even women. As this paper has shown, anti-gender ideology serves as a powerful political instrument, capable of uniting disparate conservative actors and fueling the momentum of right-wing populism across the world.

 

In the American context, the ascent of figures like JD Vance and the influence of think tanks like the Claremont Institute and Heritage Foundation reveal how deeply these ideas have permeated national politics. Anti-gender rhetoric has both successfully shaped public discourse and resulted in concrete policy shifts. Internationally, the movement has begun to reshape multilateral negotiations and institutions, undermining progress on women’s rights and gender-based violence under the banner of national sovereignty and cultural preservation.

​

Ultimately, the anti-gender movement does not defend women or families as it claims. Recognizing the movement’s origins, strategies, and political alliances is vital for those committed to advancing gender justice worldwide. Only by naming and confronting the ideological roots of this backlash can a more inclusive future be achieved.

 

 

Endnotes

[1] Haley McEwen and Lata Narayanaswamy, “The International Anti-Gender Movement: Understanding the Rise of Anti-Gender Discourses in the Context of Development, Human Rights and Social Protection,” United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, May 2023, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/cfi-subm/2308/subm-colonialism-sexual-orientation-un-ios-unrisd-input-2.pdf,  3.

[2] “The Impact of Anti-Genderism on the Women Peace and Security Agenda in Central and Eastern Europe,” SecurityWomen, August 26, 2023, https://www.securitywomen.org/post/the-impact-of-anti-genderism-on-the-women-peace-and-security-agenda-in-central-and-eastern-europe#:~:text=Donald%20Trump%2C%20at%20that%20time,to%20implement%20the%20WPS%20Agenda .

[3] McEwen and Narayanaswamy, “The International Anti-Gender Movement,” 4.

[4] McEwen and Narayanaswamy, “The International Anti-Gender Movement,” 1.

[5] SecurityWomen, “The Impact of Anti-Genderism on the Women Peace and Security Agenda in Central and Eastern Europe.”

[6] SecurityWomen, “The Impact of Anti-Genderism on the Women Peace and Security Agenda in Central and Eastern Europe.”

[7] Saskia Brechenmacher, “Trump’s ‘Gender Ideology’ Attacks Are Following a Global Movement,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, February 14, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/02/trump-gender-ideology-global-trend-women-lgbtq-rights?lang=en.

[8] Brechenmacher, “Trump’s ‘Gender Ideology’ Attacks.”

[9] SecurityWomen, “The Impact of Anti-Genderism on the Women Peace and Security Agenda in Central and Eastern Europe.”

[10] Brechenmacher, “Trump’s ‘Gender Ideology’ Attacks.”

[11] Brechenmacher, “Trump’s ‘Gender Ideology’ Attacks.”

[12] Brechenmacher, “Trump’s ‘Gender Ideology’ Attacks.”

[13] Bianka Vida, “New Waves of Anti-Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Strategies in the European Union: The Anti-Gender Discourse in Hungary,” U.S. National Library of Medicine, May 2019, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7887896/#:~:text=To%20widen%20the%20attack%20on,visions%20of%20family%20and%20nation.

[14] Nur  Sinem Kourou, “Policy Brief | Nur Sinem Kourou - Right-Wing Populism and Anti-Gender Movements: The Same Coin with Different Faces,” Global Political Trends Center, May 2020, https://www.iku.edu.tr/gpot/policy-brief-nur-sinem-kourou-right-wing-populism-and-anti-gender-movements-same-coin-different.

[15] Kourou, “Right-Wing Populism and Anti-Gender Movements.”

[16] Kourou, “Right-Wing Populism and Anti-Gender Movements.”

[17] Kourou, “Right-Wing Populism and Anti-Gender Movements.”

[18] Brechenmacher, “Trump’s ‘Gender Ideology’ Attacks.”

[19] SecurityWomen, “The Impact of Anti-Genderism on the Women Peace and Security Agenda in Central and Eastern Europe.”

[20] Council of Europe, “About the Convention,” Council of Europe, 2025, https://www.coe.int/en/web/istanbul-convention/about-the-convention.

[21] Judith Butler, “Why Is the Idea of ‘gender’ Provoking Backlash the World Over?,” The Guardian, October 23, 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2021/oct/23/judith-butler-gender-ideology-backlash.

[22] SecurityWomen, “The Impact of Anti-Genderism on the Women Peace and Security Agenda in Central and Eastern Europe.”

[23] “United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000), S/RES/1325 (2000),” United Nations, October 31, 2000, https://www.un.org/shestandsforpeace/sites/www.un.org.shestandsforpeace/files/wps_sres1325.pdf.

[24] SecurityWomen, “The Impact of Anti-Genderism on the Women Peace and Security Agenda in Central and Eastern Europe.”

[25] Clay Risen, “JD Vance and the Restoration of the ‘New Right’ - the New York Times,” The New York Times Magazine, August 10, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/10/magazine/jd-vance-new-right-republicans.html.

[26] Zack Beauchamp, “The Right’s Plan to Fix America: Patriarchy 2.0,” Vox, August 13, 2024, https://www.vox.com/politics/366601/the-rights-plan-to-fix-america-patriarchy-2-0.

[27] Beauchamp, “The Right’s Plan to Fix America.”

[28] Elisabeth Zerofsky, “How the Claremont Institute Became a Nerve Center of the American Right,” The New York Times Magazine, August 3, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/03/magazine/claremont-institute-conservative.html.

[29] Zerofsky, “How the Claremont Institute Became a Nerve Center.”

[30] Zerofsky, “How the Claremont Institute Became a Nerve Center.”

[31] Scott Yenor, “Family Policy for a Great Country,” Center for the American Way of Life, September 29, 2022, https://dc.claremont.org/family-policy-for-a-great-country/.

[32] Yenor, “Family Policy for a Great Country.”

[33] Risen, “JD Vance and the Restoration of the ‘New Right.’”

[34] The White House, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” The White House, January 20, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/.

[35] The White House, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism.”

[36] The White House, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism.”

[37] Brechenmacher, “Trump’s ‘Gender Ideology’ Attacks.”