EU blocks US vote to define gender as biological men and women at UN women’s forum

The United States stood alone at the United Nations in early March after a European-led procedural move blocked a vote on defining gender in biological terms at one of the world’s leading forums on women’s rights.

At the conclusion of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, the U.S. was the only country to oppose the body’s annual “Agreed Conclusions,” citing concerns that the language departs from biological definitions of women and girls. No other member state voted with the United States.

At the center of the dispute is how the United Nations defines “gender.” Current U.N. frameworks, rooted in the 1995 Beijing Declaration, do not provide a fixed definition and instead rely on evolving interpretations tied to broader concepts of gender identity, according to EU officials. 

The U.S. proposal sought to anchor the term explicitly in biological sex.

UPROAR AFTER IRAN NAMED VICE-CHAIR OF UN BODY PROMOTING DEMOCRACY, WOMEN’S RIGHTS

The U.S. introduced a resolution titled “Protection of women and girls through appropriate terminology,” which sought to clarify how gender is understood across U.N. policy.

The draft states that the term “gender” should be interpreted “according to its ordinary, generally accepted usage, as referring to men and women.” 

The proposal never reached a vote. Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union, introduced a “no action motion,” a procedural tool that blocks debate and prevents a proposal from being considered. 

The motion passed, halting the U.S. resolution before it reached the floor.

That distinction carries practical implications. U.N. language shapes global standards tied to development funding, humanitarian programs, education policy and anti-discrimination frameworks.

Bethany Kozma, director of global affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, told Fox News Digital the move reflects a broader effort to shut down debate at the U.N.

STATE DEPT MOVES TO EXPAND MEXICO CITY POLICY, TARGETING ABORTION, DEI AND GENDER IDEOLOGY IN FOREIGN AID

“While our redlines were ignored, the United States Government will not stand by and watch as malicious forces misuse multilateral organizations to promote their ideologies and social agendas, obstructing nations’ abilities to exercise their national sovereignty,” Kozma said. “We will always protect women and girls from dangerous gender ideology and affirm biological truth.”

She added that the decision to block the vote was driven by political calculation.

“The EU blocked our resolution to define gender to mean men and women at the U.N. because they feared we would win and they would lose,” Kozma said. “We will not give up on doing what is right for women and girls. Even if we stand alone like we did at the U.N. last week, we will always stand to protect women and girls from dangerous radical gender ideology and always affirm biological truth.”

STATE DEPARTMENT DECLARES ‘INTERNATIONAL BUREAUCRACIES’ WILL NO LONGER GET ‘BLANK CHECKS’ FROM THE US

A State Department official, speaking on background, described the move as part of a broader coordinated effort led by European countries.

“These are procedural games that these countries are not prepared for,” the official said, referring to smaller delegations that may lack guidance on complex procedural votes.

The official said the maneuver allowed opponents to block a vote despite what the U.S. believed was growing support. These claims could not be independently verified.

The European Union rejected the U.S. criticism, saying the proposal was flawed and rushed.

“The draft resolution presented by the U.S. was factually incorrect,” said David Jordens, spokesperson for Belgium’s foreign ministry, adding that it “misquotes and contradicts” language agreed to in the 1995 Beijing Declaration.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“While the EU respects member states’ prerogative to put forward new initiatives for consideration, CSW members should not be forced to rush a decision on an issue of this importance by the unilateral initiative of one member state, without any prior consultations or negotiations,” Jordens said.

He added that “there is no universally agreed definition of the term ‘gender’. As reflected in the outcome of the Fourth World Conference on Women, the term was understood in accordance with its ordinary and generally accepted usage, without establishing a fixed or exhaustive definition. The United Nations should continue to approach gender equality in an inclusive and forward-looking manner, respectful of diversity. Any effort to revisit or reinterpret internationally agreed language must take place through broad, transparent consultations with the full membership.”