3月初，在欧洲主导的一项程序性举动阻止了联合国一个全球领先妇女权利论坛就生物学定义性别问题进行投票后，美国在联合国陷入孤立。
在联合国妇女地位委员会会议结束时，美国是唯一反对该机构年度”商定结论”的国家，理由是担心该措辞背离了对妇女和女童的生物学定义。没有其他成员国与美国投票一致。
争议的核心在于联合国如何定义”性别”。欧盟官员表示，目前基于1995年《北京宣言》的联合国框架并未提供固定定义，而是依赖于与更广泛的性别认同概念相关的不断演变的解释。
美国的提案试图明确将”性别”一词锚定在生物性别上。
伊朗被任命为联合国促进民主和妇女权利机构副主席引发轩然大波
美国提出了一项题为”通过适当术语保护妇女和女童”的决议，旨在澄清联合国政策中对性别的理解。
草案指出，”性别”一词应按照”其普通、普遍接受的用法”来解释，即指男性和女性。
该提案从未进入投票环节。比利时代表欧盟提出了一项”不采取行动动议”，这是一种阻止辩论并防止提案被审议的程序性工具。
该动议获得通过，在美国决议进入投票阶段前就将其搁置。
这种区别具有实际影响。联合国的语言塑造了与发展资金、人道主义项目、教育政策和反歧视框架相关的全球标准。
美国卫生与公众服务部全球事务主任贝瑟尼·科兹马告诉福克斯新闻数字频道，这一举措反映了在联合国关闭辩论的更广泛努力。
国务院推进扩大墨西哥城政策，针对对外援助中的堕胎、多元化与公平及性别意识形态
科兹马表示：”虽然我们的红线被无视，但美国政府不会坐视恶意势力滥用多边组织来推行其意识形态和社会议程，阻碍各国行使国家主权。我们将始终保护妇女和女童免受危险的性别意识形态侵害，并肯定生物学事实。”
她补充说，阻止投票的决定是出于政治考量。
“欧盟阻止我们在联合国将性别定义为男性和女性的决议，因为他们担心我们会获胜而他们会失败，”科兹马说，”我们不会放弃为妇女和女童做正确的事。即使像上周在联合国那样孤立无援，我们也将始终站出来保护妇女和女童免受危险的激进性别意识形态侵害，并始终肯定生物学事实。”
国务院宣布’国际官僚机构’将不再从美国获得’空白支票’
一位美国国务院官员在背景下表示，此举是欧洲国家领导的更广泛协调努力的一部分。
“这些是这些国家不准备应对的程序性游戏，”该官员提到可能缺乏复杂程序性投票指导的小型代表团时说。
该官员表示，尽管美国认为支持度不断上升，但这一策略使反对者能够阻止投票。这些说法无法独立核实。
欧盟驳斥了美国的批评，称该提案存在缺陷且仓促出台。
比利时外交部发言人大卫·约登斯表示：”美国提出的决议草案在事实上是不正确的，它’错误引用并与’1995年《北京宣言》中达成一致的措辞相矛盾。”
约登斯说：”虽然欧盟尊重成员国提出新倡议供审议的权利，但妇女地位委员会成员不应被迫因某个成员国单方面采取行动而在如此重要的问题上仓促做出决定，而没有任何事先磋商或谈判。”
他补充说：”对于’性别’一词没有普遍一致的定义。正如第四次世界妇女大会成果所反映的，该词是按照其普通和普遍接受的用法来理解的，没有确立固定或详尽的定义。联合国应该以包容和前瞻性的方式对待性别平等，尊重多样性。任何重新审视或重新解释国际商定语言的努力都必须通过与全体成员进行广泛、透明的磋商来进行。”
埃弗拉特·拉赫特是福克斯新闻数字频道报道国际事务和联合国的外国记者。在X上关注她@efratlachter。新闻故事可发送至efrat.lachter@fox.com。
EU blocks U.S. resolution to define gender as men and women at UN | Fox News
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.”
Efrat Lachter is a foreign correspondent for Fox News Digital covering international affairs and the United Nations. Follow her on X @efratlachter. Stories can be sent to efrat.lachter@fox.com.
发表回复