Promoting the principles in the LBOR and the wellbeing and visibility of lesbians globally.
September 2025
LBORI Report on
How UN Women Want to Reframe Male Violence Against Women and Certain Men
The United Nations group called United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women) held a webinar September 3, 2025 titled “Measuring gender-based violence: Data collection and evidence on violence based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC).” I was able to attend live and remotely as coordinator of Lesbian Bill Of Rights International (LBORI).
The webinar organizers – Raphaëlle Rafin, Sophie West-Browne, and Giorgia Airoldi – used the occasion to introduce their report having the same title as the webinar. I can assure any readers who do not support gender identity ideology that the chat was by far the most interesting aspect of the webinar; or perhaps I am influenced in saying that because I persistently asked what I considered pertinent questions in the chat, sparking discussion.
The gist of my persistent questioning during the live chat was “This webinar purports to be about ways to perform accurate, meaningful, and useful data collection. But how can those aims be accomplished where there is no coherent definition of ‘lesbian’ or of sexual orientation, and no discussion of how both conflict with ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’?”
I received a couple of rude or dismissive responses to my question at first; so I reframed and rephrased it several times in the chat. Eventually, several attendees said something like “I wondered that too.” And eventually I received as much of an answer as I could reasonably have expected from supporters of UN Women, to the effect that ‘lesbian’ doesn’t need definition because
So, it was explained to me, it is for these reasons that the report focuses on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics – and not on whether victims of violence actually *are* lesbian, for instance. Because actually *being* lesbian is somehow beside the point. Conveniently, if this is accepted, then whether any person can actually *be* “trans” is also logically beside the point!
It was further explained to me that understanding the scope of the issue (which issue?) and the common roots of the violence are what matters most. But which demographic perpetrates the overwhelming percentage of the violence universally? Of course it is men and boys, and acknowledging that bit of data is forbidden in this patriarchal ideology; the erasure of sex in favor of “sex characteristics” aims at ignoring the obvious, universal link between maleness and violence against women, lesbians, and those people perceived to be like either group.
I’m puzzled by the notion that ‘lesbian’ is culturally specific. LBORI’s Lesbian Bill Of Rights defines a lesbian as “a human female homosexual; or, a woman or girl who is exclusively same-sex attracted.” The purported cultural specificity of that definition eludes me. But I suspect the criticism is in alignment with a transgenderist/postmodernist agenda:
Going forward, it seems predictable that the proponents of gender identity ideology, including UN Women, will increase their usage of the SOCIESC acronym instead of LGBTQIA+ as a next step in their campaign to erase all women (including lesbians in particular) and to erase men and boys as the main perpetrators of violence universally.
The webinar organizers – Raphaëlle Rafin, Sophie West-Browne, and Giorgia Airoldi – used the occasion to introduce their report having the same title as the webinar. I can assure any readers who do not support gender identity ideology that the chat was by far the most interesting aspect of the webinar; or perhaps I am influenced in saying that because I persistently asked what I considered pertinent questions in the chat, sparking discussion.
The gist of my persistent questioning during the live chat was “This webinar purports to be about ways to perform accurate, meaningful, and useful data collection. But how can those aims be accomplished where there is no coherent definition of ‘lesbian’ or of sexual orientation, and no discussion of how both conflict with ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’?”
I received a couple of rude or dismissive responses to my question at first; so I reframed and rephrased it several times in the chat. Eventually, several attendees said something like “I wondered that too.” And eventually I received as much of an answer as I could reasonably have expected from supporters of UN Women, to the effect that ‘lesbian’ doesn’t need definition because
- such terms as those included in the ‘LGB’ acronym, for instance, are too “culturally specific” to be universally applicable to the work of the United Nations; and
- violence can be based on self ID or on perceived identity (for example, someone thinks you look like a lesbian).
So, it was explained to me, it is for these reasons that the report focuses on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics – and not on whether victims of violence actually *are* lesbian, for instance. Because actually *being* lesbian is somehow beside the point. Conveniently, if this is accepted, then whether any person can actually *be* “trans” is also logically beside the point!
It was further explained to me that understanding the scope of the issue (which issue?) and the common roots of the violence are what matters most. But which demographic perpetrates the overwhelming percentage of the violence universally? Of course it is men and boys, and acknowledging that bit of data is forbidden in this patriarchal ideology; the erasure of sex in favor of “sex characteristics” aims at ignoring the obvious, universal link between maleness and violence against women, lesbians, and those people perceived to be like either group.
I’m puzzled by the notion that ‘lesbian’ is culturally specific. LBORI’s Lesbian Bill Of Rights defines a lesbian as “a human female homosexual; or, a woman or girl who is exclusively same-sex attracted.” The purported cultural specificity of that definition eludes me. But I suspect the criticism is in alignment with a transgenderist/postmodernist agenda:
- It’s useful to avoid defining any terms at all where the intent is to conflate terms (such as ‘sex’ and ‘gender’) in some usages, but distinguish them in others.
- It’s useful when the intent is to erase sex to avoid either defining or using any term that tends to focus the reader’s attention on sex.
Going forward, it seems predictable that the proponents of gender identity ideology, including UN Women, will increase their usage of the SOCIESC acronym instead of LGBTQIA+ as a next step in their campaign to erase all women (including lesbians in particular) and to erase men and boys as the main perpetrators of violence universally.
Lauren Levey, coordinator
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International
|
19 March 2025
Violence against Lesbians
Our coordinator Lauren Levey met with Reem Alsalem to discuss “Forms of sex-based violence against women and girls: new frontiers and emerging issues.” Lauren spoke specifically about violence against lesbians, and made specific recommendations. Her report on this consultation was screened on WDI’s
Feminist Question Time on 29 March 2025. |
Reem Alsalem, UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls
|
Lauren Levey (USA) on gender stereotypes
Besides serving as our coordinator for LBORI, Lauren Levey is a board member of Women's Declaration International (WDI) USA, and also coordinates its Lesbian Caucus and State Legislative Advocacy Team. Watch Lauren on the WDI Youtube channel. Here, she is talking about CEDAW's recent call for submissions on Gender Stereotypes. The CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) is an international treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. Her presentation also includes an introduction to the work of LBORI and the WDI USA Lesbian Caucus.