The leftist ideologues at the Biden administrationâs foreign aid agency have just drafted a new policy on gender.
The U.S. Agency for International Development is supposed to use U.S. foreign assistance funds to âadvance a free, peaceful, and prosperous world.â Its stated goalsâsaving lives, reducing poverty, and helping people progress beyond the need for assistanceâare noble and uncontroversial. Packaging our foreign aid in the language and ideology of radical gender theory, however, is not.
This new gender policy at USAID is the latest manifestation of President Joe Bidenâs plan to make gender ideology a central theme of government policyâand thereâs a lot of money to set aside to do it. USAIDâs budget request for fiscal year 2023 is $60.4 billion. Thatâs up 6% over last year, and includes an extra $2.6 billion to push the National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality.
Gender ideology offends many of our needy foreign aid recipients. Putting such ideological shackles on our aid undermines the goodwill that our assistance would otherwise garner. It perpetuates the notion that Americans see other cultures as morally inferior, and that we use our aid to âimproveâ their cultures.
This is naked ideological colonialism.
Equity vs. Equality
A âgender equality and womenâs empowermentâ policy should seek to empower women and girls, to help them have more chances to exercise their rights on par with men and boys. But the new USAID gender policy instead emphasizes the idea of âgender equity.â
USAID defines gender equity as âthe process of ensuring women and men, boys and girls, and gender diverse individuals receive consistent, systematic, fair, and just treatment and distribution of benefits and resources.â
It even goes on to call for measures “to compensate for historic and systemic disadvantages.â Thatâs a far cry from equality. And itâs neither a proper nor achievable goal for the U.S. government. No amount of foreign assistance will yield equal outcomes for any groups or individuals in other countries.
Instead, USAID ought to return to the definition of âgender equalityâ that it employed in its previous policy: âThe state in which women, girls, men, and boys have equal access to opportunities, resources, benefits, and legal protections, and which recognizes their equal, inherent human dignity, worth and unalienable rights.â
More Absurd Definitions
In the new draft policy, USAID departs from a perennial, science-based understanding of sex and from the common usage of âgenderâ as synonymous with biological sex. Instead, the terms in its glossary are controversial and nebulous.
It acknowledges as much by stating that âlanguage is dynamic and evolving.â The document is replete with terms such as âgender binary,â âgender diverse,â and âgender identity,â which refer to nothing more than subjective feelings or artificial labels.
Not only is this language insensitive to other cultures, barely disguising an ideological agenda, but itâs also nonsensical. Thereâs no neutral, empirical way to discern a âgender identity.â As a concept, âgender identityâ is an artifact of gender theory, not history or science. It should not be governing our foreign policy or aid programming.
Erasing Women
USAIDâs consistent use of the phrase âwomen and girls in all their diversityâ stretches the definition of âwomen and girlsâ to the point of including anyone, even men and boys.
By defining that term to include âthe full range of gender identity and/or gender expression, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, and other intersectional characteristics,â it detracts from focusing on needs or conditions unique to women. For example, a man who claims to âidentifyâ as a woman does not have the same needs or challenges as a womanâa biological femaleâin the context, for example, of menstrual health and hygiene.
A USAID grant or program ought to recognize and address that reality.
Not only does the new policy add radical and counterproductive elements, but it took important content out. Motherhood is a glaring omission in a document that purports to be concerned with women and girls. Millions of women who benefit from USAID programs are mothers, and happily so.
Motherhood is a defining part of these womenâs lives. U.S. policy should acknowledge and support the critical role that mothers make to a productive and peaceful society.
Radicalizing Next Generation
USAIDâs emphasis on âgender-transformative educationâ is another example of overt ideological imperialism. According to the document, the aim of gender-transformative education is to âtransform stereotypes, attitudes, norms, and practices.â It does so âby challenging power relations, rethinking gender norms and binaries, and raising critical consciousness about the root causes of inequality and systems of oppression.â
USAID holds this type of education up as worthy of support. But changing cultural attitudes and raising awareness of oppression is not what parents want for their children. They want better reading, math, and science.
Under Biden, the U.S. is exporting a tendentious ideological fixation of a disproportionately powerful special interest into the developing world.
This is especially tone-deaf in U.S. government dealings with countries that do not share the Biden administrationâs left-wing worldview. Remember this the next time the liberal news media complain about the U.S. âstandingâ in the world.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and weâll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular âWe Hear Youâ feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.