Por Mauricio Maluff*
For some time now, there has been a movement in our country aiming to ban the use of the word “gender” due to its alleged association with a so-called gender ideology. Initially, the goal was to prohibit this supposed gender ideology, but it proved elusive to define despite numerous attempts. Essentially, it’s not a clearly defined ideology but rather represents a collection of fears and insecurities surrounding the growing acceptance of diverse gender expressions and sexualities. This is why the so-called gender ideology magically appears even in documents that don’t mention anything resembling a definition of gender ideology, such as the Educational Transformation project or the agreement with the European Union.
During a public hearing about the bill to repeal the agreement with the EU, several citizens showcased the semantic elasticity of the concept. Patricia Stanley, former director of DINAPI, speaking on behalf of the “Save the Family” group, exemplified this: “The rights-based approach, interculturality, and inclusion are nothing more than asking a minor for their consent to change their name from Juan to María today.”Stanley’s comment illustrates that one doesn’t need to mention gender for its detractors to claim the presence of gender ideology. The concept has become so expansive that even referencing something as general as a “rights-based approach” can lead to allegations of endorsing gender ideo
Recently, the battle against the word “gender” took place in the Senate, where the majority voted to remove “gender” from a bill declaring a social emergency against violence towards women, children, and adolescents. Senator Blanca Ovelar, advocating for retaining the word “gender” argued that violence against women is “a gender-related issue.” In contrast, Senator Lizarella Valiente, demonstrating the same semantic elasticity, expressed concerns that the word “gender” might encompass “diverse sexual orientations.”
The impact of the battle against the word “gender” isn’t confined to the Senate but permeates society. One manifestation is the self-censorship practiced by those fearing accusations of promoting gender ideology. For example, in an official communication, the Ministry of Women deliberately avoided “gender equality,” opting for the more ambiguous phrase “equality of women.” Following the Riera Resolution, which banned “the dissemination and use of printed and digital materials related to gender theory and/or ideology in educational institutions under the Ministry of Education and Sciences,” a study reported that teachers, educators, and national education authorities avoid using the word “gender” for fear of disciplinary action.
If we remove the concept of gender from our vocabulary, the ones who lose out aren’t some foreign cabal with strange ideologies but women themselves, who will have one less tool to understand and transform their reality.
However, the scope of this censorship isn’t merely verbal: the words we use also shape how we understand our reality and how we act within it. This is why the Greek word “logos” (λόγος) means both “word” and “reason.” “In the beginning was the Word,” begins the Gospel of John. Not being able to use the word “gender” to describe reality prevents those who suffer from gender inequality and violence, primarily women, from understanding and articulating their experiences. A clear and striking example follows.
In her work “In Our Time,” journalist Susan Brownmiller chronicles the birth of the concept of sexual harassment. Carmita Wood, an administrative assistant at a U.S. university, was forced to resign in 1975 due to the constant harassment from a prominent professor. When trying to access unemployment benefits, she struggled to articulate her situation, leading to her request being denied for merely “personal reasons.” Later, at a women’s seminar, Wood shared her story, and all present identified with her: they had all experienced unwanted sexual advances at work but hadn’t known how to label it. Together, they brainstormed ways to name it, eventually settling on “sexual harassment.” One of them, Karen Sauvigné, recounted the experience: “We instantly agreed. That was it.”
Naming it was the beginning of a series of legal victories that have since transformed the U.S. legal landscape in favor of working women, as well as a significant cultural shift against sexual harassment. But how was it possible that in 1975, in the U.S., there was no concept of sexual harassment? Of course, many women, in the U.S. and elsewhere, were familiar with the experience and had various names for it: shame, misbehavior, or the more colloquial “sleaziness.” As Marilina’s grandmother said about the harassment her daughter faced: “That man’s a pig.” But to coordinate action and create shared understanding, we need commonly agreed-upon terms. This is why attempts to ban the word “gender” are dangerous: without the concept of gender, it’s impossible to understand many experiences of harassment, violence, and inequality where women are the primary victims. The attempt to ban the concept of gender risks creating a hermeneutical void where none existed, reducing the list of commonly agreed-upon concepts, and leaving a gap in experiences where the word “gender” once stood.
British philosopher Miranda Fricker defines hermeneutical injustice as “The injustice of having a significant area of social experience obscured from collective understanding due to hermeneutical marginalization.” If a diabetic suffers because diabetes hasn’t yet been identified, it’s not an injustice; however, if a woman suffers because the concept of sexual harassment hasn’t been recognized or is removed from our collective understanding, then it is indeed an injustice. The concept of femicide has a similar history: women have been killed for being women since patriarchy existed, but only a few decades ago did the term “femicide” become commonly used to understand that experience. These hermeneutical gaps are the product of a society that prevents women from developing collective concepts to understand their experiences. In the case of gender, we face something perhaps worse: an existing concept that is unjustly sought to be eliminated, hermeneutical censorship.
If we eliminate the concept of gender from our vocabulary, it’s not some foreign group with unusual ideologies that suffers, but rather women themselves, who are then deprived of a vital tool to comprehend and change their reality.
*Master in Philosophy from Northwestern University. Pursuing a Ph.D. in Philosophy at the same university.
Cover Image: El Target