Consolidate and organise the defence of our democratic principles against anti-gender strategies

ℹ️➕ This resolution provides a very operational analytical framework to understand the anti-gender strategies that directly impact equality policies, sexual and reproductive health, education, and the fight against violence. It is particularly useful for prevention teams, feminist associations, youth organisations, local authorities, and state services facing local offensives (EVARS, grants, communication, security). It offers concrete levers to organise a collective, legal, media, and educational response, relying on fundamental rights and the rule of law.

Source: 📒 Consolidate and organise the defence of our democratic principles against anti-gender strategies

  📜🔗LINK

Number of pages: 60 pages

1. Analytical summary

Context and issues: a structured offensive against equality and democracy

The CESE analyses over twenty years of the rise of anti-gender movements, largely funded (1.18 billion dollars in five years in Europe) and structured into fundamentalist religious coalitions, masculinist networks, and illiberal political forces, with a strong presence in France. These movements primarily target women's rights, sexual and reproductive health, the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals, and EVARS, relying on sophisticated strategies of disinformation, discrediting research, harassment, and intimidation of civil society. They are part of a more general retreat of the rule of law: attacks on international law and feminist diplomacy, questioning the independence of the judiciary, offensives on academic freedom, and media concentration. The text highlights that these movements pose a threat to internal security due to masculinist radicalisation and violent acts, particularly within the 'incel' movement. At the same time, French society remains overall more progressive, creating a gap between majority opinion and the media and political weight of these offensives.

Operational contributions: a roadmap to defend rights and organise the response

The resolution proposes a six-dimensional framework (distortion, discrediting, distraction, deterrence, division, doubt) to identify anti-gender strategies and their concrete translations in the fields of health, education, digital technology, justice, development aid, and media. It formulates strong guidelines: to protect human rights as an intangible foundation, to strengthen feminist diplomacy, to secure research (particularly gender studies), to guarantee media plurality, and to combat disinformation and gagging procedures. It emphasises the importance of reinforcing socialisation spaces (families, schools, public services, work, community life) to build common ground, support EVARS, maintain universal access to public services, and make work a real lever for women's emancipation. Finally, it calls on organised civil society (unions, associations, feminist movements, professional organisations) to build broad coalitions, to demand budgetary and legal resources, and to assume a role as a democratic 'watchdog'.

2. Key points of the document 

1. The precise characterisation of anti-gender movements as a structured illiberal offensive, massively funded (1.18 billion US dollars in Europe between 2019 and 2023, of which 165.7 million in France), with close links to fundamentalist religious networks and far-right parties. (p. 6-10)

2. The highlighting of a strategic grammar in six dimensions (distorting, discrediting, distracting, deterring, dividing, sowing doubt), which allows field actors to concretely identify the mechanisms of disinformation, instrumentalisation of violence, digital harassment, and the creation of anti-gender 'services' (Teenstar, Familya, naprotechnologies). (p. 11-16)

3. The analysis of the link between the anti-gender offensive and the challenge to the rule of law: attacks on international law (questioning international solidarity, retreat from multilateralism, withdrawal of American funding), weakening of feminist diplomacy, discrediting of justice and research, threat to academic freedom. (p. 18-21)

4. The insistence on the necessity to defend media plurality, to regulate digital platforms, to combat media concentration and gagging procedures targeting journalists, feminist associations, and human rights defenders, relying on existing frameworks (DSA, Arcom, European anti-SLAPP directive). (p. 21-23)

5. The recognition of anti-gender and masculinist movements as a threat to internal security (online radicalisation, incel attack plot, threat to the safety of women and LGBTQIA+ individuals) and the call for a comprehensive public response involving prevention, public safety, education, and strengthening of public services. (p. 16-17, 24-25)

3. Action pathways for local actors 

• Integrate the framework of "distortion, discredit, distraction, deterrence, division, doubt" into team training (health, social, education, youth, community life) to quickly identify signals of anti-gender influence in local projects, media discourse, or institutional partnerships. (p. 11-16)

• Strengthen, in territorial health and prevention projects, the links with EVARS actors, sexual and reproductive health services, and feminist associations, by systematically documenting attempts to intrude anti-gender measures (abstinence modules, "natural family planning", interventions not compliant with the legal framework). (p. 15-16, 23-24)

• Work with local authorities and state services to secure grants and agreements by demanding transparency in funding and compliance with fundamental rights (gender equality, LGBTQIA+ rights, secularism), drawing on examples of citizen contestation against local funding for anti-gender structures. (p. 15‑16, 23)

• Develop media and information education actions, particularly with young people, by articulating EVARS, prevention of cybersexism and online hate, and decoding masculinist narratives, while mobilising existing resources from the CESE on EMI. (p. 11‑14, 21‑23)

• Systematically document and report violence, threats, gag orders, and attacks against structures committed to equality (LGBTI+ centres, family planning, associations) in order to feed national alerts (Defender of Rights, HCE, CNCDH) and strengthen advocacy for enhanced legal protections. (p. 13‑14, 21‑23, 36‑40)

4. Additional References

5. Cross-Analysis — Values of Pratiques en Santé

• Literacy: The text remains at a high institutional level but clarifies the main concepts (masculinism, illiberalism, feminist diplomacy) and offers useful frameworks for understanding, without simplified educational tools. (p. 5‑16, 18‑23)

• Empowerment: The beneficiaries are not at the centre of the approach, but the resolution values the role of feminist movements, trade unions, associations, and citizen coalitions as agents of transformation. (p. 17‑20, 36‑40)

• Participation: The document describes a collective construction within the CESE (delegation for women's rights, expert hearings) and calls for broad coalitions of civil society, rather than direct co-construction with target audiences. (p. 3‑5, 36‑41)

• Community health: The collective dimension is present through the defence of public services, EVARS, reproductive justice, the fight against violence, and social cohesion, but without a detailed community methodology. (p. 18‑20, 23‑25)

• Ethics: The text clarifies the biases (religious conservatisms, masculinism, media concentration, misinformation) and puts them in tension with the principles of human rights, equality, and secularism. (p. 5‑16, 18‑23)

• Human rights: The approach is clearly based on human rights, international law (Beijing, CEDAW, Istanbul Convention), and the requirement for equity and inclusion for women and LGBTQIA+ individuals. (p. 18‑20)

• Intersectorality: The document articulates diplomacy, justice, research, media, digital, education, public services, sexual and reproductive health, and internal security, promoting a comprehensive response. (p. 18‑25)

• : Partnership: Models of collaboration are described or encouraged between CESE, HCE, CNCDH, feminist diplomacy, feminist organisations, trade unions, media, and European institutions. (p. 18‑23, 36‑41)

• Fight against discrimination: Sexist, LGBTQIA+ and racist discrimination are explicitly mentioned, as well as the need to combat cybersexism, violence, online hate and attacks against minorities. (p. 5‑16, 23‑24, 36‑40)

Points of vigilance in facilitation

Risks of emotional triggering:

The document addresses sexist and sexual violence, attacks on LGBTI+ centres, online harassment, threats and plans for attacks related to masculinist ideologies, as well as gender apartheid in Afghanistan.

In training, provide breathing breaks, a secure environment, the option to leave the room, a listening resource (VSS referent, psychologist, helpline) and a reminder of referral systems for individuals who have experienced violence.

6. Assessment of the reliability of the resource

• Scientific relevance :

  • The text relies on numerous robust secondary sources: work from the European Parliamentary Forum (EPF), reports from the HCE, CNCDH, the Defender of Rights, media barometers, academic studies, humanitarian reports. (footnotes p. 5‑24)

  • The methodology is not detailed as in a research report, but the resolution refers to detailed reports, hearings and precise references, which enhances its credibility.

• Operational relevance :

  • The resource provides a framework for strategic analysis, concrete examples, legal references and policy guidelines, but few 'ready-to-use' tools that can be directly transposed into workshops. (p. 11‑16, 18‑25)

  • It is very useful for advocacy, training leaders, building institutional action plans and coalitions, less so for facilitating sessions with vulnerable audiences without pedagogical translation work.

7. MCQ — 5 questions

Part 1 — Statement of the MCQ (without answers)

Question 1 (pp. 6‑8)

What total amount of funding would anti-gender movements have raised in Europe between 2019 and 2023 according to the European Parliamentary Forum?

a) 118 million US dollars

b) 1.18 billion US dollars

c) 11.8 billion US dollars

d) 18 million US dollars

Question 2 (pp. 11‑13)

The analysis grid of anti-gender strategies proposed in the resolution is mainly organised around:

a) Four pillars: prevention, protection, prosecution, policy

b) Six dimensions: distortion, discredit, distraction, deterrence, division, doubt

c) Three levels: local, national, European

d) Two axes: religious and political

Question 3 (pp. 18‑20)

According to the resolution, what is one of the major effects of Donald Trump's second term on international solidarity?

a) An increase in US funding to the UN

b) A massive withdrawal of the United States from many development aid programmes

c) The creation of a new multilateral fund for women's rights

d) The generalisation of feminist diplomacy in G7 countries

Question 4 (pp. 21‑23)

Among the following issues, which is highlighted to defend media plurality?

a) The development of solely public media

b) The strengthening of anti-concentration measures and the regulation of platforms

c) The abolition of audiovisual regulatory authorities

d) The cessation of media education programmes

Question 5 (p. 16-17)

Why is masculinist ideology considered a threat to internal security?

a) Because it is limited to theoretical academic debates

b) Because it justifies the use of violence and can lead to acts of aggression

c) Because it aims solely to improve the situation of men at work

d) Because it encourages dialogue between feminist and religious movements

Part 2 — Commented correction

Question 1 (pp. 6‑8)

✅ Correct answer: b) 1.18 billion US dollars

📝 Explanation: The resolution cites the report from the European Parliamentary Forum which estimates that 1.18 billion US dollars were raised by 275 organisations involved in anti-gender initiatives in Europe between 2019 and 2023. Source: p. 6-8.

Question 2 (pp. 11‑13)

✅ Correct answer: b) Six dimensions: distortion, discredit, distraction, deterrence, division, doubt

📝 Explanation: Drawing on work on climate denialism and masculinisms, the CESE proposes a framework of six dimensions to categorise the tactics of anti-gender movements in the media, political, and social space. Source: p. 11-13.

Question 3 (pp. 18‑20)

✅ Correct answer: b) A massive withdrawal of the United States from many development aid programmes

📝 Explanation: The text highlights that Donald Trump's second term leads to a massive withdrawal of the United States from programmes such as PEPFAR, USAID, WFP, WHO, UNICEF, jeopardising access to health and women's rights worldwide. Source: pp. 18-20.

Question 4 (pp. 21‑23)

✅ Correct answer: b) Strengthening anti-concentration measures and regulating platforms

📝 Explanation: The resolution emphasises the need for reliable, independent, and pluralistic information, combining the fight against media concentration, regulation of online content (DSA, Arcom), and the development of media and information literacy. Source: pp. 21-23.

Question 5 (p. 16-17)

✅ Correct answer: b) Because it justifies the use of violence and can lead to acts of violence

📝 Explanation: The text and references to the HCE show that masculinist ideology fuels radicalisation, legitimises violence against women and LGBTQIA+ individuals, and has already led to plans for attacks, making it a public and national security issue. Source: pp. 16-17.

8. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. What does the term "anti-gender movements" cover in this resolution? (pp. 5-7)

   It refers to a set of actors and initiatives that oppose advances in gender equality, sexual and reproductive rights, and the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals, often linked to fundamentalist religious networks and illiberal political forces.

2. Why does the CESE consider these movements a democratic threat rather than a mere opinion? (p. 5-6, 17-20)

   Because they deploy coordinated strategies of disinformation, pressure on institutions, capture of public funding, and challenge the rule of law (justice, media, research, international law), going beyond the framework of the debate of ideas.

3. What are the main strategies described to influence public debate in France? (p. 11-16)

   Distortion of reality (post-truth, 'gender theory'), distraction (Overton window, instrumentalisation of violence), discrediting of research, deterrence through intimidation (harassment, attacks on venues, gagging orders), division on sensitive topics, and instilling doubt.

4. Why is EVARS a priority target of anti-gender strategies? (p. 12-16, 23-24)

   Education on emotional, relational, and sexual life is contested in the name of 'child protection', while alternative provisions promote abstinence or conservative norms, sometimes with public funding or interventions in certain institutions.

5. What role does feminist diplomacy play in responding to these offensives? (p. 18-20)

   Feminist diplomacy is presented as a strategic lever to embed equality and women's rights in foreign policy, support feminist movements, and influence international negotiations, despite recent setbacks from certain states.

6. How does the resolution articulate the defence of public services and the fight against anti-gender strategies? (p. 23-25)

   It highlights that the weakening and dematerialisation of public services increase inequalities and feelings of abandonment, providing a fertile ground for reactionary discourse; it calls for guaranteeing effective universal access, particularly in healthcare, education, and social protection.

7. What mandate does the CESE give itself at the end of this resolution? (p. 17, 33-41)

   The CESE states its intention to play a watchdog role, support the production of knowledge, defend media plurality, encourage feminist diplomacy, and assist civil society organisations in building coalitions and advocacy for equality and democracy.

9. Rewriting in Easy-to-Read Language 

A. Easy-to-Read Summary

1. Context and Issues

Organised groups are attacking the rights of women and LGBTQIA+ individuals.

They have a lot of money and networks, in France and Europe.

They use the media, the internet, and politics to promote their ideas.

They challenge justice, research, and human rights.

This creates dangers for security and democracy.

At the same time, many people remain supportive of equality.

2. Operational Contributions

The document provides a simple framework to identify anti-gender strategies.

It proposes better protection for human rights and gender equality.

It calls for support for feminist diplomacy and independent research.

It emphasises media plurality and the fight against misinformation.

It encourages strong public services, comprehensive sexuality education, and reproductive justice.

He calls on associations, unions and collectives to act together.

B. Key points FALC

1. Anti-gender movements receive a lot of money for their actions.

2. They use six tactics: distort, discredit, distract, deter, divide, sow doubt.

3. They attack international law, feminist diplomacy and research.

4. They take advantage of media concentration and the flaws of social networks.

5. Their masculinist ideology can lead to violent acts and endangers women.