Evidence of Systemic and Unlawful Promotion of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity by UN Secretariat, Agencies, and other UN Entities

By C-Fam Staff | September 30, 2024

Recent debates on the use of the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” within the United Nations in reference to individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) are often conducted with the assumption that these notions are clearly defined in science and law. In fact, there is no scientific consensus on how to define sexual orientation, very few countries treat individuals who identify as LGBT as a discrete class of persons, and many proscribe homosexual conduct because of moral and public health concerns.

International law does not recognize the notion of “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI). There is no binding UN treaty that mentions sexual orientation and gender identity and no UN treaty can be fairly interpreted to include these notions. Nor is there a colorable argument that a customary international norm exists regarding these notions.[i]

Nevertheless, there is a widespread shift within the UN system to promote SOGI as categories of nondiscrimination and the basis for novel “human rights,” independent of the lack of consensus that any such standards should exist.

________________

[i] The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VLCT) provides a canon to interpret inter- national treaties. According to the VLCT, interpretations must be made in “good faith” and on the basis of the “ordinary” meaning of the terms of the treaty and the overall “object and purpose” of the treaty at the time of its negotiation. No UN human rights treaty includes the terms “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” in any form, nor, as a discussion of the context and drafting histories for the respective treaties will show, could it be interpreted in good faith to convey or imply such a right. Furthermore, during the negotiation of human rights treaties, many states had laws restricting or outlawing sodomy. None had laws recognizing same-sex legal arrangements or recognizing “gender identity” other than biologically determined sex. In light of this, and the fact that multiple countries proscribe homosexual conduct, also no customary international law could exist supporting the notion that consensual sex between adults of the same sex is a protected right or freedom, or that states should promote social acceptance for homosexuality, nor that a person would be able to change their anatomy and legal identity to suit their subjective perception of “gender identity” or compel its recognition by others.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter