Speaking Fluidity, Writing Binaries: The Paradox of Global Gender Discourse

Gender is said to be a spectrum. But global policies still draw straight lines. From the UN to the World Bank, this blog audits how “gender equality” often stops at women and men—leaving queer identities invisible.

Are We Still Thinking Gender in Straight Lines?

Are we really past the binary when it comes to gender? We like to believe so. We speak the language of progress, invoke fluidity, celebrate queerness, and proudly announce that gender is no longer a fixed destination but an open-ended journey—an endless spectrum marked by porous borders and overlapping hues. Yet, beyond specialized academic and activist spaces, how sincere is this engagement?

There is a familiar paradox at work here. Terms like “gender fluidity” and “queer” increasingly appear in election manifestos, policy statements, and institutional rhetoric—buzzwords that promise applause, moral credibility, and social capital. But when it comes to translating these words into policy imagination and structural commitment, the enthusiasm seems to evaporate. Perhaps it is time to audit some of the most celebrated global sites of gender discourse.

The Global Scriptwriters of Gender

The United Nations, as the foremost global platform shaping international consensus, is expected to lead conversations on gender with conceptual rigour and political courage. Every UN document carries enormous symbolic and practical weight, moulding social sensibilities across nations.

One of its most ambitious initiatives, The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted in 2015, is widely hailed as a milestone. Among the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, Goal 5 is titled “Gender Equality”, aiming to “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.”

There is, of course, no question about the significance of women’s issues within gender justice. But this formulation raises an uncomfortable question: where do gender-queer, non-binary, and trans persons figure in this global vision of sustainable development? Their absence is telling.

This erasure is echoed by the  World Health Organisation. Under the heading “Gender and Health,” the WHO explains:

“Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other.”

Despite decades of queer and trans scholarship that problematise such definitions, gender here remains firmly anchored to a binary imagination.

The pattern continues with the UNESCO, which proudly proclaims “Priority Gender Equality” as one of its mottos. The stated aim is:

“to promote inclusion and combat gender-based violence, to bridge the digital gender divide and to support women’s empowerment in crisis, emergency and early recovery contexts.”

Once again, gender is collapsed into women’s empowerment alone—important, urgent, but hardly exhaustive. The definition quietly reinstates an archaic understanding of gender even while claiming inclusivity.

Inclusion, With Footnotes

The European Institute for Gender Equality appears, at first glance, to take a more expansive position. It defines gender equality as “eliminating inequalities for everyone – women and girls, men and boys, and persons who do not identify themselves on the gender binary scale.”

Yet, when discussions turn concrete, the framework slips back into familiar grooves. A gender-equal workplace is discussed in terms of “work-life balance measures for women and men, and mental health resources.” Gender-based violence is explained by noting that though “anybody can be a victim of GBV, women are overwhelmingly the victims.” Gender stereotypes are analysed almost entirely through the lens of women and men, with women positioned—rightly—as victims, but others rendered invisible.

Similarly, the World Bank Group , in its thematic focus on gender, frames its concern as:

“Unlocking the full potential of women and girls is a priority for the World Bank Group.”

Once again, gender is reduced to a single axis, flattening the complexity of lived identities.

The Cost of a Reduced Imagination

What emerges from this brief audit is troubling. International organisations that ought to be at the forefront of dismantling gender binaries and foregrounding gender fluidity remain trapped in a limited imaginary of gender. The language of inclusion is present, but its conceptual foundations remain stubbornly binary.

These observations are drawn from a close reading of the official websites of the institutions mentioned above. A deeper dive into national and regional policy documents would likely reveal similar patterns of queer insensitivity, carefully camouflaged within the rhetoric of gender concern. India—and the state of Kerala in particular—demands such a reading.

But that, perhaps, is a story for another day.