UNITED NATIONS, January 20, 2026 (C-Fam) 
C-Fam Statement during the General Debate of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity, January 20, 2026

Because of the gravity of labelling anyone hostis humani generis (enemy of the human race), definitions in the new treaty must be precise and not lend themselves to political manipulation. For this reason, we urge Member States to define gender as referring only to men and women in the new treaty or replace the term gender altogether with “sex.”

It has been said that the absence of a definition of the term “gender” in the draft articles allows states to define it as they wish. This is a mistake or a deliberate lie.

Discarding the definition of gender from the Rome Statute redefines gender in international criminal law as a social construct. The commentaries on the draft articles are unambiguous. They say that “gender” must be understood as a social construct and that it includes “sexual orientation and gender identity,” among other things. They claim this as a matter of customary international law. Accepting the draft articles without a definition of gender is to ratify this rationale and accept a new definition of gender in customary international law.

With all due respect to Professor Sean Murphy, this is a very bad idea. An open definition of gender undermines the very concept of crimes against humanity.

Since the Nuremberg trials, the basic tenet of the crimes against humanity framework is that some crimes are so egregious and inhumane as to be always and self-evidently punishable, regardless of the principle of legality, statutes of limitations, and even when perpetrators act under orders. Contrary to this, the concept of gender is vague, fluid, and obscure.

Gender ideology is a neo-Marxist theoretical construct. Applied to crimes against humanity, it calls into question every aspect of social, political, and economic life as a potential crime against humanity. It will weaponize international criminal law against political and religious opponents of gender ideology. Anyone who believes that biological differences between men and women could be labelled an enemy of humanity. This is not far-fetched.

In the UN system and some Western countries, the category of “gender-based violence” already includes misgendering, denial of abortion, defending women’s spaces, opposition to homosexual adoption or gender transitions for minors, or simply speaking about such things. The organizations for whom we speak are routinely labelled “anti-gender” and “anti-rights” by UN mandates, EU-funded groups, and media entities.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn famously remarked that those who censored, imprisoned, and murdered during the Soviet tyranny did so convinced of their own righteousness. This was necessary to build a better world, they said. Millions were killed or imprisoned in the Gulags. We must watch against those who want to build real and virtual gulags in the name of preventing gender crimes.

The indeterminacy and lack of certainty from adding gender ideology to the CAH framework are already on display in the work of UN and ICC staff. A UN Women expert has written that gender inequality “makes it harder for victims and survivors of gender persecution to identify themselves as victims.” The ICC prosecutor has said that “a myriad of gender-based acts” that are not considered criminal acts may nevertheless be discovered and charged as gender-based crimes. This is Orwellian.

We urge member states to ensure that the term “gender” is defined in the new treaty or replaced with the term “sex.”