By Henry Tse, International LGBTQI+ Activist Summit Delegate 2024
The views expressed below are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Carr-Ryan Center for Human Rights or Harvard Kennedy School. These perspectives have been presented to encourage debate on important public policy challenges.
On International Trans Day of Visibility, I would like to take the opportunity to recap with you—following my recent attendance—the latest tug of war on trans rights at the UN’s two-week Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), which concluded its 70th session on 19 March in New York.
So, what is CSW? And how is CSW concluded each year?
Established in 1946, CSW is a commission under the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), which serves as the primary global intergovernmental body dedicated to promoting gender equality and advancing the status of women worldwide.
Representatives from member states gather annually at the United Nations Headquarters in New York to promote global gender equality and women's empowerment. The Commission on the Status of Women consists of 45 members, elected by the Council for a four-year term.
The principal output of CSW, is the ‘Agreed Conclusions’ on priority themes set for each year. They provide an analysis of the priority theme(s) and contain negotiated, concrete recommendations for advancing gender equality and women's empowerment, directed at governments, UN bodies, civil society, and other stakeholders.
These conclusions are decided through a formal, lengthy intergovernmental negotiation process among UN Member States (i.e. the 45 member states of the CSW). Civil society and NGOs cannot directly participate in the negotiations but can influence them indirectly by lobbying delegations or providing input earlier.
Since its formalisation in 1995, until 2025, the Agreed Conclusions had been adopted by consensus. This meant no formal vote was taken; the document was agreed upon without objection (though states could express reservations). In cases where consensus failed entirely, no Agreed Conclusions were adopted at all (e.g. in 2003 and 2012 sessions). This consensus approach reflected the Commission's emphasis on multilateral cooperation for gender equality issues.
Agreed Conclusions: the shift from consensus to recorded vote
That said, this year’s CSW70, with the theme of ‘Ensuring and Strengthening Access to Justice for All Women and Girls’, has its first ever adoption of Agreed Conclusions by recorded vote (instead of concluding by consensus).
The shift from consensus to a recorded vote, was a direct result of a procedural impasse initiated by the United States.
Just before the final adoption, at the March 9th plenary session, the United States orally proposed its consideration be postponed, the draft of the ‘Agreed Conclusions’ be withdrawn, and proposed eight amendments to the text.
The ‘package’ of eight amendments aimed at removing terms like ‘sexual and reproductive health’ and ‘intersectionality’. One of the most contentious amendments proposed a strict UN-wide definition of gender as referring ‘only to men and women on the basis of biological sex’, explicitly rejecting ‘subjective notions of gender identity’.
‘There is no Agreed Conclusions at this point’, US representative Dan Negrea said, opposing ‘ambiguous language promoting gender ideology’, vague unqualified commitments to sexual and reproductive health that can be interpreted as implying abortion rights, and censorship language on regulation of artificial intelligence. He also reiterated that the US withdrew from UN-Women lately because it recklessly promoted gender ideology and abortion.
‘How do we entrust the women and girls of the world to an agency that denies the biological realities of a woman?’ He asked.
The voting, formally requested by the US and accepted by the Chair of CSW, took place in the plenary. The Commission members voted to reject the U.S. amendments as a block - 1 (US) in favour, 26 against, with 14 abstentions. By a recorded vote of 37 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 6 abstentions, the Commission adopted its Agreed Conclusions.
The U.S. didn't stop at the first vote, however.
On 11th March, minutes before the deadline, they introduced a separate resolution titled 'Protection of women and girls through appropriate terminology,' which sought to define ‘gender’ as only ‘men and women’.
In response, Belgium, on behalf of the European Union, commented in the March 19th plenary the text is ‘factual incorrect’ as it ‘misquotes and contradicts’ the report of the Fourth World Conference on Women, which took place in Beijing in 1995 and is considered a milestone for gender equality.
Belgium continued, ‘given the lack of consultation and negotiation, the membership should not be forced to rush a decision of this importance by the unilateral initiative by one member state.’
For that reason, a ‘no-action motion’ was put forward — a procedural move used to prevent a proposal from being considered. The motion passed (23 in favour, 3 against, 17 abstain), ending the CSW70 session on its last day.
Witnessing the process at the heart of CSW, as a trans advocate from Hong Kong
Seeing this tug of war first-hand at my first ever CSW, as a transman that has fought non-stop to be recognised as man in Hong Kong since 2017, has left a deep mark in me.
For years, I fought in the local courts to prove that our existence shouldn’t be a matter of ‘full surgical completion’, but of everyday reality, and human dignity. Now, at CSW70, that same battle has shifted from the courtrooms of Admiralty in Hong Kong to the grand plenaries of the UN HQ in New York, and the air is thick with a different kind of tension.
When the US demanded that gender be defined strictly by biological sex, it wasn't just a procedural amendment; it was an attempt to erase the very legal progress I’ve bled for. To witness a global power attempt to turn back the clock — not just for their own citizens, but for every trans person relying on these international benchmarks — is a chilling reminder of how fragile our ‘victories’ can be, even if our fundamental rights is still being upheld at this CSW.
On one hand, when I met with the representatives of the CSW member states, or the UN offices during CSW, probably as their first encounter of transman in their lives, I would try my best to convey my story across, hoping my real struggles would move them. On the other hand, I am also painfully aware of the issues within the UN system, like its liquidity crisis, and the fact that the trans rights are backsliding in the US, with high-profile trans cases looking dim at the Supreme Court.
When a powerful agent does good, its impact can be enormous, as what Obergefell has done for Asia. The same logic applies for anti-gender and trans exclusionary efforts in these influential systems. As a trans advocate from the Far East, I only have so much leverage and control over the work that I do, while I watch things go about beyond my realm.
Henry Tse is the Executive Director of Transgender Equality Hong Kong and the plaintiff in Tse Henry Edward v. Commissioner of Registration, a landmark case in which the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal ruled that the Hong Kong government's policy requiring transgender individuals to undergo full sex reassignment surgery in order to change the gender marker on their identity cards violated the right to privacy protected under Article 14 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance.
