Is “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity” Consensual at the United Nations?

What do election integrity and sexuality have in common? The Biden Administration.


Last Thursday, a UN resolution on election integrity sponsored by the United States was adopted “by consensus” (meaning without a vote) by the UN General Assembly (UNGA).


It was not surprising that no country called for a vote on this U.S.-led resolution as no country wants to openly challenge the U.S. government.


However, what was unusual was that 22 countries spoke out and either disassociated or reserved on controversial LGBT language in this U.S. resolution. (See the list of countries and a link to their recorded statements below.)


Specifically, countries were upset because the U.S. forced the inclusion of the controversial LGBT terms “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI) and “women in all their diversity.” In addition to SOGI, the latter term is opposed by conservative nations because it is known to be a euphemistic way of referring to women of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities and to also encompass men who identify as women (i.e., transgender women).


We aren’t aware of any country that screens individuals before they vote to determine their sexual orientation or gender identity. Certainly, Family Watch would oppose such an extreme measure. The reason this clause was put into the resolution by the U.S. was to continue to advance their sexual imperialism agenda and to impose it on non-willing countries in a manipulative way.


One of the reasons nations had the problem with the reference to SOGI in this resolution was that it called for the elimination of both “direct” and “indirect” discrimination. “Indirect” discrimination has never been defined and could encompass almost anything.


During negotiations the previous week in the UNGA’s Third Committee, despite the repeated strong requests by multiple countries asking the U.S. to delete these problematic terms, the U.S. had arrogantly retained them.


This had prompted Nigeria, together with 16 other countries, to propose amendments from the floor to remove the controversial terms. But unfortunately the amendments failed.


We were told by a number of diplomats that since the U.S. is the largest donor to many developing countries, many nations felt they could not stand up to the U.S.


To see how countries voted on the amendment that would have removed “sexual orientation and gender identity” click here. To see how countries voted on the amendment that would have removed “women in all their diversity” click here.


After the amendments to remove the reference to SOGI failed in the UNGA’s Third Committee, Nigeria had been expected to call for a vote against the entire resolution. This is because calling for a vote substantially weakens UN resolutions as voted resolutions are considered non-consensual.


But that didn’t happen.


Many think Nigeria backed down from calling for a vote because U.S. Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, conveniently just happened to be in Nigeria’s capital at that exact same time and that he likely persuaded Nigerian government officials to instruct their UN delegation not to call for a vote.


Moreover, a number of diplomats told us their countries could never call for a vote on an elections resolution because they might be accused of opposing free and fair elections.


And that is precisely why the U.S. cleverly chose this specific resolution to insert the SOGI terms and then refused to remove them.


Most U.S. citizens have no idea that the U.S. regularly bullies, bribes and blackmails developing countries into accepting anti-life and anti-family policies at the UN and elsewhere.


Family Watch commends each UN Member State that bravely stood up against the sexual imperialism of the United States. This was not an easy thing to do.


If nations are to protect their religious and cultural values, their national sovereignty, and the institution of the family, which is the foundational group unit of every healthy society, they must stand up to any government that seeks to undermine such.


The following countries made strong statements during the UNGA against the SOGI language in the U.S.-led elections resolution: Russia, Belarus, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Guatemala, Jordan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Senegal, Libya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Uganda, Bangladesh, Zambia, Guinea and Algeria.


To see the UN’s recorded video of these nations giving their statements click here. (Note: For English, click on the world symbol at the bottom of the video screen and then select “English.” The statements begin at 49:00.)


In the end, the big question that remains is has “sexual orientation and gender identity” now become a consensus term at the United Nations. Lawyers from various UN delegations seem to disagree on the answer. Some believe that because amendments were proposed to remove “sexual orientation and gender identity,” and 58 nations voted to support that removal, that this means SOGI has not obtained consensus. Further, after the resolution was adopted 22 nations either made a reservation or disassociated from SOGI.


Certainly, if consensus means everyone agrees, then SOGI has not obtained consensus, especially in light of the strong statements given by 22 countries against it. On the other hand, the resolution itself which contains SOGI was adopted “by consensus.” Therefore, it could be argued on that basis that SOGI is now consensus language. Family Watch believes the true test will be to what extent nations continue to oppose the term in future negotiations. That is what will determine the consensual or nonconsensual status of SOGI in UN policy.