CHAPTER FIFTEEN. PREPARATIONS.

The gender confusion extended to the Division on Translation and Editing of the U.N., which in May issued a provisional version of its Glossary on Women's Issues-Spanish/ English. The glossary translated gender as sexo, even though Spanish has an equivalent word genero. The glossary defined genderlsexo as

1. The sex of assignment by oneself or those who raise the individual. 2. in mod, (esp. feminist) use, a euphemism of the sex of a human being, often intended to emphasize the social and cultural, as opposed to the biological distinctions between the sexes.

This makes no sense. If gender is the equivalent of sex, then it isn't assigned to the person either by himself or his parents. According to this definition, a person's gender could differ from his sex. The glossary went on to define gender role as

The sex of a child assigned by a parent; when opposite to the child's anatomical sex (e.g. due to genital ambiguity at birth or to the parents' strong wish for a child of the opposite sex), the basis is set for postpubertal dysfunctions.

This definition has absolutely no relation to the text or to common usage.

INTERNATIONAL COORDINATOR OF ASSOCIATIONS, BEIJING'95

In June a number of profamily women met in Rome to plan for the Beijing conference. Among them were Fenny Tatad, wife of a prominent Philippine senator, Silvia Arcardi from Argentina, and Maria Luisa Lopez from Spain, as well as women from the United States, Latin America, Italy, France, and Germany. They were all concerned about the current form of the draft. The women from Latin America insisted that it was not enough to oppose the current draft. They needed to show their governments and the women in their countries what they were for. They needed an alternative platform.

Although the time was short, these women agreed to put together an alternative platform and circulate it among various groups for input. This effort would have been impossible without a remarkable initiative begun by Ana Garijo of Spain. Before the PrepCom, Sra. Garijo had gathered the signatures of Spanish groups representing thousands of women who opposed the Gender Agenda as it was manifested in the Beijing platform. During the PrepCom, Garijo and her Spanish associates recognized that an international effort was needed. To meet this challenge they organized the International Coordinator of Associations, Beijing '95.

A petition drive on an international scale would have been impossible. They had no way to count and store millions of signatures. Therefore, the coordinator focused on getting support from profamily organizations around the world. The Coordinator distributed a form which listed various points in the current draft and the profamily positions on this issues. Organizations who opposed the draft platform and supported the profamily positions were asked to sign their organization's name, have the form notarized, and sent to Spain. By the time the Beijing conference began, the Coordinator had received signed. affirmations from organizations representing over-fifty million women. The signers of the Coordinator affirmed their support for

1) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is based on "recognition of the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family" and includes the "right to life," the protection of the family as "the natural and fundamental group unit of society," the protection of motherhood, the rights of parents to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children, and freedom of religion.

2) Protection of children and adolescents from invasive, indiscriminate and premature exposure to explicit sexual information.

3) Respect for the work of women within the home and women who choose to be homemakers. Gender is a polite way of saying sex and refers to two sexes, male and female.

4) Free access for young women to pursue a balanced education to prepare them for life.

5) Condemnation of: all prostitution as demeaning to women; forced birth control and sterilization; pressure to procure abortion; feticide and infanticide as violence against women; and condemnation of the manipulation of the truth concerning health risks of contraceptives and abortion.

6) The right to vote, run for political office, and participate in the political process without discrimination or prejudice.

These positive prowoman positions were contrasted with the draft platform which, according to the Coordinator, promoted "sexual and reproductive rights" including the right to abortion and sexual activity outside marriage for everyone, including adolescents and lesbians; adolescent sex education that promotes unmarried sexual activity and the dispensing of contraception without parental approval; the gender perspective, which is based "on the assumption that motherhood, family, and heterosexuality aren't natural"; non-traditional careers for women over a well-rounded education; voluntary prostitution; and quotas.

The Coordinator agreed to accept responsibility for producing, circulating, translating, and promoting the alternative Platform for Action. With only a little more than two months until the beginning of the Beijing conference, those working on the alternative platform did not have time for all the consultation they would have liked. Still, the version of A Platform for the Women of World contained input from Moslem, Catholic, Baptist, and Evangelical women around the world. The results, although still considered a work in progress, were translated into English, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French. The alternative platform began with a section which applied relevant sections of U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the current problems of women and rejected ideas that "equality" requires statistically equal participation:

Women and men are different and it is entirely appropriate to recognize those differences, particularly in the family and in regard to motherhood, so long as that recognition in no way disadvantages or discriminates against women. To deny the differences would violate the freedom of women to express and fulfill their unique vocations within the family and society. (A Platform for the Women of the World, A.2)

While the Beijing document mentioned marriage only negatively, and never used the words husband or wife, the alternative platform reminded people that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights supported the right of all men and women "to marry and found a family."

The alternative platform laid down principles which should govern the implementation of any plan to improve the condition of women. These were, in order of their importance: dignity, equality, complementarity, liberty, responsibility, subsidiarity, solidarity, and realism.

There had been debate during the PrepCom over the word dignity. The profamily delegates were astonished that there was opposition to inclusion of a word enshrined in the U.N.'s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It appears that the gender feminists were so dogmatic that they were afraid that the word might be interpreted to imply that there was an outside power which conferred dignity on human beings, that they opposed any references to women's dignity.

Those preparing the alternate platform believed that the principle of subsidiarity offered the best way to address women's lack of control over their lives. Subsidiarity requires that larger group units of society not usurp the functions which can be managed and controlled by the small group units, in particular, "the family should have freedom to manage and control its own affairs."

The alternate platform stressed that when power is concentrated in the hands of a few persons, these persons are more likely to be men than women, and women suffer disproportionately from a loss of influence and control. Increasing the number of women in the top levels of government, however, will not compensate for the loss of freedom ordinary women experience in their daily lives. The application of this principle of subsidiarity was seen as a way to "naturally increase the power and influence of women."

The alternate platform promoted the principle of solidarity as an antidote to the class struggle promoted by the Gender Agenda. Solidarity calls on men and women, all classes, races, and groups, to work together and consider the needs and interests of others.

"A Platform for the Women of the World" offered simple concrete suggestions to improve the conditions of women in the areas of poverty, education, health, peace, development, work, the media, the girlchild, and human rights. While the members of the team felt that they might have been able to do better if they had more time, they were pleased that they were able to set down in less than 30 pages-what the Beijing draft could not do in over 150-a plan that really reflected the aspirations of the women of the world.

THE VATICAN

Pope John Paul II had taken an active role in drawing attention to the Cairo conference, but the stance of the church toward the Beijing conference was very different. The Vatican delegation to the Cairo conference had been under the leadership of the Pontifical Council on the Family, whereas the Beijing Conference on Women came under the Pontifical Council on Laity. In Cairo, the battle lines were clearly drawn. The Catholic church unequivocally opposed abortion, artificial contraception, and sexual relations outside marriage, and supported the family, parental rights, and chastity. The Cairo conference had been under the control of International Planned Parenthood. The Catholic church had no intention of standing by while IPPF imposed abortion on demand on the whole world. At Beijing, while abortion continued to remain a concern, the issue was women.

While feminists portray the Catholic church as antiwoman because of its opposition to abortion and refusal to ordain women, the present pope has repeatedly insisted that the church supports women's equal dignity and rights and opposes all violence and injustice against women. Pope John Paul II had, in his pontificate, written repeatedly on women and used the Beijing conference as an opportunity to reiterate the same themes. On 1 January he issued a letter entitled "Women: Teachers of Peace" in which he wrote, "Authentic peace is only possible if the dignity of the human person is promoted at every level of society." Women, he continued, are called to "become teachers of peace with their whole being and in all their actions" because "to them God entrusts the human being in a special way." The text stressed the complementarity of men and women, motherhood, and the important role of women in the world, and condemned discrimination against women.

In May, the pope received the secretary general of the Beijing conference, Gertrude Mongella, and issued a special letter expressing the Vatican's appreciation of her efforts. John Paul stressed that the conference proposals must be based on "recognition of the inherent, inalienable dignity of women, and the importance of women's presence and participation in all aspects of social life" and "universal human rights." He also pointed out that "equality of dignity does not mean `sameness with men."' He warned that "a great sensitivity is required in order to avoid the risk of prescribing action which will be far removed from the real-life needs and aspirations of women."

In June the pope wrote a special letter to women. He also devoted several of his noontime talks to the subject. His attempts to strike a conciliatory note and stress the importance of women's presence in the life of their communities surprised some, who had been convinced that the Catholic church was irredeemably antiwoman. Some commentators even suggested that the pope had changed Catholic teaching in these areas, which was not the case.

If the Vatican had hoped that conciliatory words from the Holy Father or the fact that Mongella was Catholic would influence the progress of the conference, they were disappointed. Mongella's first loyalty proved to be to her friends in WEDO. Near the end of the conference she said, "We are seeing a revolution in the making. ..,.I have not been applying my Catholicism to this conference, otherwise it would have been a disaster."

Bella Abzug tried to use the positive statements made by John Paul II to undermine the profamily opposition to certain sections of the platform, implying that the Vatican supported the entire document: "The Beijing Platform for Action is a consensus document agreed to by nations of the world, including the Vatican" ["Bella Abzug defends the Beijing Conference," The Earth Times (22 July 1995), INTERNET: theearthtime@igc.apc.org].

At the same time she condemned any criticism of the proposed platform as an attempt to block "efforts to improve the lives of women everywhere and rollback women's gains."

John Paul II stressed the positive. Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, director of the Holy See Press Office, however, expressed concern about ideological imbalance and linguistic ambiguities, noting that gender appeared around two hundred times and mother/motherhood fewer than ten. He questioned the attempt to introduce the term sexual orientation, which could refer to pedophilia. In his briefing in August, Navarro-Valls called on the conference to "boldly assume a perspective decidedly in favor of women" and expressed concern that there might be an attempt to impose upon developing countries "a Western product, a socially reductive philosophy, which does not even represent the hopes and needs of the majority of Western women."

THE LANCET

In July, an editorial in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet reviewed the proposed Beijing platform's section on health and found it lacking:

Health is defined in a surprisingly one-dimensional manner; it seems to exist in a , reproductive context only. When seen through the lens of fertility control, the notion of "health" is distorted beyond all recognition. This intellectual astigmatism leads the UN-and influential non-governmental organizations such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation-to adopt empowerment and equality as cure alls ....

Halfdan Mahler, Secretary General of IPPF, characterises those who oppose his organisation's agenda-one that is largely identical to that of the UN-as "obscurantist opposition." . . . One does not have to be either "conservative" or "extremist" to use Mahler's words, to question the assumptions on which the reproductive health and family planning "movement" is based.

Politically correct slogans draw easy support and much needed funds. They sting public apathy and indifference. But they should be examined carefully and critically before they become the basis for policy. The new colonialism of the international women's health agenda is a dangerous strategy. It places western utopianism before local pragmatism, expert notions of what is right before a culturally specific understanding of need. Equality means far more than achieving the right to reproductive health. ["Women in the World," The Lancet (22 July 1995), p. 195]

PUBLIC DEBATE

In Cairo the profamily forces had been organized by Catholic and prolife groups. After Cairo many Evangelical Protestant Christians realized that they needed to be involved. In particular, Beverly LaHaye, of Concerned Women for America, and Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, took an active part in the preparations for Beijing.

From his base in Colorado, Dr. Dobson's radio shows and literature reach an audience of millions around the world with a profamily message. In August he sent an eight-page letter to his supporters condemning the U.N. conference as "the most radical atheistic, antifamily crusade in the history of the world." Dobson expressed outrage over the holding of a conference on women in China, a country notorious for violations of the human rights of women. He cited China's forced abortion and forced sterilization policies, the continued practice of female infanticide and female feticide, the scheduling of executions of prisoners in order to harvest and sell their organs, and the eating of aborted human fetuses. He also condemned the Clinton administration for refusing to grant political asylum to Chinese women fleeing China's one-child policies.

Dobson pulled no punches, condeming the use of U.S. resources and power to "undermine the family, promote abortion, teach immoral behavior to teenagers, incite anger and competition between men and women, advocate lesbian and homosexual behavior and vilify those with sincere religious faith."

He pointed to the gender feminist ideology as the cause of the problem and encouraged his supporters to "derail this gender feminist juggernaut." Besides the letter he devoted several radio shows to the topic and made several speeches against the conference.

The members of the U.S. delegation reacted swiftly, insisting that the document was profamily. President Clinton insisted the conference was "true blue to families" ["Transcript of 26 August Remarks by President, First Lady on the 75th Anniversary of Ratification of the 19th Amendment," U.S. Newswire, 28 August 1995]. Profamily spokesmen tried to inform the public about the contents of the draft, and they were primed for a public debate over the Gender Agenda. Instead, feminists and administration spokesmen denied the radical contents of the draft, feigned ignorance of the Gender Agenda, and talked about how the conference would promote the health and safety of women. Members of the U.S. delegation waved a small kit containing the supplies needed for nonhospital maternity care, insisting that this was what Beijing was about and dismissed the gender controversy as irrelevant.

President Clinton had promised that his appointed delegates would be diverse and bipartisan; however, as has been typical of the Clinton administration, no one associated with the profamily movement or prolife movement was on the delegation.

Former Congresswoman Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, deputy head of the U.S. team in Beijing during a roundtable discussion televised on CSpan, denied accusations that the conference was promoting an antifamily agenda: "I would never take part in anything that didn't celebrate the family .... I've adopted children when I was single, came into marriage with my husband's children . . . so I wouldn't be considered the `traditional family.'" She did allow however that "this document is not telling people about what is right." When asked about whether or not the U.S. would protest the Chinese treatment of women, she replied, "We will try not to be judgmental."

Profamily spokespersons found it difficult to get their message across in the thirty-second sound bites allotted to them. It was difficult to explain that the document was flawed because of what was not in it. The defenders of the conference quoted the positive sections of the draft, trying to leave the impression that opponents of the draft opposed these when, in fact, there was no opposition to positive prowoman programs.

The profamily forces did, however, reach sympathetic members of Congress with their concerns. The new Republican (and profamily) majority was eager to take on the administration. Profamily Republican Congressman Chris Smith had attended the Cairo conference, where he had been forbidden to speak publicly. The 1994 election gave the profamily members new power to hold hearings and ask tough questions. On 7 March during hearings before the House International Relations Committee, Congressman Smith questioned Secretary of State Warren Christopher. Smith asked why, when she was asked to identify the U.S. delegation's prime concern in Beijing, the first thing delegate Margolies-Mezvinsky said was "choice" and when asked to specify what choice, her response was "abortion" (Hearing of House International Relations Committee, 30 March 19951.

Aware that during the Cairo conference, the State Department had sent a memo to ambassadors ordering them to put pressure on foreign governments to support the U.S.'s position on abortion, Smith demanded assurances from the secretary that the administration would not use the conference to try to change the laws of other countries regarding abortion.

THE CHILEAN STATEMENT

The debate over the Beijing conference went on in many countries, with varying results. From the profamily point of view the most positive action came from the Chilean Senate, which issued a strong statement expressing concern about "any totalitarian value system that claims to have the authority to represent the conscience of the men and women of our world." The statement summarized the profamily position on the issues raised in the platform:

Types of families-We want to endorse the concept of the family, fundamentally the monogamous and stable union of a man and a woman in matrimony, as the basic cell of society. Any type of action that would have the effect of weakening the family should not be endorsed; the earth trembles at the possibility that persons of the same sex constitute family. All this, of course, must be done, without prejudice, to protect the persons and especially the women, children, and dependent persons. To be precise, it is necessary to consider in justice the problem that other kinds of unions present, whose members and children merit protection.

Gender Equity-Because many proponents of the use of the word gender, without great specificity, maintain that masculine and feminine refers only to cultural and social construction and not to the biological conditions which mark the psychological make-up of the woman and the man, and that according to this conception the differences between the sexes do not have a natural origin, considering the consequences that this unleashes for all the individuals as well as for the family and society, we are repelled by the pretentious circumlocutions and troubled by what we believe is a use of ambiguous terms and legal concepts that emanate from them.

Equality of Opportunity-We believe that the Chilean position should dearly recognize the equality of opportunity which ought to exist between men and women. We desire, furthermore, that the different roles of the father and the mother in a complementary manner within the family be recognized. We hope that maternity will be valued, together with the family and work within the home.

Reproductive rights of women-This wording, which appears to us to be highly troublesome and dangerous, is frequently used to imply the existence of a right to abortion, the so-called reproductive freedom. We want a dear and definitive definition which defends of the right to life of all human beings from the moment of conception without any type of ambiguity or liberal semantic interpretations. We desire that Chile as expression of its culture would veto any phrase or action that could be understood directly or indirectly as legitimizing abortion.

The rights of parents in the education of their children: The Senate demands that no action be approved which violates the rights, duties and responsibilities of parents and other persons legally responsible for children, and also in all actions that affect them as adolescents, in conformity with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In general, we do not want a presentation that is not founded on a pretended inferiority of the woman, but a declaration which respects the liberty and dignity of women as persons and as active agents in the construction of society and if it is her will, also as wife and mother in the family. [author's translation]

In the U.S. the debate over the content of the draft was sidetracked by the controversy over the jailing of human rights activist Harry Wu. Many voices were raised against Hillary Clinton's attendance at a conference in China while Harry Wu remained in jail under threat of execution. Others felt that China's human rights violations were so atrocious that the U.S. should boycott the conference entirely.

In August, the U.S. State Department issued a warning to U.S. citizens attending the conferences, "that delegates could face arrest and imprisonment if they carried Bibles into China, engaged in religious activities or met in small groups."

A number of groups decided to boycott the conference to protest Chinese policy. The Independent Women's Forum, which opposes feminist extremism, chose not to go, but provided articulate women to debate the issue in the media and distributed buttons which read "SEX IS BETTER THAN GENDER."

In addition, the problems over accreditation were not resolved until the end of July. Only then did a number of U.S. NGOs know if they would be allowed to send representatives. To make matters worse, the representatives found they couldn't make room reservations without a visa, and they couldn't get a visa without an NGO accreditation.

Washington Times reporter George Archibald kept the issue in the news, and local talk shows took an interest, but the major media ignored the real story and followed the administration line. Unfortunately some of the best profamily legislators and commentators were distracted by the five genders debate and disappointed when they discovered that the document did not actually mention five genders.

On 1 August the U.S. Senate approved an amendment to the Foreign Relations Revitalization Act instructing the U.S. Delegation to Beijing that "motherhood" must be "recognized as a valuable and worthwhile endeavor that should in no way . . . be demeaned by society, or by the state." Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas who introduced the amendment said that this resolution "puts Congress on the record that the U.S. delegates should advocate the importance of the family as the fundamental unit of our society .... Most Americans would be surprised to learn that there is any reason for Congress to take this step."

Senator Coats, in a speech during the debate said that the current Beijing draft "conflicts with the views of most Americans and is silent on the unique role of women as mothers."

This resolution and a similar move from the House of Representatives had an effect on delegates from other countries, but it was not sufficient to stop the gender juggernaut which was rolling toward Beijing.

As the end of August approached, the pseudoissues were resolved. Harry Wu was tried, convicted, and exiled in time for Hillary to attend the conference. Controversy over the site of the NGO forum, which had been moved from Beijing to a third-rate town forty minutes from the conference, had been intense. There had even been talk of moving the conference to

another country. Some of the profamily delegates had prayed it would be canceled completely. But, in the end, the U.N. capitulated entirely to the Chinese government.

Members of Non-Governmental Organizations who had struggled for months to receive accreditation from the U.N. found they had to face another barrier. The Chinese refused or delayed granting visas-no reasons were given. Dorothy Patterson, from the Southern Baptist Convention, had visited China several times in the past, but in spite of a number of appeals was denied a visa. Dan Zeidler, a key organizer of the Coalition for Women and the Family, had to travel from his home in Wisconsin to Chicago several times before he finally wheedled a visa out of the Chinese officials. The Chinese strategy appeared to be stall and delay and then give in only to the extremely persistent.