Lesson 3.1: Institutional and Everyday Impacts of ‘Anti-Gender’ Politics
This lesson traces how ‘anti-gender’ mobilisations move from rhetoric to structure. It examines how governments, media actors, and local institutions translate ideological hostility into concrete actions: restrictive laws, censorship, defunding, surveillance of civil society, policing of public spaces, and subtle forms of bureaucratic exclusion. You will see how these mechanisms interact, forming an infrastructure of discrimination that affects everyday life.
3. Attacks on civil society and knowledge
‘Anti-gender’ movements also undermine the legitimacy of feminist and queer expertise. NGOs, journalists, academics, and educators are framed as ‘ideological extremists’ or ‘foreign agents’. Funding cuts, harassment campaigns, and soft censorship undermine their work.
|
|
|
|
|
Malina recalled a situation in which a Plenipotentiary for Equal rights was dismissed overnight for announcing plans for the university to launch a support system for transgender persons. On a brighter side, participants recognised how EU policies on equality and diversity in education, research, and innovation are making a difference. Although these policies weren’t specifically designed to tackle ‘anti-gender’ movements, they act as important resources in the fight against transphobia, anti-feminism, xenophobia, and homophobia within academia. |
|
Switzerland 
A gender studies scholar noted avoiding terms like ‘patriarchy’ in public lectures becausethese words “are likely to be picked up on” and used against such individuals (SWIINT06, RESIST Switzerland Report, p. 44).
This results in ‘defensive professionalism’, which drains creativity and limits what can be researched or taught.
Ireland
In Ireland, participants of the RESIST research also spoke of coordinated public attacks, online harassment, and funding pressure on feminist and queer organisations. These campaigns drain resources, disrupt services, and threaten staff safety, producing a destructive form of institutional attrition.
Organisations described being pushed into constant crisis management. As one participant put it:
|
Service providers reported that harassment and online disinformation often lead to funding cuts, as donors and partners distance themselves from ‘controversial’ work. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle: fewer resources to support vulnerable people, and greater exposure to public hostility.
The target community that we’re working with are affected by the rise in populism and […] attitudes and behaviour that’s homophobic and biphobic and transphobic and racist and sexist and all that kind of thing. It’s had quite a big impact naturally on the people that we’re working with […It is] very upsetting to see how much they’re struggling and how much they’re suffering. (Moninne, Ireland Report, p. 38) |
Many organisations now operate under heightened security precautions, removing social media pages, ceasing to advertise events, and avoiding public venues to reduce visibility. As documented in the RESIST Report on Ireland, some queer organisations have
stopped using social media to announce meetings or support groups. These would once have been public, but now people have to contact the organizers directly. People even choose venues without visibility from the street. (Ireland Report, p. 39) |
These changes severely limit access for those who most need support, especially young or closeted people seeking help for the first time. The report on Ireland concludes that “support and services are harder to access for those who need them most” (p. 40).
Such defensive strategies reflect how ‘anti-gender’ mobilisations constrain not only what can be said, but also what can safely be done. People’s everyday experiences show that ‘anti-gender’ undermines not only rights but also epistemic authority, making feminist and queer knowledge and advocacy itself suspect.