Op-ed by Ferdousi Begum
Gender-responsive policymaking is not nearly as gender-responsive as it needs to be.
The first step to solving a problem is recognizing its existence, and yet when it comes to gender relations in migration governance, it seems we cannot even agree on a label. One of the latest evolutions of this linguistic conflict occurs in the form of gender-responsiveness, which, like its peers (gender-sensitive, gender-transformative, etc.), is regularly applied too loosely to be descriptive. The UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM), defines gender-responsive migration governance as, “the way in which laws, policies and programmes recognize and address the different realities faced by migrants on the basis of their gender, including in its intersection with factors such as sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or race, and at all stages of migration, while upholding their human rights, promoting their empowerment and advancing gender equality.” This definition is purposely broad, allowing member states to shape how they integrate it into their policymaking, but a broad definition should not be mistaken for easy application. With the conclusion of the 2026 International Migration Review Forum (IMRF), however, we saw ample evidence of the latter.
Member states continue to use progressive terms without basis leading the words to slowly degrade in meaning or hide the lack of progress.
Member states continue to use progressive terms without basis leading the words to slowly degrade in meaning or hide the lack of progress. Between progress reports, pledges, and a plethora of other official statements, the overabundant application of the ‘gender-responsive’ demonstrates a lack of will to impose policies properly in-line with the term. This is in spite of the fact that clear examples of gender-responsive governance have been provided by both UN and civil society organizations, removing any room for confusion.
UN Women, for instance, provides an explanation of why certain policies may be needed alongside a very thorough checklist of gender-responsive migration policies. One example provided is data collection which alone would not be gender-responsive, but if disaggregated to reflect gender inequalities among migrants, can sufficiently claim to be gender-responsive. Likewise, an initiative to improve information access may not inherently be gender-responsive, but can be once it provides detailed, accessible information on gender-specific risks to migration or offers training programs on the laws regarding gender-based violence or discrimination in a host country. Generally, a policy that recognizes the role of gender inequalities and integrates them as a meaningful factor within the policy can be considered gender-responsive.
The Gender + Migration Hub also provides a succinct summation of gender-responsiveness—“Responds to specific needs of all migrants; addresses the structural causes of gender discrimination in migration and transforms systems, norms, policies or structures”—but more notably, it contains valuable insight into other levels of gender-responsiveness. From least responsive to most, the levels are: gender-biased (producing negative impacts on the basis of gender), gender-blind (reproducing uneven outcomes on the basis of gender while appearing unbiased), gender-sensitive (verbally acknowledging gender but not addressing gender inequalities), gender-specific (addressing some gender inequalities, especially regarding women and LGBTQ+ but not structural inequities), and lastly gender-responsive with the aforementioned definition.
Of the 101 pledges the UN received from states in 2026, 45 were self-labeled using the GCM Guiding Principle “gender-responsive,” but if you were to read each of these pledges, you would not find 45 gender-responsive pledges and therein lies the issue.
To visualize the regularity with which states misconstrue their work as fully gender-responsive, we can look to the UN pledging dashboard. Of the 101 pledges the UN received from states in 2026, 45 were self-labeled using the GCM Guiding Principle “gender-responsive,” but if you were to read each of these pledges, you would not find 45 gender-responsive pledges and therein lies the issue. Keeping the Gender + Migration Hub scale in mind reveals that only around 10 pledges explicitly reference women and girls while the rest make no mention of gender at any level. The vast majority held either no relation to gender at all or only a slight and incidental relation due to mention of a human rights framework or some other second-degree relation. There is, of course, no objective way to quantify the gender-responsiveness of a pledge, but the sheer lack of mention of gender warrants some consideration.
This lack of connection to one of the labeled principles is amplified by the fact that a high number of pledges include all of the guiding principle labels without the necessary content. Imagine, for example, a pledge to increase the criminalization of human trafficking, which may incidentally be gender-responsive, child-sensitive, and internationally cooperative, along with all of the other principles and objectives. You could use all of these labels since they are interlinked, but was there a deliberate effort to implement each principle individually and assess their application? Without this deliberation, it would be misleading and unproductive to label it as such. This is not to say that progressive incidental byproducts should not be a part of the conversation, nor that they are irrelevant, but rather that the loose guidelines around what constitutes a certain principle must be tightened. As a system-wide tendency, it becomes apparent that the root of the issue is not only with individual policies, but also with the framework that they abide by. There are no secondary verifications on labels, nor are there indicators for levels of responsiveness, two simple methods that would greatly improve the transparency of policies. Gender-responsive policymaking is not nearly as gender-responsive as it needs to be, but using language that falsifies responsiveness is not the solution.
For onlookers, they create a mirage of progress without basis, permitting passivity while the issue festers.
Recognizing this shortcoming then begs the question of why it matters in the first place; these terms are all semantic variations of a base term that itself is subject to cultural and personal differences, so why police their usage? Why tighten guidelines around such an inherently broad definition? To answer this question, we do not need to look far. There is perhaps a philosophical conversation to be had on the necessity of strict definitions and proper usages, but in the world of governance, these misnomers have real impacts. Terms such as gender-responsive and gender-specific exist because they reflect the realities of migrant lives. The gender dynamics that shape society at large do not stop at borders; they are reproduced, reconstructed, and reinforced every time they enter a new sector. Access to care, job opportunities, regular migration pathways, and more can all vary on the basis of gender, so solutions must do the same. But when states falsely present their initiatives as gender-responsive, intentionally or not, they occlude this need for targeted policy. For migrants, they continue to perpetuate gender-based issues with no solution in sight. For civil society, they muddy the meaning of gender-responsiveness and give way for a reduction in actual gender-responsive work on-ground. For onlookers, they create a mirage of progress without basis, permitting passivity while the issue festers.
But retroactively applying the language of progress and using its emotional appeal to warp current shortcomings sets a dangerous precedent for governance at large.
Gender-related terminology had to be fought so strongly for and continues to be contentious today because there is an assumption that gendered migration is not a distinct category of migration with its own nuances. The reckless relationship governing bodies have with the term reiterates this. But retroactively applying the language of progress and using its emotional appeal to warp current shortcomings sets a dangerous precedent for governance at large.
Returning to the pledging dashboard, when at first glance it appears that nearly half of all member pledges are gender-responsive, there is a perception that change is underway, and we are really making progress. This may still be the case, but when we recalibrate to the ten or so that demonstrate a meaningful level of gender-responsiveness, only a tenth of pledges are gender-responsive. These small labeling details can significantly alter the picture we have, so we need to be deliberate in our approach. If policymakers truly seek to equalize movement, they must also be willing to dedicate the time and resources to obtaining the most accurate picture possible. There is much interdependence among the different ideals of migration governance, but providing them with space to be built distinctly will allow for greater momentum and efficiency in policy responses. If statements made truly contain all the labels they are purported to contain, there should be no loss in tightening the language; but if they do not contain the necessary content, then there is real harm being done. A facade of progress is far worse than an honest regression because if we cannot agree on a foundational truth, all progress is bound to collapse.
Ferdousi Begum is an Honors Living & Learning Community Scholar at Rutgers–Newark and is currently a Research and Advocacy Intern with Women in Migration Network (WIMN).
This article is part of a series developed through the collaboration between the Women in Migration Network (WIMN) and Efecto Colibrí.