3. Manifestations of opposition to gender equality

3.1 Encountered forms of opposition

When asked whether they had experienced threats or harassment related to their own work or that of their organisation, over half of respondents (52%, n = 46) reported having experienced threats or harassment directed at their organisation. Nearly as many (44%, n = 39) reported having personally experienced, or knowing of an individual employee who had experienced, threats or harassment. Just over a third (35%, n = 31) reported no such experiences.

According to the results, most professionals working in gender equality in the Nordic countries have, therefore, experienced opposition to their work, such as threats or harassment directed at themselves, a colleague, or their organisation.

Figure 6: Have you experienced threats or harassment related to your work or your organization’s work for gender equality? [Select all that apply.]

Number of respondents: 88

Among respondents who had experienced threats or harassment, 42% reported threats of legal measures directed at themselves or their organisation. One-quarter (25%) had experienced online distribution of personal or sensitive information without their consent, often with deliberate intent to harm (doxing). Other forms of harassment included stalking or persecution (19%), death threats (16%), and threats to the health or safety of family members (12%).

Harassment occurred through multiple channels: 67% via text messages and/or emails, and 35% in in-person encounters. Just under half (44%) reported experiencing threats or harassment during events organised by their own gender equality organisation. See Figure 7 below.

Figure 7: Select the experienced forms of threats or harrassment. [Select all that apply.]

Number of respondents: 57

Open-ended responses described severe forms of intimidation and opposition, including witnessing the burning of Pride flags, a threat involving a fake explosive device (bomb), and attempts to delegitimise or discredit the target’s employer or funding agency. Sector-specific analysis of the results in the following sections suggests that some forms of opposition may be coordinated and bear similarities to anti-gender campaigns.

Some notable differences can be observed among respondent groups: civil society organisations primarily faced legal pressure; government officials encountered discursive pushback; and academics experienced pressure to self-censor, undermining academic freedom. The following sections provide an overview of these sector-specific forms of opposition.

3.2 Opposition encountered by civil society organisations

The survey asked participants if they had experienced threats or harassment in relation to their work or that of their organisation in promoting gender equality. Out of 38 civil society organisations responding across all Nordic countries (including Greenland and the Åland Islands):

68% (n = 26) reported threats or harassment directed at their organisation, and
50% (n = 19) reported threats or harassment directed at themselves or an employee.
37% (n = 14) experienced threats or harassment both on an organisational and individual level.
21% (n = 8) reported no incidents.

Most respondents (84%, n = 32) completed the survey as representatives of their organisation; the remainder (16%, n = 6) responded as individuals.

The responses differ slightly between individual countries and regions. For instance:

Denmark: All three organisations reported threats or harassment directed at their organisation. All responded as representatives of their organisation.
Norway: Four out of seven organisations reported threats or harassments directed at their organisation (n = 4), the respondent or an employee (n = 4), or both (n = 1). All responded as representatives of their organisation.
Finland: Five out of nine respondents reported threats or harassment where both forms (organisational and individual) occurred. Three reported no occurrence of threats or harassment. Seven respondents represented their organisation and two were individuals.
Sweden: Seven out of eight respondents reported threats or harassment. Seven respondents represented an organisation, and one responded as an individual.
Iceland: Four out of eight respondents reported threats or harassment. Three reported no occurrence of threats or harassment on an organisational or individual level. Seven respondents represented their organisation, and one responded as an individual.
Greenland & the Åland Islands: Two of three respondents reported that both forms occurred in conjunction, and one reported no occurrence. Two responded as individuals and one represented an organisation.

These findings show that the majority of the responding civil society organisations in the Nordic region had faced opposition to their work on an individual or organisational level or both.

For comparison, Figure 7 shows encountered forms of threats or harassment among all respondent groups. When extracting and analysing the civil society organisations as a separate group, the most common forms of opposition and intimidation experienced by these respondents were the following:

Threats or harassment during events organised by the individual or organisation: 34%.
Legal measures against the individual or organisation: 34%.
Sexual harassment: 21%.
Doxing (unauthorised online distribution of personal or sensitive information): 18%.
Stalking: 16%.
Filed official complaints against the individual or organisation: 13%.
Death threats: 13%.
Threats to family members’ health and safety: 10%.

The findings are concerning and indicate that the civil society sector is experiencing multifaceted opposition: in-person interruption during events, intimidation in the form of sexual harassment and other forms of criminal activity as well as cyber intimidation.

The majority reported that opposition occurred at least once or twice per month, with peaks during specific campaigns or periods, often linked to increased social media activity with regard to intersectional gender equality advocacy and advancement. The extent and frequency of opposition raises the possibility that some of the forms of opposition are coordinated.

In the survey, respondents were given the option of providing open-ended responses where they could report ‘something else’. In this section, forms of opposition or harassment most frequently reported were attempts at discrediting the organisation’s work, either on social media or direct encounters of harassment experienced in person. What is evident from the responses is a mistrust towards governmant entities in their safeguarding of gender equality advancement work of civil society organisations. In some of the open-ended responses, government entities are seen as hindering gender equality work through funding cuts and covert pushback measures. In such framings, civil society organisations stand out as the parties safeguarding gender equality work in the midst of pressure which is felt to be coming from both external agents and internal state institutions. Below are some examples from the open-ended response section.

Civil society organisation (Denmark):

“We are constantly faced with the Scandinavian/Danish paradox, where Denmark is in reality continuously falling behind with equality and at the same time the public opinion is that we have achieved perfect equality in contradiction to data.”

Another civil society organisation (Denmark):

“Jokes on how the organisation feminises men through its activities + continuously questioning the organisation’s decision-making on types of activities as well as questioning our arguments in dialogues and chronicles.”

Civil society organisation (Iceland):

“The main opposition comes online. Comments on posts on social media or contacting us through our messenger. Distribution of photos that have been changed. Writing articles about me to undermine the work I do and stand for and my organisation.”

Civil society organisation (Finland):

“Mainly the opposition is coming from the right-wing government, which is taking steps back in gender equality and not taking action against discrimination of gender minorities. Also, government is cutting the funding of universities, NGOs and other organisations that promote non-biased information about gender.”

Civil society organisation (Norway):

“Extensive spreading of false and damaging information about the organisation”

Civil society organisation (Sweden):

“There is also a growing opposition from state actors. It takes on many different forms such as (but not limited to) funding cuts; policy changes where explicit gender equality goals are taken away; an increased focus on GBV [gender based violence] perpetrated by immigrants/children of immigrants, hence turning gender equality and GBV into a problem of ‘the others’ which will be resolved by assimilation and/or limited immigration; a growing rhetoric that gender equality is already embedded in the ‘Swedish culture’ which makes it something that does not need further action; less opportunities for dialogue with authorities and politicians; widespread critique of the civil society as either ‘ideologically biased’ and/or fraudulent.”

In summary, a majority of respondents in this group reported that their organisation had experienced both harassment and legal forms of opposition. Notably, one in five respondents reported sexual harassment, and 16% reported stalking. The findings suggest that, in a context of constrained or declining funding, hybrid forms of opposition occurring both in person and through online intimidation may reduce organisational capacity to carry out core initiatives and advocacy. A further significant finding is the prevalence of legal measures and formally filed complaints against civil society organisations (47% combined, representing slightly less than half of all respondents in this group). One potential consequence of legal opposition is reputational damage, which may in turn negatively affect public perceptions of gender equality advocacy by civil society organisations, with possible implications for public trust and support.

3.3 Opposition encountered by academics

Academics across the Nordic countries reported encountering opposition. As with the civil society organisations, a broad spectrum of opposition was reported, ranging from doxing and other forms of online harassment and stalking to emails and phone calls, threats of legal measures and intimidation during live events. Opposition also occurred in cumulative forms, with multiple types occurring simultaneously.

In this group, all (n = 30) responded as individuals. When asked to provide their main field of research and teaching, with the option to select multiple fields, 67% (n = 20) selected gender studies as their main field of research and teaching. The second largest group selected sociology as their primary field of research and teaching (33%, n = 10), followed by political science (23%, n = 7). See Figure 3.

Nearly all of the thirty respondents from research and academia reported working in interdisciplinary fields. Only three indicated that they focused on a single discipline in their research and teaching. This implies the interdisciplinary nature of senior level academic experts working on gender equality themes and issues.

When asked if they had experienced threats or harassment related to their work or their organisation’s work for gender equality,

47% (n = 18) reported threats or harassment directed at themselves or an individual employee.
37% (n = 14) reported threats or harassment directed at their organisation, and
26% (n = 10) reported threats or harassment both on an organisational and individual level.
21% (n = 8) reported no incidents.

When asked to indicate the setting in which threats had occurred, all survey respondents were given the following options: social media platforms; phone calls; text messages and/or emails; in-person encounters; and other/please specify.

Across the total respondent group from academia and research (n = 30), overall, 63% (n = 19) reported experiencing threats or harassment on social media platforms. In addition, 43% (n = 13) reported incidents via phone calls, text messages and/or emails, and 20% (n = 6) reported incidents during in-person encounters. These findings indicate that, as was the case with the civil society organisation respondent group, threats or harassment occur across multiple channels, with both digital and in-person encounters reportedly taking place. When compared with the civil society organisation respondent group, the forms of opposition encountered by academics represent a similar pattern in terms of general trends of both legal and in-person targeting:

Threats or harassment during events organised by the individual or organisation: 33%.
Threats of legal measures against the individual or organisation: 27%.
Doxing (unauthorised online distribution of personal or sensitive information): 23%.
Stalking or persecution: 17%.
Filed official complaints against the individual or organisation: 17%.
Death threats: 13%.
Threats to family members’ health and safety: 10%.
Sexual harassment: 7%.

However, there are also differences, which raises the question whether opponents of gender equality advancement use hybrid and tailored strategies of opposition, depending on the target group. For instance, the reported incidences of doxing were slightly higher among academic respondents (23%) than among respondents from the civil society organisation respondent group (18%). This difference may indicate that academics, especially professors whose professional responsibilities include societal engagement and public expert commentary in news media, may be exposed to a comparatively higher risk of doxing.

One notable difference between civil society organisations and academics concerns sexual harassment. Civil society organisations reported a higher incidence (21%) compared with academics (7%). There is an element of uncertainty as to what extent academic institutions are able to understand sexual harassment as a form of opposition specifically linked to gender equality-related academic work, as opposed to a broader workplace issue. The question is relevant since existing research indicates that sexual harassment remains prevalent also within Nordic academic institutions. Yet, institutional support may be insufficient. An open-ended response comment from one professor supports this hypothesis. It is also possible that as civil society organisations often engage with gender equality work directly and in person, there may be a lower threshold for reporting sexual harassment in the survey question responses.

Out of those who selected gender studies (n = 20) as their main discipline of academic research and teaching:

65% (n = 13) reported threats or harassment directed at themselves or an individual employee.
55% (n = 11) reported threats or harassment directed at their organisation, and
40% (n = 8) reported threats or harassment both on an organisational and individual level.
20% (n = 4) reported no incidents.

Among academics in the field of gender studies, 75% (n = 15) reported incidents occurring on social media platforms. A further 60% (n = 12) reported receiving threats via phone calls, text messages and/or emails. In addition, 30% (n = 6) reported experiencing intimidation during in-person encounters. The findings imply that gender studies scholars are at a high risk of being targeted on social media.

In the open-ended responses academic respondents also reported encountering smear-campaigns, discrediting of their academic research in a derogatory way, being put on an online hate-list, being threatened near home and being accused of being a paedophile or harmful to children. Some of the respondents who had not encountered any form of opposition themselves reported that they were aware of opposition, particularly with respect to certain topics such as transgender themes and anti-racism. There were no notable country-specific differences, which indicates that gender studies as an academic discipline is being targeted, rather than particular universities in specific Nordic countries. If this is the case, then the findings correlate with existing research on anti-gender campaigning in Europe and the emergence of anti-intellectualism in connection with authoritarian movements and far-right politics.

Respondent reporting gender studies and sociology as their main academic discipline:

“Smearing campaigns on various platforms: Letters to employer, politicians, funders. Oral attacks on my credibility as a researcher in public meetings where I am not present. Op-eds in major newspapers as well as social media and alt-right platforms.”

Respondent reporting philosophy as their main academic discipline:

“I'm in academia, and I answer partly on behalf of myself and party on behalf of an organisation to include women and gender diverse people in my male dominated field. For us, the pushback is often that feminist or gender perspectives are not ‘real’, worthy or canonical academic contributions. Another very popular pushback is that gender equality is already achieved, so there is no need to make any changes. Following this argument, they say that the reason there are more men in the field is that women are less predisposed to the nature of the field itself. In other words, they deny there is a problem at all.”

Academic respondent from Iceland:

“Not directly felt in the organisation but surveys continue to show that younger generations in Iceland hold more negative views towards feminism and trans people, especially among young boys/men. Therefore, the sense is an undercurrent of negative attitudes but that has not explicitly surfaced in relation to my work.”

Regarding sexual harassment, one academic respondent reported the following:

“Also, when reporting harassment, I was told that I had to a) make a personal report to the police rather than get support from the organisation and b) even WORSE, I was encouraged to take a victim position and tell the email harasser that I felt violated and hurt by their actions. I think such advice is detrimental and it resulted in me not reporting it. Me and colleagues are also told to tone it down, to grow thicker skin, to 'see the other person's point of view', that freedom of expression is more important – this especially relates to racism.”

Overall, the survey indicates that Nordic countries are not immune to attacks on academic freedom, particularly scholars working on intersectional gender equality and anti-racism. Researchers, teaching staff, and research funding agencies were all reported as targets. Consistent with existing research on anti-gender campaigning in Europe, these findings suggest a growing pattern of anti-intellectualism liked to authoritarian ideological movements. The results of this survey indicate that such targeting and intimidation is becoming more common also in the Nordic context. Academics across multiple disciplines – not just gender studies – reported threats, harassment, and formal complaints intended to limit their ability to write, teach, speak and publish on certain topics. Academic freedom is thus threatened not only through direct, in-person intimidation but also via covert unjustified attacks that aim to discredit and delegitimise expertise or reputation. The pattern correlates with findings from previous surveys conducted in the context of academic freedom in Finland and Sweden. These indirect pressures can produce a significant ‘chilling effect’ with serious consequences for academic freedom, knowledge production, research and the quality of public debate, as academic experts no longer want to comment publicly.

3.4 Opposition encountered by government officials and civil servants

Across all Nordic countries, 70% (n = 14) of government officials reported that they had not experienced opposition to their gender equality work and advocacy in the form of threats or harassment on an individual or organisational level. Government officials responded on behalf of their organisation.

Although the majority (70%) had not encountered threats or harassment, one third did report encountered opposition. Opposition was reported in all Nordic countries except for Denmark.

Six (30%) government respondents reported having encountered opposition directed at their organisation. Two out of these six respondents also reported threats or harassment directed at themselves or an individual employee.

Threats or harassment on an individual level (n = 2) included threats or harassment during events organised by the respondent or their organisation, threats of legal measures against the respondent or their organisation and official complaints filed against the respondent or their organisation.

Organisational-level threats and harassment were predominantly concentrated on social media platforms. Incidence rates increased in relation to higher levels of online visibility and campaign activity. Respondents also reported phone calls, text messages, and email as additional channels of intimidation. One respondent reported experiencing in-person harassment.

All government official respondents (n =20) were asked the following follow-up question:
“Does your organisation face opposition to advancing gender equality in the following areas [choose all that apply]?”. The respondents from the government sector who had encountered opposition on an individual level had also encountered opposition in the following areas:

Implementation of gender equality
Development of gender equality analysis and measures
Planning of budgeting and funding for gender equality research and policy

The predominant forms of opposition on an organisational level were threats or harassment during events organised by the respondent or their organisation; threats of legal measures against the respondent or their organisation; and filed official complaints against the respondent or their organisation. A majority of the forms of threats or harassment on an organisational level occurred on social media platforms, with an increase in correlation to increased social media presence or campaigning as well as via phone calls, text messages and/or emails. One respondent also reported in-person threats and harassment.

The incidents took place approximately once or twice a month or less frequently than once a month. One respondent from Iceland reported that it occurs on a weekly basis. In all instances (n=6) respondents knew in some of the cases the identity or organisation of the person/s who harassed, intimidated or threatened them.

When asked: “Does your organisation face opposition to advancing gender equality in the following areas [choose all that apply]?” the respondents (n = 6) from the government sector had encountered opposition in:

Implementation of gender equality
International cooperation on gender equality
Development of gender equality analysis and measures
Planning of budgeting and funding gender equality research and policy
Development of gender equality analysis and measures
Nordic collaboration on gender equality
Planning of budgeting and funding gender equality research and policy
Development of gender equality analysis and measures

When the government sector respondent group was asked more detailed, follow-up survey questions regarding possible encounters with opposition to gender equality work, nearly half of all the twenty respondents who participated in the survey had encountered opposition in the areas of:

Implementation of gender equality (50%)
International cooperation on gender equality (44%)

Furthermore, about one third had encountered opposition in the following areas:

development of gender equality analysis and measures; and
planning, budgeting and funding of gender equality research and policy.

The government respondents who had reported these forms of opposition were also asked to answer a follow-up question on how the opposition to gender equality had manifested in their work. See Figure 8 below.

Figure 8: Government officials, please answer the follow-up question: How has the opposition to gender equality manifested in your work? [choose all that apply]

Number of respondents: 20

Those responding to the follow-up question reported having encountered budget cuts, funding cuts and resource cuts (25%). They also reported having encountered requests to omit the use of certain concepts, words and topics (25%) or change key gender equality terminology (20%), attempts to significantly slow down or halt decisions and implementation of gender equality work (20%), and pressure to close or rearrange departments and agencies (15%).

In this respondent group, Denmark stood out as there was no reported opposition to gender equality work as such.

However, in the more detailed follow-up questions, two out of the three Danish governmental representatives responded that they had encountered discursive opposition to their work in the following areas:

International cooperation on gender equality.
Requests to omit the use of certain concepts, words or topics related to LGBTQI+ rights.

In contrast to the responses provided by the government respondents, all Danish civil society organisations (n = 3) and all Danish academic respondents (n = 5) reported opposition to their gender equality work either on an individual or organisational level or both. Denmark thus provides a snapshot into the ways in which institutionalised gender equality work in the Nordic societies may be more insulated from opposition than civil society organisations and academics who may be under strategic targeting and opposition.

There was a similar pattern in the responses from the Åland Islands and Greenland combined.

Budget cuts, funding cuts and or resource cuts.
Pressuring and lobbying for the closing or rearrangement of departments and agencies.
Attempts to significantly slow down or halt decisions and implementation of gender equality work.

In the open-ended response section, some respondents provided more examples of how opposition manifested in their work. A government sector respondent from Sweden stated:

“Some believe that we focus too much on gender and exclude trans people. Others believe that we focus too much on trans people, which hinders gender equality work.”

And a respondent from Norway stated:

“We are cautious in our contact with certain organisations that work on minority issues that wish to limit the rights and promote alternate understandings of equality.”

The impacts of opposition will be analysed and discussed in the following chapters. The findings show that government officials, like the civil society organisation respondents and academics, adjusted their participation and avoided certain topics or took extra precautions when addressing these topics.

In light of the findings concerning opposition encountered by government officials, this respondent group appears to face targeted pressure against specific policies and, more concerningly, attempts to reframe the conceptual foundations of gender equality policy work. Threats and harassment targeting both individuals and organisations within the government sector primarily occurred through legal measures, such as formally filed complaints. At the organisational level, most incidents occurred on social media, with a clear increase associated with higher levels of social media presence or campaigning. Threats and harassment were also reported via phone calls, text messages, and emails, with one respondent reporting in-person harassment. The frequency of such incidents was generally one to two times per month or less, although one respondent reported weekly occurrences. In nearly all cases, respondents were at least partially able to identify the individuals or organisations responsible for the harassment, intimidation, or threats. There were no significant differences between individual countries, except for Denmark.

3.5 Frequency of opposition

Alongside questions on whether or not opposition was experienced, the survey also included a question on the frequency of opposition.

Figure 9 shows that, among respondents who reported experiencing opposition to their gender equality work, nearly a quarter reported encountering such opposition on at least a weekly basis. Furthermore, when the three highest frequency categories are combined, the proportion increases to more than half of respondents who experience opposition at least once or twice per month or more frequently.

Figure 9: Which of the following best describe the frequency of the opposition towards your work? [select one]

Number of respondents: 57

In the open-ended response sections, respondents reported that opposition occurs more frequently depending on the topic being discussed in public, such as during interviews, when writing op eds, or when maintaining a presence on social media. Opposition was also connected to specific events, such as Pride. One civil society respondent reported receiving emails on a weekly basis, and there was also one reported incident of physical violence.

When asked whether visibility in media or social media affects the magnitude and frequency of the opposition, nearly all respondents (94.6%) reported that the magnitude and frequency of the opposition increased in parallel with the visibility of their gender equality work on social media. This is a significant finding, as a substantial majority (82%, n = 69) of respondents across all groups reported actively creating social media content related to their gender equality work. This includes government officials, who responded as representatives of their institutions.

For example, all Swedish and Norwegian government representatives who responded to the survey reported actively creating social media content related to gender equality work. Two out of three representatives from Finland and two out of four representatives from Iceland responded the same. In Denmark, online presence was slightly lower, with only one out of three representatives responding affirmatively. In comparison, civil society organisations and academics generally maintain a high presence and high engagement on both social media and news media due to the public communication requirements of their work. These two groups therefore appear to be at particularly high risk of cyber intimidation.

The survey findings and open-ended responses indicate a clear connection between producing gender equality-related content online and experiencing harassment, threats, discrediting, stalking and silencing. A further concern arising from these findings, and which requires further research, is that online targeting of gender equality experts often falls into legal grey areas where it is unclear whether the behaviour meets the threshold for criminal activity.

3.6 Discursive opposition

The survey included questions designed to assess whether respondents had encountered discursive opposition or covert pushback in connection with their gender equality work. All respondent groups were asked the question illustrated in Figure 10: “Have you or has your organisation experienced any of the following accusations?”.

According to the survey responses, a considerable number of respondents reported encountering discursive allegations in connection with their gender equality advancement work, even if they did not classify their experiences as threats or harassment in the sections asking whether they had faced opposition. The most commonly reported allegations aimed at diminishing or delegitimising gender equality advancement work included the following:

The concept of gender is ideological and should be replaced with the concept of sex, understood as strictly binary (male/female).
Gender equality work is unjust for privileging women and girls.
Gender equality researchers and experts are biased or not legitimate.
Gender equality work dismisses key issues faced by boys and men.

Among the 88 survey respondents, more than a half (61%) reported having faced pressure to replace the concept of gender with the binary notion of sex. This pressure was reported by civil society organisations, government officials and academics alike. Additionally, women’s and girls’ rights advocacy work faced claims that equality efforts are unjust, either for privileging women and girls or for overlooking key issues affecting boys and men.

Notably, only five respondents (5.7 %) reported that they had not encountered any of the listed forms of discursive opposition or delegitimising of gender equality work

Figure 10: Have you or has your organization experienced any of the following accusations [select all that apply.]

Number of respondents: 88

The sections below provide a detailed breakdown of the most common forms of discursive opposition.

In the civil society organisation respondent group, 68% (26 of 38) reported encountering the allegation that:

Gender equality work is unjust for privileging women and girls.

These 26 respondents represent more than half of all respondents across the three groups who reported encountering this form of insinuation (49 of 88). In comparison, across all groups, 49 respondents reported facing this allegation, including 15 from academia and 8 from the government sector. Since the total number of government respondents was smaller (n = 20), this means that 40% of government officials reported encountering this allegation diminishing the importance of their gender equality work.

The second most commonly reported allegation by this respondent group was the following:

The state should not fund civil society organisations and non-governmental organisations that are advancing gender equality.

58% (22 out of 38) reported that they had encountered the allegation. When the responses from all respondent groups were analysed together, 39 respondents from all three groups reported having encountered this allegation in connection with their gender equality work. In total, 9 came from academia and 8 from the government sector.

The third most commonly faced insinuation by civil society organisations was the statement according to which:

The concept of gender is ideological and should be replaced with the concept of sex, understood as strictly binary (male/female).

53% (20 of 38) reported encountering the allegation. Across all respondent groups, 54 respondents reported having encountered this allegation, with 20 coming from academia and 14 coming from the government sector. Again, as the total amount of government sector responses was 20, this means 70% of respondents from this sector had encountered this allegation and 67% of academics (20 out of 30).

In the respondent group consisting of academics, the most frequently encountered insinuation of potential discursive opposition was that:

Gender equality researchers and experts are biased or not legitimate. (83%, 25 of 30).

These 25 responses represent nearly half of all affirmative answers across the three respondent groups, of which 18 came from civil society organisations and 9 from the government sector.

The next common type of allegation faced by academics was the following:

Gender equality work dismisses key issues faced by boys and men.

70% (21 out of 30) of this respondent group had encountered the allegation. In comparison, 50% (19 of 38) from the civil society organisation respondents and 70% (14 of 20) out of the government official respondents had encountered the allegation.

Of all academics, 67% (20 out of 30) had encountered the following allegation:

The concept of gender is ideological and should be replaced with the concept of sex, understood as strictly binary (male/female).

In the government sector respondent group, the most frequently encountered allegation in connection with gender equality work was the following:

Gender equality work dismisses key issues faced by boys and men (70%, 14 out of 20).

An equal proportion of respondents who responded affirmatively to this question (70%, 14 out of 20) stated that they had encountered the following allegation:

The concept of gender is ideological and should be replaced with the concept of sex, understood as strictly binary (male/female).

The third most commonly reported allegations were the following, each with a rate of 55% (11 out of 20):

Gay rights and other minority issues should not become a political issue that restricts majority rights.

Other issues are more urgent than gender equality (gender equality issues must be postponed until later or indefinitely).

Even in the country-specific case of Denmark, where government respondents reported not having experienced threats or harassment – either personally or at the organisational level – all reported encountering the following allegation:

Gay rights and other minority issues should not become a political issue that restricts majority rights.

Other common allegations reported by Danish government organisation representatives were: “The concept of gender is ideological and should be replaced with the concept of sex, understood as strictly binary (male/female)” and “Gender equality work dismisses key issues faced by boys and men.” Other allegations encountered by Danish government sector respondents were related to opposing the role of state institutions in safeguarding gender equality.

Taken together, these developments in discursive pushback point to a broader international trend involving attempts to reframe and restrict how gender is defined and understood in policy, research, and public debate.

This type of opposition was reported by government officials, across the whole Nordic region. Given that adequate funding, resources, and institutional infrastructure are preconditions for effective implementation, such patterns may indicate that discursive opposition can also operate through state institutions. Existing research from Denmark and Norway, for example, suggests that austerity measures targeting gender equality policy and its implementation may function as covert forms of pushback against gender equality.

A further point to consider is that a substantial body of academic research and policy analysis indicates that anti-gender actors seek to influence gender equality advancement by co-opting the language of rights and freedoms and reframing public and political discourse. This may involve efforts to shift the conceptual basis of gender equality work – for example, by prioritising ‘sex’ over ‘gender’, portraying certain equality measures as radical, or presenting opposition to sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) as ‘pro-family’ and anti-trans advocacy as ‘protecting children’. Such strategies often draw on misleading, exaggerated or selective interpretations of research related to gender diversity or gender mainstreaming, as has been shown in studies from Norway and Finland. Over time, these developments may influence public understanding of equality policies and may have significant pushback implications for legal protections.