Language is more than just words—it is the scaffolding of society’s values, norms, and structures. Every legal term is a carefully placed brick in the edifice of governance, shaping not just policies but the very way a nation understands itself. So what happens when a word disappears from the law? In Georgia, the ruling party Georgian Dream has introduced amendments that will erase the term “gender” from all legal documents, replacing it with variations of “equality between women and men.” Georgia’s move is not happening in a vacuum. Across the world, debates over gender, identity, and language have ignited cultural and political battles. The erasure of gender from legal discourse touches on issues of human rights, national identity, and the role of tradition in a rapidly changing world. What does this shift signal for Georgia’s future? And what can history teach us about the consequences of rewording reality?
A War Over Words: Why Legal Terminology Matters
This is not the first time that words have been weaponized in politics. Throughout history, the evolution—or removal—of terms from legal and social discourse has had far-reaching implications. Consider how the language around race has shifted in the United States. The transition from Negro to African American was not just a linguistic update; it reflected the civil rights movement’s push for self-determination and respect. Similarly, the introduction of terms like “sexual harassment” into legal systems worldwide made previously invisible injustices actionable under the law.
Georgia’s decision to replace “gender issues” with “issues of equality between women and men” may seem like a minor edit, but it fundamentally alters the scope of legal protections. “Gender” as a concept allows for discussions about inequality beyond biological sex—it acknowledges social constructs, the experiences of non-binary and transgender individuals, and the ways in which power dynamics operate beyond simple male-female distinctions. By removing it, the government is effectively narrowing the legal framework for discussing discrimination.
From France to Russia: How the Politics of Language Shape National Identity
Georgia is not alone in using language as a battleground for national values. France has long insisted on maintaining strict linguistic and cultural boundaries through its concept of laïcité (secularism). Laws banning religious symbols in public schools and workplaces have been justified as measures to protect national identity, though critics argue they disproportionately target Muslim communities.
In Russia, the 2013 law against “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships” also framed itself as a defense of national traditions. By controlling language around LGBTQ+ identities, the Russian government reinforced conservative social norms and effectively silenced discussions about sexual and gender diversity. Could Georgia’s erasure of “gender” be taking a similar path?
The tension between traditionalism and modernity is a global phenomenon, and Georgia finds itself at a crossroads. The country has long positioned itself as a bridge between Europe and its more conservative post-Soviet neighbors. This latest legislative move raises a fundamental question: Is Georgia retreating from its aspirations of European integration in favor of a more nationalistic, traditionalist identity?
Universal Rights vs. Cultural Relativism
At the heart of this debate is a clash between two worldviews. Universalists argue that certain concepts—such as gender equality—are fundamental and should be protected across all cultures. The United Nations, for example, actively promotes the use of gender-inclusive language as a tool for achieving social justice.
Cultural relativists, on the other hand, claim that each society has the right to define its own values without external pressure. Georgia’s government might argue that it is simply tailoring its legal language to fit national traditions. But does this mean that certain forms of inequality could be justified under the guise of cultural preservation?
Anthropologist Clifford Geertz warned against imposing external frameworks on cultures without understanding their internal logic. However, history has also shown that human rights progress often requires challenging traditional norms. The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and LGBTQ+ rights all faced resistance on cultural grounds before becoming widely accepted.
The Silent Victims: Who Stands to Lose?
For many Georgians, this linguistic shift may seem abstract, but its real-world effects could be profound. The removal of “gender” from legislation could make it harder for marginalized groups to seek legal protection. Without language that acknowledges gender as a social construct, issues such as workplace discrimination, domestic violence, and LGBTQ+ rights may become harder to address within the legal system.
Women’s rights activists in Georgia have already expressed concerns. Will gender-sensitive policies on domestic violence and equal pay be weakened under the new terminology? Will discussions about sexual harassment be reframed solely in terms of biological sex, ignoring the nuances of power dynamics in the workplace?
For LGBTQ+ individuals, the shift may be even more severe. If legal discourse only recognizes male-female equality, where does that leave those who do not fit neatly into those categories? In countries where similar linguistic changes have taken place, such as Hungary and Poland, LGBTQ+ rights have come under increasing pressure.
A Political Power Play: Why Now?
Why is this change happening now? The timing is no coincidence. Georgian politics have been marked by deep polarization, with the ruling Georgian Dream party consolidating power after the opposition boycotted parliament. With no significant political resistance, the government has the freedom to push forward policies that reflect its ideological stance.
There is also an international dimension. With rising skepticism towards Western liberal values, some post-Soviet states have embraced a more conservative, nationalist rhetoric. Georgia’s ruling party may be using this linguistic shift as a way to align itself with similar trends in Russia, Hungary, and other countries that have pushed back against progressive social policies.
At the same time, Georgia is still seeking closer ties with the European Union, which strongly promotes gender equality. Could this move jeopardize its ambitions for EU membership? Or is it a strategic balancing act, appealing to both conservative domestic audiences and international partners?
The Future of Gender Discourse in Georgia
The battle over language is ultimately a battle over values. By removing “gender” from its laws, Georgia is making a statement about how it sees its national identity, its approach to human rights, and its place in the world. But language is not static—public discourse, activism, and international pressures will continue to shape the conversation.
Will this legislative change mark the beginning of a broader rollback of gender-related rights? Or will Georgian society push back, insisting that language should evolve to reflect the realities of the 21st century? One thing is certain: the words we use matter. And when governments rewrite language, they are not just editing laws—they are rewriting the cultural DNA of a nation. And yet, a nation can resist such changes just as easily—by actively using and engaging with the very terms and topics being erased. In doing so, it can avoid becoming a victim of political ambitions and ensure it does not fall behind in its social and intellectual development.
By Ivan Nechaev
