What the Istanbul Convention is about: The reader is bothered by a description of the genre and what makes it meaningful

Probably no international document has received such a dose of publicity and has not been navigated as much as this one. So why not read it? To understand yourself, not through the prism of another.

You read that convention and it seems that everything is true, you agree with everything, there is nothing secret or cunning … And what could be the secrets if it is a legal document that protects the rights of women? What says that a woman is equal to a man. But there is still a surprise at the beginning of the convention that makes us pause. “Shovel, shovel”, you ask yourself, “how is he here now?”

Then, read again and hope to find answers that clear doubts. But no, the doubts do not dissipate and we have to go back to the same thing again. A person who has studied natural sciences, biology, botany, and zoology feels so misled. Suddenly, the term ‘gender’, which has been clear throughout life, is misunderstood. Because the convention now proclaims that gender are socially formed roles, behaviors, activities, and traits that a particular society deems appropriate for women and men.

As you read, from beginning to end or from beginning to end, one thing is clear: gender in this context is a social phenomenon and a point. In what other way? Without nature, without Darwin, without genes or chromosomes. So what is the “gender” relationship of such a phenomenon with man? What about biology and anatomy? What is the meaning of male and female primates? What then is an egg and a sperm or stamens and pistils?

But let’s go back from nature and biology to society. Under the concept of the convention, it follows that gender is a social phenomenon as a result of a person’s role, behavior, activities, and traits. Well, it is inevitable and understandable: parents, family, society form a personality. But then the question is: who am you and I as long as society forms those traits? Are we born already socially formed? What are heifers?

If gender is determined by the characteristics of a “particular society,” it is probably part of the society. This raises more questions. Does that society have a purpose and duty to be a sex worker or evaluator, or is that part of society good or bad? The question, therefore, is what is this female and male social gender if, in the words of the Convention, it is identified or considered a “particular society”?

But perhaps the language of the convention has nothing to do with gender. Perhaps the identity or gender of a person is really being talked about? Or maybe just a relative who is in the grammar category in Lithuanian and has not only a masculine or feminine meaning, but also a general meaning.