Abstract
The concept of gender equality still offers an essential conceptual framework for analyzing the problems women face in Türkiye. This study does not aim to defend the ideological drift that the concept of “gender” has undergone in international literature in recent years, nor does it accept approaches that reject gender equality altogether on the basis of these debates. On the contrary, it argues for the preservation of analytical tools that make visible the inequalities faced by women, inequalities that stem not from their biological sex, but from the socially constructed roles and expectations imposed upon them and that help clarify these differences.
Within this framework, the study deliberately separates gender equality from identity-based normative debates, and instead approaches it as a concept that can be measured, monitored, and used to generate public policy in the context of Türkiye. Beyond normative and ideological disputes, it emphasizes the importance of establishing a technical policy framework that can create a shared conceptual language across public institutions. Such a framework is essential both for clarifying the country’s position regarding the concept of “gender” and for constructing the necessary analytical and technical foundations.
An Assessment Between Conceptual Ambiguity, Ideological Excess and Policy Reality
In recent years, the debate on gender equality [1] in Türkiye has become confined to a zone of tension shaped not by the concrete and measurable structural disadvantages faced by women, but by ideological disputes and issues of language/translation surrounding the concept of “gender.” Based on a circular issued by the Ministry of Family and Social Services, as well as the responses given by the Minister to related inquiries, it appears that the Ministry strongly objects to the use of the terms “gender” and its derivative “gender equality,” defending its position by arguing that “we need to understand what purpose each concept serves.”
This approach shifts core issues, ranging from women’s low participation in the labor market, to their limited access to decision-making mechanisms in politics; from the persistence of violence against women, to the invisible costs generated by everyday life, onto an entirely different plane. However, for Türkiye, gender equality is not a matter of identity politics; it is fundamentally a question of public policy capacity and development.
The transformation that the concept of “gender” has undergone in international literature in recent years has, in Türkiye, evolved into a reaction that leads to the wholesale rejection of legitimate demands for equality between women and men. This situation demonstrates that the concept itself has been conflated with the underlying policy objective.
In order to understand the public tension that has formed around the notion of gender, it is necessary to acknowledge that certain concepts have become intertwined with specific ideological and activist agendas. At the international level, discourses shaped along the axes of sexual orientation and gender identity, particularly within queer theory and gender ideology, often group together fundamentally different phenomena under a single normative framework, thereby making critical evaluation more difficult and blurring scientific, legal, and policy distinctions. There is also little doubt that academic circles, professional organizations, and international institutions have conducted targeted efforts in pursuit of particular agendas. Especially since the early 2010s, such efforts have gained prominence under the leadership of United Nations bodies. In documents and reports prepared by OHCHR and UN Women, it can be observed that the concept of “gender” has increasingly been accompanied first by “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI), and subsequently by SOGIESC. The use of these concepts either under the umbrella of “gender” or alongside it has blurred, if not entirely erased, conceptual boundaries.
This development has led, particularly within public institutions, to concepts being interpreted not as analytical tools but as labels carrying ideological connotations. However, such interpretations become problematic when they strip gender equality of its function as a legitimate framework for analyzing the concrete structural disadvantages faced by women in areas such as employment, protection from violence, participation in social life, and public representation. While criticism of the ideological transformation of concepts is understandable, it should not result in the denial of the need for equality; rather, it necessitates that these concepts be used in the correct context, for the correct purpose, and in an appropriate manner.
The Source of Conceptual Confusion: The “Gender” Question
In order to understand “what purpose each concept serves,” Alex Byrne’s analyses provide an important framework. According to Byrne, the core of today’s debate lies in the fact that the term “gender” represents, historically and linguistically, a mischosen concept. He argues that the word “gender,” which for centuries in English had been used as a synonym for biological sex, began in the twentieth century to be employed to describe social roles distinct from biological sex. Byrne explains this shift as a response to the increasing association of the word “sex” with sexual intercourse during the twentieth century, suggesting that this linguistic substitution made conceptual confusion inevitable from the outset.
Although this problem was, for a time, managed within feminist literature by distinguishing between (biological) sex and (social) gender roles, this very distinction came to be questioned with the rise of gender ideology, particularly under the influence of Judith Butler. Butler’s claim that even biological sex is socially constructed moved the concept away from being an analytical tool and into a domain of ambiguity. As a result, the category of “woman” has become increasingly indeterminate, making it more difficult to define women-specific structural disadvantages at the level of public policy.
This theoretical debate may be legitimate within academic contexts. However, from a public policy perspective, it is not possible to design policies and deliver services based on indeterminate categories. The problem observed in Türkiye emerges precisely at this point: a Western-centered theoretical debate has been detached from its original context and transformed into a justification for objecting to the entirety of gender equality.
The Wrong Axis: Ideological “Gender” Debate and the Reality of Türkiye
The vast majority of objections to gender equality in Türkiye are directed not at concrete issues such as women’s employment, education, or protection from violence, but at the new meanings that the concept of “gender” has acquired within the framework of gender ideology. These objections may contain internally coherent elements. However, the problem arises when such critiques are generalized in a way that renders women’s existing inequalities invisible.
This confusion has created the conditions for gender equality to be perceived in Türkiye as a “foreign,” “ideological,” and “socially disruptive” discourse. Yet this perception does not imply that the need for equality has disappeared.
Within this context, it should be acknowledged that the emphasis placed by the Minister of Family and Social Services, during parliamentary and budget discussions, on “women’s empowerment” and “equality of opportunity between women and men” constitutes an important contribution. However, this approach alone cannot substitute for the analytical and technical framework provided by the concept of gender equality. The discourse of empowerment tends to focus on outcomes, aiming to enhance women’s individual capacities through education, employment, or social support. By contrast, gender equality examines the role expectations, normative assumptions, and enforcement mechanisms that systematically place women at a disadvantage. In other words, while empowerment addresses the consequences of the problem, gender equality turns its root causes into the object of policy.
Similarly, when the emphasis on “equality of opportunity” rests on the assumption that initial conditions are neutral, it risks overlooking the invisible barriers that prevent women from effectively accessing these opportunities. As a well-known saying, variously attributed to Einstein or Feynman, suggests: “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice, there is.” The disproportionate burden of unpaid care work borne by women, career interruptions, assessments of “suitability” in the political sphere, and the informal sanctions imposed for violating prescribed roles all demonstrate that formal equality of opportunity does not translate into substantive equality in practice. The concept of gender equality makes precisely these invisible barriers visible, shifting responsibility away from individuals’ capacity to adapt and toward institutional structures and social norms. When this conceptual framework is excluded, policies addressing women’s issues lose their holistic character, and their capacity to generate lasting transformation in areas such as violence, employment, care work, and political representation is significantly weakened.
At this point, in order to demonstrate why the concept of gender remains an indispensable analytical tool, it is useful to consider a few simple yet illustrative examples. When a man returns home from work in the evening and resorts to violence against his wife, who is a homemaker, on the grounds that she has not prepared a meal or that he does not like the meal that was prepared, this may, on the surface, appear to be a “domestic dispute.” However, in this case, the cause of the violence is not the woman’s biological sex, but the alleged violation of the social role attributed to her. The expectations constructed around the identity of “housewife” imply that the woman must provide certain services at certain times, and violence emerges as a form of sanction in response to the perceived failure to fulfill this expectation.
While it is often socially tolerated for men to cheat on or abandon their spouses, or to seek divorce, a woman’s attempt to leave her partner may result in violence or even murder. According to a study by the “We Will Stop Femicide Platform,” of the 228 women killed between 1 January and 31 July 2024, 69 were reportedly murdered for reasons such as wanting a divorce, refusing reconciliation, or rejecting marriage or a relationship.
In job interviews, female candidates are frequently asked questions that are not posed to male candidates, such as whether they plan to marry if they are single, or whether they intend to have children if they are married. Although equality of opportunity may be proclaimed on paper, in practice such questions undermine that very principle.
These examples clearly demonstrate why gender equality is not an identity-based debate but a structural policy issue. Violence against women, in these cases, is produced not by individual anger or momentary tension, but as a form of punishment for violating norms of obedience, service, and responsibility attached to the role of womanhood. The issue, therefore, is not the differences between women and men, but how meaning is assigned to these differences and how this shapes social relations. Gender equality intervenes precisely at this point: it renders violence visible not only through its outcomes, but through the role expectations and normative assumptions that make it possible. In the absence of such analysis, violence is treated as an isolated incident; its structural causes are overlooked, and policy interventions inevitably remain incomplete.
What the Data Shows in Türkiye: The Need for Equality Persists
In Türkiye, women’s labor force participation remains significantly below that of men. Female employment is also below OECD averages, and this gap cannot be explained solely by individual preferences. The disproportionate burden of unpaid care work borne by women, career interruptions, and inflexible work arrangements constitute the core components of structural inequality.
Several key indicators make this situation visible in a way that goes beyond mere debate. The first is the participation gap. According to TÜİK’s 2024 labor force statistics, the labor force participation rate stands at 72.0% for men, compared to 36.8% for women. The second is the OECD comparison: according to OECD data for 2023, the labor force participation rate for women aged 15–64 reaches 66.7% on average across OECD countries. Although Türkiye has increased this rate from 33.8% in 2013 to 40.9% in 2023, it still remains significantly below the OECD average. The third is the asymmetry in care work: academic studies based on TÜİK time-use data show that women spend approximately 3 hours and 31 minutes per day on household and family care, while for employed men this time remains at the level of minutes.
A similar pattern is observed in political representation. Women’s representation in parliament and local government remains limited, and decision-making processes are largely shaped by men. This results in women’s experiences being insufficiently reflected in the determination of policy priorities.
Violence against women constitutes the most critical dimension of the issue. According to the Türkiye Survey on Violence Against Women (2024), 28.2% of women have experienced psychological violence, 18.3% economic violence, and 12.8% physical violence. When lifetime exposure is examined, 62.1% of divorced women have experienced psychological violence, 42.5% economic violence, and 41.5% physical violence; among married women, the figures are 26.4%, 19.9%, and 11.6%, respectively. Among never-married women, 25.7% have experienced psychological violence, 14.2% digital violence, and 13.4% stalking. The persistence of such cases clearly demonstrates that the issue is structural rather than incidental. In light of this, gender equality becomes not an abstract norm, but a direct matter of the right to life, security, and social well-being.
In this context, it is important to underline that when we refer to equality between women and men, or gender equality, we do not mean an absolute, mechanical form of equality that produces identical outcomes. Rather, the notion of equality here does not rest on a claim of sameness that denies biological differences, life-cycle distinctions, or individual preferences; instead, it refers to a framework that ensures equal rights and equal access to opportunities in areas such as education, employment, political representation, and legal protection. At the level of public policy, the objective is to rebalance opportunities in areas where women are systematically disadvantaged due to structural factors—thereby enabling competition, choice, and social contribution to take place under fairer conditions. This approach moves equality beyond an ideological abstraction and positions it as a public policy objective with strong social legitimacy.
A Case Study: National Action Plans
The most concrete consequences of stripping the concept of gender equality of its function as a technical and measurable public policy tool, by subjecting it to ideological debates in Türkiye, can be observed in policy documents addressing violence against women. The core thesis of this study, that the concept must be purified of normative burdens and re-established as an analytical and technical framework capable of improving women’s concrete living conditions, emerges as a necessity when comparing the Fourth (2021–2025) and Fifth (2026–2030) National Action Plans on Combating Violence Against Women. The absence of such an analytical framework results in policy goals being transferred from one plan to the next without producing structural transformation, effectively being replicated rather than resolved. [2]
An examination of the relationship between the Fourth National Action Plan (2021–2025) and the Fifth National Action Plan (2026–2030) reveals that the core problem areas have not been overcome; instead, they have been carried forward in modified form. Priority areas identified in the Fourth Plan, such as “inter-institutional coordination,” “enhancing the capacity of Violence Prevention and Monitoring Centers (ŞÖNİM),” and “awareness training for public personnel”, continue to appear in the Fifth Plan, albeit repackaged with new terminology such as “Artificial Intelligence” or “Behavioral Transformation.” In the planning literature, this pattern is typically considered an indicator of policy failure, as it suggests that the root causes of violence have not been adequately addressed. Unless inequalities in the distribution of social roles, the underlying drivers of violence, are measured through the analytical tools provided by the concept of gender, instrumental objectives such as data integration or personnel training risk becoming self-perpetuating bureaucratic processes that do not serve the ultimate goal.
The primary reason for the replication of goals without structural transformation lies in the conceptual hesitation of policymakers in naming the problem. The Fourth Plan remained within a zone of conceptual ambiguity due to sensitivities arising from debates surrounding “gender,” and instead focused on preserving the existing legal framework. By contrast, the Fifth Plan attempts to fill this gap not through sociological analysis, but through technocratic instruments. While policy objectives such as “AI-Based Risk Analysis” and the creation of a “Scientific Knowledge Ecosystem” may, at first glance, appear consistent with the principle of measurability advocated in this study, they contain a methodological flaw. The Fifth Plan does not aim to use data to make inequality visible; rather, it seeks to use data primarily to predict perpetrators of violence from a law enforcement perspective.
However, a gender equality perspective requires that data be used not only to identify “who might harm whom and where,” but to measure the social roles and structural conditions that place women at risk in the first place. A strategy to combat violence that is not supported by structural indicators, such as the availability of childcare services, the distribution of care burdens, or wage inequality, will, regardless of how advanced its technological tools may be, do little more than count mosquitoes more efficiently instead of draining the swamp.
In conclusion, the elements carried over from the Fourth to the Fifth Plan indicate that Türkiye is facing a methodological crisis in its approach to combating violence against women. Overcoming this crisis requires removing the concept from the realm of ideological contestation and repositioning it within a technical public policy framework that tracks the disadvantages faced by women through measurable indicators. Only in this way will it be possible, when drafting the Sixth National Action Plan (2031–2035), to move beyond simply replicating the same objectives and instead speak of a new phase in which structural transformation has been achieved.
Defending Gender Equality
Türkiye has a long and significant intellectual tradition of engaging with Western-origin concepts and the meanings attributed to them. In this debate, extending from our history of modernization to the distinction between culture and civilization, the analyses of thinkers such as Mümtaz Turhan and Erol Güngör, particularly within the framework of cultural change, should be kept in mind. According to this perspective, the use of a concept or method originating in the West does not imply cultural submission. As Mümtaz Turhan persistently emphasized, the key issue is the ability to transfer a concept’s problem-solving capacity and its “scientific method.” In this sense, the framework of gender equality should today be regarded in Türkiye as a technical and scientific method for diagnosing problems within the social structure.
At this point, a clear distinction must be made: defending gender equality does not mean endorsing the ideological transformation that the concept of “gender” has undergone in the West or the new meanings it has acquired. Gender equality policies do not require the denial of biological sex. On the contrary, they should also aim to compensate for the disadvantages women face precisely because of their biological sex.
Approaches that clearly articulate this distinction demonstrate that identity-based excesses generate crises of social legitimacy. As Yascha Mounk aptly observes, when the language of universal rights becomes confined to narrow and abstract identity debates, it loses broad societal support.
For Türkiye, this warning must be emphasized strongly. Gender equality represents a demand for justice that resonates across broad segments of society. Associating this demand with ideological excesses produces adverse consequences both for women and for public policy.
Conclusion
In Türkiye, gender equality should be addressed not as an ideological battleground, but as a data-driven, measurable, and outcome-oriented policy domain. The global debates surrounding the concept of “gender” risk obscuring the structural problems that women face in Türkiye.
The conceptual analysis put forward by Alex Byrne is particularly important for understanding why this debate is taking place along the wrong axis. The blurring of concepts should not invalidate the need for equality; rather, it necessitates redefining equality policies within a more careful, locally grounded, and rational framework.
In this context, setting aside ongoing debates and normative positions, a technical policy framework should be established, under the coordination of the Presidency, aimed at creating a shared conceptual language across public institutions. This common language should be consistently applied in national and international correspondence, policy development and implementation processes, and program documents. In doing so, Türkiye’s position regarding debates around the concept of “gender” would be clarified, while also establishing the analytical and technical framework required for gender equality.
Gender equality should not be approached as a normative ideal that promises to address all demands simultaneously and comprehensively; rather, it should be treated as a public policy framework that clearly defines priorities across different domains, makes potential conflicts of rights visible, and manages these conflicts.
Gender equality remains necessary for Türkiye. However, this necessity should be defended not through ideological slogans, but through a conceptually clear and politically actionable approach aimed at improving the concrete living conditions of women. When this balance is achieved, the debate on equality will gain both social legitimacy and practical relevance.
The central claim of this study is not that the concept of “gender equality” is indispensable due to any inherent normative or symbolic superiority. In theory, alternative frameworks, such as equality of opportunity, justice, or social equality, could also be used to analyze the structural disadvantages faced by women. However, in Türkiye’s public policy practice, these concepts do not yet possess an analytical framework capable of systematically measuring, monitoring, and rendering comparable the inequalities produced by social roles. The primary reason for preferring the concept of gender equality in this study is that it remains the most operational tool in terms of accumulated datasets, indicators, monitoring mechanisms, and institutional reflexes within public administration. Therefore, the issue is not the defense of a particular concept, but the preservation of a measurable and policy-relevant framework, regardless of terminology, that makes visible the social role distributions shaping women’s employment, care burdens, political participation, and exposure to violence. This study focuses on how, under current conditions, this capacity can be sustained with minimal loss.
Footnotes
[1] In this study, the concept of “gender” is used as the equivalent of the English term “gender,” as defined in Article 7(3) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: “the term ‘gender’ refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term ‘gender’ does not indicate any meaning different from the above.”
[2] In our study titled “Rethinking Türkiye’s Demographic Crisis,” published by the Institute for Social Studies, we conceptualized the phenomenon whereby policy goals that are correctly defined in policy documents are transferred to subsequent planning periods as renewed targets—without being translated into institutional mechanisms during the implementation phase—as a “transfer of commitments.” This concept of “commitment transfer” can also be clearly observed in the present study.
References
International Criminal Court. (1998, 17 July). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 7(3)).
Fourth National Action Plan on Combating Violence Against Women (2021–2025).
Fifth National Action Plan on Combating Violence Against Women (2026–2030).
OECD. (2023). Labour force participation rate (indicator). doi:10.1787/8a801325-en
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2011, 17 November). Discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (A/HRC/19/41). United Nations Human Rights Council.
UN Women. (2022, February). Handbook on gender mainstreaming for gender equality results. UN Women.
UN Women. (2025, June). Measuring gender-based violence: Data collection and evidence on violence based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics. UN Women.
Byrne, A. (2023). Trouble with Gender: Sex Facts, Gender Fictions. Polity Press.
Güngör, Erol. (1990). Cultural Change and Nationalism. Istanbul: Ötüken Publications.
Mounk, Y. (2023). The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time. Penguin Press.
Turhan, Mümtaz. (1987). Kültür Değişmeleri: Sosyal Psikoloji Bakımından Bir Tetkik. Istanbul: Marmara University Faculty of Theology Foundation Publications.