Author: Rezarta Caushaj
A few days ago, I sat down to study in detail the draft law “On Gender Equality,” after having come across fragments of it in the news.
(In the first comment, you can find the Explanatory Report, the Draft Law, and its accompanying documents.)
Meanwhile, media outlets that I usually respect highly came out with articles claiming that the allegations from some parties—that the law altered the definition of gender and legitimized gender identities such as transgender—were FALSE.
At first glance, I found these articles themselves to be false. Worse than that—they were dishonest.
If there are parties or individuals who embrace ultra-leftist approaches to gender detached from biology, that is their right.
We are—or aspire to be—a democracy, and their approach will inevitably clash with the traditional view that humans live bound by reality (earth, family, biology, etc.), not by imagination, even though no one is prevented from living as they wish.
But these parties (Citizen, BIRN, UN Women, Arqimandriti, Karaj, Hazizaj, etc.) should be honest in their stance.
They should be open, acknowledge their position, argue it, seek public approval—and let the best argument win!
Not use the authority of the institutions where they work to undermine their opponents. That is democracy.
Why do I take this stance, despite the respect I hold—more for some, less for others—toward several of them?
Because this draft law does far more than present an “inclusive” concept of gender; it goes far beyond what is currently being discussed in the media.
In its Explanatory Report, they haven’t even tried to explain what problems the old law had that the new one resolves—which is the very basis for amending any existing legislation.
⸻
1. Redefinition of Gender as “Identity”
This law forces you to recognize, de facto, gender as an expression of sexual and gender identity, considering non-recognition or non-acceptance as discrimination, through the imposition of penalties (see the Report in photo 1—“multiple intersectoral discrimination due to sexual identity”).
Where is the misunderstanding here? Where is the misinterpretation?
⸻
2. The Original Purpose of Gender Equality Laws
From its very genesis, gender equality legislation was conceived as an affirmative policy for the promotion of women’s rights, guaranteeing them a legal position equal to that of men.
Article 1, paragraph 2:
“This law regulates the fundamental issues of gender equality in all areas of public and private life for the full and effective achievement of gender equality, both legally and in practice, as well as equal treatment regardless of gender, through protection, equal opportunities for exercising rights and enjoying benefits and services, participation, representation, and contribution in the development of all areas of social life.”
The moment you change the concept of gender affiliation in the “Definitions” section, the equality sought is no longer only between men and women.
In short, now women must also fight for legal space against men in their entire gender diversity, not only biological men.
⸻
3. The Expanding Definitions
Article 2 (see photo 2) states that:
a) the purpose of the law is to protect against gender discrimination and gender inequality “due to multiple affiliations,” and
b) defines the scope of the law’s activity, the general and specific measures, based on “different gender needs and priorities.”
Let’s be clear—this law, despite its guild-like instrumentalization of language, is not referring to measures addressing the needs of biological men. In fact, if we refer to the experience of countries that have legally adopted this approach—not even for biological women.
Article 4 (Definitions): It is well known that definitions are the foundation of any law.
A law cannot define gender as an apple while another defines it as a potato.
The law must concretely define what we are talking about when we say gender or gender affiliation.
These two are the most problematic definitions—the very core of conflicts not only in our country but wherever this debate takes place.
And this law performs a masterful operation by splitting one concept into three others:
From gender defined by biology—where gender and gender affiliation have no difference—to a mish-mash of definitions in which, besides gender, we now have gender affiliation, but also multiple gender affiliation, because people with disabilities, the elderly, migrants, and the poor supposedly merit their own gender categories.
The concept is absolutely not designed to mean persons who are none of the above but identify based on sexual orientation, as the opposite sex, or choose not to identify with any gender—or with both—or with a self-created category.
No! That’s not the issue! shout these “professionals” dishonestly.
Paradoxically, the law provides no definition of gender identity, even though it uses this term multiple times in the text—even in articles that establish penalties.
⸻
4. Article 6: The Legal Weaponization of Identity
Article 6 states that “discrimination on the basis of gender shall mean less favorable treatment of a person because of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, expression of gender identity, or sex characteristics…” compared to the treatment of other genders in the same circumstances.
This becomes a weapon in the hands of any person with “multiple affiliations” who feels dissatisfied for not being hired—and once again, de facto, it undermines individual economic freedom and freedom of belief.
This is reinforced by Article 10: “Use of gender-sensitive and inclusive language,” which de facto imposes the acceptance of new definitions of gender.
Its use is mandated not only by public institutions but also by private ones—otherwise, it is considered discrimination.
Language sensitive to any social category cannot be imposed—it must be inspired.
I am the mother of a child with autism, and organizations for persons with disabilities speak of sensitive language too, but we’re talking about cultivating a culture of respectful speech—not wielding the blade of the law.
Can you imagine that this article was written with women in mind? Of course not.
⸻
5. Reversal of the Burden of Proof
In Article 3, it is stated that the burden of proof in cases of alleged discrimination does not fall on the accuser but on the accused.
This is the gravest consequence for Albania’s still-fragile justice system—an article that no one is even discussing.
If you’re a small employer without the means to deal with courts and lawyers, but you’re accused of denying a job to a man who wishes to be recognized as a woman—or vice versa—you’re finished.
Sure, maybe you are a believer, and according to your faith, there are only biological men and women—and the law recognizes and protects your freedom of belief.
⸻
6. Denial of Religious Freedom
Yet Article 25 explicitly obliges the employer:
“(c) to employ without gender differentiation or because of multiple affiliation in any position or vacancy at all levels of the professional hierarchy.”
So you’re an employer, a Muslim, a Christian, or something else—and a transgender person applies. You refuse… You’re sued.
This article also reflects the legislative ignorance of the drafters, who included within “multiple affiliations,” besides identity and sexual orientation, the variable of age.
Meaning that even work experience requirements as hiring criteria can be interpreted as discrimination based on multiple gender affiliation.
⸻
7. Indoctrination in Schools
Ultra-leftist concepts of gender become mandatory in schools!
Article 33.1 forces curriculum designers at all levels to incorporate these concepts.
“Institutions that offer general and vocational education, qualification, and training, as well as those that draft and approve textbooks, programs, and other educational materials at all levels, shall ensure the inclusion of gender education in school curricula and the teaching of the necessary knowledge of fundamental concepts related to individuals and groups, using methods of teaching, training, and qualification that help promote, encourage, and shape the culture of equality and the prevention of discrimination based on gender, gender stereotypes, prejudices, and harmful customary practices, gender inequalities due to multiple affiliations or any other kind that violate the principles of gender equality.”
Without any real debate, the proposers not only make acceptance of these concepts about gender and sexuality a fact and mandatory (and their non-recognition punishable), but above all, they do so dishonestly—without admitting their goals, without arguing their position, and hiding behind gender equality and women’s rights.
⸻
This debate is deeply necessary, because its absence breeds lack of social consensus, which in turn leads to social conflict and the suppression of rights.
And eventually comes the moment when the proponents lose political power—then their opponents take over—and the first thing they do is throw these laws into the trash.
That is the experience offered by the most “emancipated” countries—the degradation, polarization, and hostilities that we are witnessing in real time.
Or have we misunderstood those experiences too?
⸻
P.S. Let’s be clear: Personally, I would oppose these proposals even if they had been made openly, with ethics and integrity (that’s my right!).
But I would certainly have much greater respect for the proposers if that were the case.
