Is religion disguised gender bias? I had a questionable interaction with my religious mother yesterday. She asked me change out of my shirt and wear traditional clothes. Some might say I should’ve just put on the clothes; it’s not a big deal. But to me, it wasn’t a minor disagreement about clothing, it was about choice.
I thought of the young women who couldn’t refuse being married away by their parents, or the women who had to give up their job, or the women all around the world who face endless forms of constraints in the name of religion. Where do you draw the line between gender equality and religious liberty?
According to the United Nations Human Rights Office (OHCHR), freedom of religion and gender equality are meant to be mutually reinforcing human rights. However, when one directly undermines the other, international consensus leans toward protecting the physical integrity and equal civil standing of women and girls over discriminatory religious manifestations. Is this truly followed?
In Saudi Arabia, Manahel al-Otaibi, a women’s rights activist, was sentenced to 11 years in prison for posting a picture of herself without an abaya (Islamic robe worn by women). Saudi authorities prosecuted her under anti-cybercrime and counter-terrorism laws. In August 2025, an appeals court reduced her sentence to five years in prison, followed by a five-year travel ban. But this raises the question in the minds of many: whether her crime was just wanting freedom?
Diversity includes protecting beliefs people may disagree with, so religious liberty can not be taken away. Religious communities have the right to preserve their beliefs.
Several Indian states have enacted laws regulating religious conversions. These laws are often described by governments as “Freedom of Religion Acts”. They generally prohibit conversions obtained through force, fraud, or allurement (inducement), and in some states they require prior notice to authorities or impose other procedural requirements for certain conversions. Supporters argue these laws protect vulnerable people from coercion. Critics argue they can discourage or burden voluntary conversions and may affect the constitutional right to freely choose one’s religion. In cases where an adult woman converts for marriage or personal conviction, courts may be asked to determine whether her decision reflects free choice or unlawful influence.
Many legal systems recognize that a set of beliefs must not affect the fundamental rights of women and men alike. No tradition justifies discrimination.
The challenge is not choosing one over the other. It is creating legal frameworks that respect religious beliefs while ensuring equal protection under the law. How can both rights be protected?
As a constantly evolving society, we must question our beliefs every now and then to stay progressive. Before making a judgment regarding religion or disguised gender inequality, these questions need to be asked.
Is the restriction necessary?
Is there a less restrictive alternative?
Does the action harm others outside the religious community?
Is the limitation proportionate?
This balancing approach recognizes that constitutional rights frequently intersect and that difficult cases require careful reasoning rather than simple answers.
How can we take steps towards achieving co-existence of both rights — I’d start by not changing my shirt.