Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Breaking Bias: Training Judges to Challenge Gender Stereotypes in Courts

“There cannot be rights if there’s no access to justice. And we know there are huge issues for women, which are directly related to stereotyping and partly related to the systems themselves.” This quote from one of the experts I interviewed (female expert 4) vividly illustrates the challenges posed by gender stereotypes in judicial processes and decisions. Simultaneously, it is crucial to acknowledge that gender stereotypes particularly impact those affected by various and overlapping forms of discrimination and marginalisation, including transgender and non-binary persons (see ECRI GP Recommendation 17, para. 4, on the unique challenges faced by LBTI women). In a societal climate, where anti-gender movements are not only attacking women’s and LGBTIAQ+ rights but also challenging the very concept of universal human rights (Denkovski, Bernarding, and Lunz, 2021, p. 15, see International Journal of Law in Context on right-wing legal mobilisation), it is crucial that the rights of persons affected by gender stereotypes are upheld in courts.

As part of my re:constitution project, I investigated the impact of stereotypes related to gender identity and expression, sex characteristics and sexual orientation on judicial proceedings and decisions (see here) and identified key challenges and good practices related to judicial training on this topic. To provide practical recommendations, I examined the guidance of international monitoring bodies such as the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO), responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Istanbul Convention, combined with insights from elite interviews with eight experts (six identifying as female and two as male) involved in Council of Europe (CoE) cooperation projects dealing with the topic such as the projects on Women’s Access to Justice (WAJ) and the respective courses from the Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals (HELP) Programme, including the HELP course on WAJ, violence against women and gender equality and gender mainstreaming.

The findings provide a foundation for further research and the adaptation of judicial training to address stereotypes, including those related to other forms of systemic discrimination. The proposed elements should not be considered exhaustive.

A. Changing the mindsets and providing tools for self-reflection

All experts identified similar challenges regarding judicial training on gender stereotypes, and I did not observe any notable differences in perceptions of biases and their deeply rooted nature between female and male experts. They agreed that the first and most difficult challenge is that judges are taught that the law is “neutral,” so reflecting on stereotypes “is even more difficult because they do think they are the voice of the law. And the law has no bias, it’s not gendered. So, it’s more difficult to deconstruct and realise that you have the bias when you’re the voice of the law […] So this first realisation that ‘I am biased, all of us are biased,’ is a very difficult one. Very difficult for all” (female expert 3). Many experts pointed out that judges are less accessible than other professionals as they also often learn not to doubt themselves. However, female expert 4 summarised: “The idea that they are neutral is completely wrong because everything is based on humans interfering or making decisions or making choices, and nobody lives in a vacuum.” Additionally, several experts mentioned that there might also be an erroneous “assumption that experience may replace training”.

Against this background, many experts highlighted that capacity building is not so much about learning the law or new cases, but about “changing the mindsets” and providing tools for self-reflection. The CoE cooperation projects on Women’s Access to Justice utilise the training of mentors who, in turn, train mentees through peer-to-peer training. Experts involved in the projects explained that this approach was chosen because judges are often more likely to learn from and open up to their peers. The interactive training with mentors and mentees can offer space for doubt and discussion, as female expert 1 put it: “The major feedback that we are getting is that they are allowed this safe space for doubting and then they have different tools to see what they can do.” This also allows judges to feel that they are not alone with their doubts and feelings. Experts also recommended that the training should have flexibility, allowing judges to discuss challenges they encounter in their daily work (female expert 1). Male expert 2 mentioned the challenge of finding trainers who can recognise biases and challenge judges “without risking the whole training falling apart”.

B. Practical and interactive methods

According to the interviews, the training should be very practical and allow for the transition between seeing stereotypes in court cases and applying them to judges’ own practice. Practical exercises, such as the analysis of videos from court proceedings, are “particularly appreciated by the participants” (male expert 1). Female expert 1 added, “So we use a lot of case studies. We use a shared platform with resources. We use resources stemming from them.” This approach could be taken one step further by incorporating feminist judgment projects (see Feminist judgments in Central and Eastern Europe and Hunter, 2018). Female expert 5 explained that it is not only about knowledge dissemination, but “through videos, images and so on we are trying to address the values and the attitudes level”. Female expert 6 pointed out that trainers can use questioning and role playing as tools to challenge biases. Female expert 3 recommended picking participants up where they are, and, for example, showing them the development of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) jurisprudence: “So sometimes if you try to go five miles in one day, it may be too tiring for a walker. But if you go step by step and see this evolution, it dawns on them a bit better.” Female expert 5 explained that “through cases you basically present the European Court of Human Rights’ approach but also you expose an attitude towards gender stereotypes that is inadequate.” She added that even if judges are not ready for changing their mindsets, it is important to present them ECtHR case law, as it is binding. If the ECtHR states “you cannot do this in a judgment”, national judges are obligated to comply.

C. Incorporating the perspective of affected groups and individuals

Several experts emphasised the importance of incorporating the perspective of affected groups and individuals to the trainings. For instance, in the HELP course on Fight against Racism, Xenophobia, Homophobia and Transphobia, videos were used in this regard. One video depicted the experiences of a mother whose child was bullied in school due to their sexual orientation, while another featured a Roma woman who was forcibly sterilised in the Czech Republic. In this context, female expert 5 underscored the importance of adopting a gender-sensitive and empowering approach to avoid reproducing stereotypes about victims. This aligns with GREVIO’s recommendation to promote a victim-centred and trauma-informed approach through training (see 2024 report on Spain, para. 66). By incorporating testimonials from LGBTIAQ+ who experienced violence leading to the ECtHR judgment M.C. and A.C., 2016, condemning Romania, female expert 5 explained: “And I think hearing this, which doesn’t go into the legal realm – so it’s not something that legal professionals will see in a file – creates awareness about the fact that, it’s a human being. You see the person, you can empathise with the person, and realise, okay, that’s not a life, I wouldn’t want to live”, due to the structural discrimination and violence. 

D. Address structural and institutional discrimination

Female expert 3 explained the link between gender stereotypes and structural and institutional discrimination: “To me, gender stereotypes are not really individual. When you individualise, you make it the responsibility of one person. And it’s not true. It is always based on a general assumption, a societal assumption, and a structural assumption affecting you.” Female expert 1 added, “We also work at a structural level, how to actually ensure that this awareness and this practice are incorporated institutionally in policies, in guidelines, in curricula, and so on, and eventually change will happen,” which includes every activity and every institutional and hierarchical level, including budgeting. Female expert 4 pointed out that this also includes support systems for victims of gender-based violence, e.g. the availability and non-discriminatory accessibility of shelters.

Experts agreed that training for judges should, therefore, be accompanied by further measures. For example, the cooperation projects also work with national judicial training institutes and universities on how to incorporate training elements on gender equality and gender mainstreaming into curricula and “implant this seed of gender equality already at this level” (male expert 2). Female expert 3 mentioned that “most legal professionals see the area of gender equality as a bit of a nuisance.” She continued, “It’s not an area that is glamorous,” even though it affects all areas of law. Similarly, female expert 5 highlighted the need to raise awareness of gender stereotyping “when it comes to the profession itself”, citing examples such as congratulating a male judge on his judgment while complimenting a female judge on her outfit. She added, “Somebody who does the stereotyping towards their own peers is most likely to have them also towards parties to proceedings.”

Female expert 6 pointed out that the topic of systemic discrimination is often “one of the more complicated conversations to have, because there is little acknowledgement that there is such an issue, and no one wants to see it.“ Consequently, trainings can be based on the recommendations of CoE monitoring bodies that will flag “structural, anti-discrimination issues within various administrations, bodies, systems, the judicial system or police or others.”

E. Discrimination-sensitive and intersectional approach

Female expert 5 emphasised the importance of designing the training itself in a discrimination-sensitive way, not only for courses addressing those topics directly but for all courses, “let’s say dealing with whatever – freedom of expression, fair trial, judicial reasoning, business and human rights”. This includes using gender-sensitive language and visuals, such as avoiding stereotypical images like “pictures of men in construction and women in nursing” when discussing labour rights. She suggested that when decisions are made about which cases to include in a course on any human rights topic, aspects of stereotypes and discrimination should always be highlighted.

Experts also pointed out that the CoE projects have addressed multiple barriers to access to justice for women since the beginning and that they are trying to include the concept of intersectionality more and more. This concept was developed by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989) and explains that social identities such as gender, class, race, age, and disability can overlap, resulting in discriminatory practices that reinforce each other and entrench power imbalances in society. Female expert 6 used the case of queer Roma women as an example, highlighting that they are more exposed to forced marriage than cisgender and heterosexual Roma women as a “way of putting them back in their place”. She emphasised that an intersectional perspective “is very important because, otherwise, such situations fall between the cracks.”

Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals (HELP)
Programme of the Council of Europe, HELP Course on Gender Equality and
Gender Mainstreaming, Module 0,
https://help.elearning.ext.coe.int/course/view.php?id=7172

Experts pointed out several challenges, e.g., about the compartmentalised structure of the CoE and the political environment in which they operate. Resistance from states to LGBTIAQ+ topics makes it more difficult to address intersectionality, even though, for example, transgender persons are particularly marginalised. Female expert 6 explained that it is challenging, on the one hand, to avoid creating “a huge backlash”, while on the other hand, ensuring there is no doubt that instruments that were drafted in a binary logic are now understood in an inclusive way. She emphasised that, for example, under the topic of “violence against women”, it must be clear that “we also are talking about trans women and lesbians and bisexual women and queer women in general”.

Female expert 4 explained that the concept of intersectionality is also included in the new CoE gender equality strategy for 2024-2029: “Theoretically, in practice, it’s of course much more complicated because sometimes we have to make choices.” She elaborated further that they “will often have to make choices on what matters most for the area at stake in terms of an intersectional perspective because the list of possible grounds or situations is extremely long, and it’s not always easy to prioritise.” This is also due to restricted resources. She points out that an intersectional approach is nonetheless useful “to be able to reach out and address the needs of the most vulnerable.” Female expert 5 mentioned in this regard that “the challenge is obviously that it’s cases and situations that are more complicated to explain (…) and “these are the most difficult to handle and they are the ones that pose more problems at national level”. Female expert 4 added that “if the courts cannot deal with double discrimination, I’m not sure how they can deal with intersectional discrimination”. Female expert 6 explained that “if you function with those silo mentalities, these more complicated situations are unprotected and uncovered.” Consequently, the concept needs to be more integrated into judicial decision-making, and gender can be an entry point to other forms of discrimination.

F. Long-term commitment

Experts emphasised that the training needs to be long-term. As male expert 2 put it: “And it has to be long-term. I mean, in terms of the commitment, it needs to be long-term, both from the side of the author of the training and those participating. This is not going to be one or two days. This is going to be months of systematic engagement.” Female expert 5 recommended having core material, such as a HELP course, “in which things are written properly, otherwise, they can very easily get diluted”. She explained that if the idea is to train trainers who will then cascade the training, this approach “can ensure a bit the quality of the training”, as it guarantees that everyone goes through the same course as a baseline. Female expert 6 added that this is also helpful in ensuring correct definitions regarding sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC), “because people need to really understand what we are talking about”.

About the mentoring programme, female expert 3 explained: “So I think the mentoring is not just ‘I train you one day and then I abandon you and you do your work.’ (…) You continue to have your mentor a little bit under your wing so that you identify the best, address those who are a little bit at risk of repeating stereotypes and follow through.” This continued support for mentors is not only necessary to address the risk that mentors may “replicate and multiply their biases” with the mentees (female expert 3) but can also contribute to an ambassadorial technique. Judges of all court levels can become reference points for colleagues and national training institutions (male expert 1). Also, mentors must provide a practical follow-up proposal in the framework of the CoE training to stipulate long-term changes. Female expert 1 explained, “So it’s not only about, ‘Oh I did it,’ it’s also, ‘How am I going to carry it on?’ And the questions for the follow-up are again very practical. (…) We want you to tell us three actions that you are going to do and how you are going to do them.”

G. Other aspects

There were mixed opinions on the extent to which the training should be voluntary, as there is a risk of “preaching to the converted,” or compulsory, as self-reflection requires the willingness of the persons involved. GREVIO has repeatedly required states to introduce mandatory and in-depth training of judges on issues related to gender-based violence (see 2024 report on Albania, para. 68, 2023 report on Greece, paras. 85, 92). It also points out that training on these topics does not interfere with the independence and autonomy of the judiciary (see 2024 report on Sweden, para. 49). Male expert 2 also referred to misconceptions in this regard and highlighted the challenge that, in his country, “judges are basically protected like polar bears”. Female expert 2 recommended that more evaluation of existing training could be helpful.

There are other strategic aspects of training on gender stereotypes. Female expert 1 recommended: “Given the high expectations and thresholds for this particular group of professionals, you need to ensure that we are not going to put the spotlight on them.” Female expert 6 explained that due to political resistance in some countries sometimes “strategically it is easier to enter a conversation by attaching LGBTI persons rights to a broader anti-discrimination scope or gender-based violence scope.” Male expert 1 pointed out that, generally, legal professionals like to have certificates, to have something to “hang on your wall,” which can be an aspect that makes training more attractive.

Conclusion

Judges are among the legal professionals who have “the power to actually change something by changing their behaviours, their practices, and by applying the substantive elements of guaranteeing equal access to justice” (female expert 1). Therefore, it is paramount that states strive to reduce their biases related to gender and other forms of structural discrimination. Several experts also mentioned the need to tackle stereotypes held by all the personnel involved, including police and prosecutors. They pointed out that the CoE is a trusted partner of member states with regard to training, and female expert 1 also referred to their privileges: “Can you imagine what first responders – the people on the front line – or the victims of human rights abuses actually have to face?“ The recommendations identified serve as a starting point, also to explore judicial training on stereotypes related to other forms of systemic discrimination.

See the blog post “Breaking Bias: Entry Points for Gender Stereotypes in Judicial Decision-Making” for an overview of entry points for gender stereotypes in judicial decision-making.


About the Author

Beate Streicher is a legal professional with extensive experience in international law, human rights, and advocacy. She is currently serving as a legal advisor on international law at Amnesty International Germany. She is skilled in drafting submissions for legislative processes and international monitoring, with a deep understanding of human rights law and a strong commitment to social justice and equity. Her re:constitution research project (2024/25) examines gender stereotypes in court proceedings and decisions, and she conducted her mobility period at the Council of Europe Programme Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals. Beate has achieved success in both state examinations, with experience at the German Constitutional Court, the European Parliament, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Previously, she worked as a student research assistant at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg. She holds a solid academic foundation from Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg and completed two exchange semesters at Université Toulouse 1 Capitole, focusing on International, European, and National Public Law.


Citation: Beate Streicher, Breaking Bias: Training Judges to Challenge Gender Stereotypes in Courts, in: TRAFO – Blog for Transregional Research, 20.03.2025, https://trafo.hypotheses.org/55888


OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Forum Transregionale Studien (March 20, 2025). Breaking Bias: Training Judges to Challenge Gender Stereotypes in Courts. TRAFO – Blog for Transregional Research. Retrieved April 21, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/13ixa


Forum Transregionale Studien

The Berlin-based Forum Transregionale Studien promotes the internationalization of research in the humanities and social sciences. It provides scope for collaboration among researchers with different regional and disciplinary perspectives and appoints researchers from all over the world as Fellows. More...

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.