This study examines how the framing of organizational gender-equity policies shapes support among Generation Z employees. Drawing on performativity (Butler, 1990) and intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991), we conceptualize framing as mediating how Gen Z employees perceive equity initiatives. Using a mixed-methods design, we combine survey data from 4,861 Gen Z respondents in 30 countries with directed content analysis of four HR policy documents (coded for equity vs enforcement, identity recognition, and youth engagement). Results reveal a gender gap: Gen Z women strongly endorse inclusive equity measures, consistent with evidence that women show stronger support for equality policies, whereas Gen Z men are more skeptical of policies framed as exclusive or punitive – mirroring polls finding many Gen Z men say equality efforts have gone too far. These findings suggest that performative policy framing activates social identities differently by gender and that intersectional policy language affects reception. Practically, we recommend framing equity initiatives in terms of shared fairness and collective benefit, using transparent rationale and inclusive identity language. Gen Zers expect fair pay, inclusive policies, and transparency, so HR communications should emphasize fairness and allyship to enhance legitimacy and support among this cohort.

The article undertakes an exploration into the rather unexpected progressiveness exhibited by courts across the globe in bestowing protection upon LGBTQ rights. A three-pronged study, which encompasses an examination of the theoretical rationales, empirical investigations, and doctrinal underpinnings of the augmentation of LGBTQ rights in diverse locales, is executed. It is hypothesized that a prima facie paradox emerges, whereby LGBTQ rights have been safeguarded and advanced in an extraordinary fashion, while concurrently, a discernible general trend of deviation from liberal constitutionalism, rights safeguarding mechanisms, and the rule of law is observable in other arenas. This article scrutinizes this contention and discovers that it is substantiated by case law from various regions. Critical theory and Butler’s theory of performativity potentially offer the most cogent explanations for this paradox. They have led to the social embrace of LGBTQ rights, while simultaneously, the enactment or amplification of these rights even in illiberal states furnishes an effortless ‘triumph’ for illiberal political actors, which can be employed as a countermeasure against assaults on their liberal and democratic reputations.