By Dr Sophie King-Hill, University of Birmingham
29 September 2025
This commentary explores the limitations of the term Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) in safeguarding contexts when considering violence against all children, highlighting the importance of considering when and where it may be more appropriate to use the term Violence Against Women and Children (VAWC) to ensure inclusive and legally aligned safeguarding practices.
While the usage of VAWG has played a vital role in highlighting gender-based violence and advocating for the rights of women and girls, it is not always appropriate in settings where the focus is on children more broadly. In such contexts, the use of VAWG can inadvertently exclude boys from recognition, support and protection. Adopting VAWC, appropriately, allows for a more inclusive and legally aligned approach that reflects the realities of all children affected by violence, without undermining the importance of gendered analysis where it is relevant.
The term VAWG emerged from the 1993 UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, which recognised violence as rooted in historically unequal power relations between men and women (UN General Assembly, 1993). It has since been adapted in many policy initiatives such as The Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy set out by the UK government in 2021. It has been instrumental in highlighting and addressing gender-based violence and driving feminist advocacy.
However, while VAWG rightly centres women and girls, it can unintentionally obscure the experiences of boys who also face violence when it is used in all contexts as a broad brush term. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 defines a child as anyone under 18, regardless of gender (UK Government, 2021) which aligns to the United Nations Rights of the Child international definition of a child (UNRC, 1989). Yet safeguarding frameworks and service provision often default to gendered language, leaving boys underrepresented in policy, data and support systems.
Language is far more than a means for communication, it is an influential tool that shapes perception, determines visibility and influences who receives protection and support. In the context of safeguarding and violence prevention, terminology plays a critical role in framing support and perceptions of who should be protected.
The words chosen in policy, practice and discourse can either foster inclusion or reinforce exclusion and the perpetuation of silence around experiences of violence. Language that centres only one group risks creating gaps in recognition in safeguarding frameworks, service provision and data collection.
By adopting terminology that reflects the full spectrum of childhood experiences, practitioners and policymakers can ensure that all children, regardless of gender, are visible, protected and adequately supported. This shift is not about diluting the focus on gendered violence, but about expanding the lens to safeguard the rights and wellbeing of all children where appropriate.
Inclusive language ensures visibility, access and protection for all children. It aligns with legal definitions and expectations of safeguarding, supports trauma-informed practice and enables accurate data collection.
For example, using the term children instead of girls in safeguarding policies that are not solely focussed upon gendered harms ensures that all under-18s are protected. However, inclusive language does not mean abandoning gendered analysis. VAWC expands protection without erasing the unique experiences of girls.
It allows for the consideration of multiple truths, that violence is gendered and that all children deserve safety. Some may express concern that shifting terminology could dilute the feminist focus of existing frameworks. However, the use of VAWC in specific safeguarding contexts does not replace VAWG, but rather complements it by ensuring that all children, regardless of gender, are recognised and protected.
Sticking rigidly to the term VAWG in all contexts risks misaligning services with legal frameworks, distorting data collection and perpetuating silence around the victimisation of boys. Even when services are inclusive and offer support to all children, the use of the term Violence Against Women and Girls and/or VAWG in their naming or branding can unintentionally signal exclusivity.
This may lead to boys feeling overlooked and can shape external perceptions in ways that discourage engagement or recognition of their experiences. It is useful to note that boys are also at significant risk of community violence, bullying and emotional abuse, yet these experiences are often underreported or misunderstood. Research demonstrates that while girls report higher rates of sexual abuse, boys are more likely to experience community violence and physical abuse at similar rates.
These realities must be reflected in policy and practice. It is important to be intentional with the language that is used. VAWG is applicable when addressing gender-based violence and its roots in inequality. Whereas VAWC in safeguarding and child protection contexts ensures the safety of all children is equally considered. Practitioners and policymakers are encouraged to critically reflect on the language used in safeguarding frameworks and consider where inclusive terminology may better serve all children.
(To note, whilst this commentary has a focus upon boys this application and consideration of language change also applies to non-binary children).
References
Home Office (2021) Tackling violence against women and girls strategy. London: HM Government.
UN General Assembly (1993) Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women.
UK Government (2021) Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. Geneva: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.