Danish women’s organisation opposes gender-equal conscription citing risks to women

A leading Danish women’s rights group has criticised government plans to introduce equal conscription rules for men and women, arguing that female recruits face disproportionate physical, psychological, and sexual risks if forced into combat.

The Dansk Kvindesamfund (Danish Women’s Society) told Berlingske it opposes a draft law that would allow conscripts—including women—to be deployed against their will, warning that the proposal fails to account for biological and social differences between genders.

“If you treat women the way men have been treated, without recognising that women are built differently—physically and psychologically—then you’re not treating them equally. You’re operating under the false assumption that women are just small men,” chairwoman Louise Vinther Alis told public broadcaster DR’s P1 Morgen programme.

Alis cited persistent reports of sexual harassment and assault against female conscripts, arguing that deployment would expose them to even greater risks. “We will never advocate forcing anyone into combat, regardless of gender. But at minimum, the military must address its culture of abuse. Female conscripts should not face a significantly higher risk of harassment, groping, or sexual coercion.”

The organisation also pointed to research from the University of Southern Denmark suggesting women are more vulnerable to PTSD than men in combat scenarios. Alis noted accounts from female veterans who described fearing rape not only from enemy forces but also from allied troops.

However, Henriette Laursen, director of Kvinfo (Denmark’s gender equality knowledge centre), disputed the PTSD claim, telling Berlingske that Danish Veteran Centre studies found no gender-based difference in trauma rates among troops deployed to Afghanistan.

While Dansk Kvindesamfund fundamentally opposes conscription, Alis acknowledged Denmark’s geopolitical challenges but insisted equal treatment must mean “taking equal care” of all recruits. The group’s critique follows its formal response to the draft law, which it called “deeply concerning” for opening the door to forced conscription and deployment.