WHO publishes 'controversial gender guidance'

But the US insurance companies did lobby to get gender disphoria taken off the list of mental disorders
**
Really? Can you post a link?

Just to say I am more than aware of the issue dating back some decades.

But the US insurance companies did lobby to get gender disphoria taken off the list of mental disorders because they were lobbied by trans activists who wanted to access medical resources. It is and was a mutual circle - and as endlessly posted on here, probably with pressure from big pharma. ie the insurers can just put up their premiums and pharma companies reap the reward.

Also as I pointed out in my post, I searched the WHO web site and going back years there is no evidence they ever did a public consultation re self identity, use of hormones. It was just an announcement a couple of years after the change to the US medical listings.

If you can find a link on the WHO website itself that shows they engaged with the public prior to their announcement in 2018 I would be interested to see it.

Otherwise as I said, WHO, as the global organisation setting medical standards, seems to have decided on their own internal discussions, to promote this position.

So I am specifically talking about WHO (as this is the topic of this thread) and how they reach decisions.

So the latest statement asking for people to write guidelines isn't the issue.

It is the fact that they, apparently back in 2018, decided the medical procedures they say are appropriate for trans identifying people.

It's not the insurance companies who are lobbying for this. As I'm sure you know, insurance companies usually try to minimise their payouts, not find ways to increase them.

Transactivists, along with other interested parties who stand to make a financial gain from this, like pharmaceutical companies and some surgeons, are the ones lobbying for this to be included in insurance.

This is an article by one of the people responsible for the changes in the ICD-11.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/885141

The comments (by medical professionals) are interesting.

For example:
Psychiatrists meeting together to decide how to change a diagnosis for the sake of "reducing the stigma" is laughable. What about reducing the stigma of ALL mental illnesses?

The biggest error in thinking I see is my experience that transgender individuals have many other problems (ASD, psychosis, ADHD, PTSD, generalized identity diffusion, etc.) and that marketing surgery and hormones for this complex, comorbidly mentally disordered group is NOT generally in their interest

...the change in diagnostic terms has nothing to do with lessening stigma.As the author points out, it has to do with reimbursement. For some time now, insurance companies have been basing payments on diagnosis.

It was discussed on this thread in 2018.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/3331270-if-being-transgender-is-not-an-illness

IwanttoRetire the second link I posted has some history and probably would be worth your reading. You appear to be quite new to the issue and seem to think this has happened behind people’s backs. It hasn’t and we don’t need to be spending time trying tonwork out how it happened and complaining about that. The changes to ICD-11 received extensive mainstream coverage at the time and since then, there have been constant comparisons between it and the DSM-5.

This article implies they made the changes back in 2018. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/06/20/transgender-not-mental-illness-world-health-organization/717758002/

I suspect that every year since then they have been lobbied by TRAs to make it closer and closer to self id, and being able to decide what procedures or drugs they want to have.

Although on re-reading the change is in fact to no longer saying homosexuality is a mental disorder, so this implies that as usual trans ideology has snuck under the misidentifications that trans is the same as being same sex attracted.

Yet another example of how a very tiny % of the population has apparently always been able to be in places of influence.

I cant see the date on that statement but wasn't that as result of lobbying by US Medical Insurance companies, because once "gender incongruence" ceased to be a mental disorder then those with medical insurance in the US could get surgery and / or hormones through their insurance. (That was years ago.)

Wonder which came first? Did WHO make the changes or did the insurance companies make the changes and WHO just followed suit ie didn't even consult just took the wording of what is basically medical insurance guidelines?

There’s a bit of the history here:

https://www.mentalhealthjournal.org/articles/gender-incongruence-is-no-longer-a-mental-disorder.html

ICD-11 has redefined gender identity-related health, replacing outdated diagnostic categories like ICD-10’s “transsexualism” and “gender identity disorder of children” with “gender incongruence of adolescence and adulthood” and “gender incongruence of childhood”, respectively. Gender incongruence has been moved out of the “Mental and behavioural disorders” chapter and into the new “Conditions related to sexual health” chapter.

Recognition in the ICD also acknowledges the links between gender identity, sexual behaviour, exposure to violence and sexually transmitted infections.

There's a link between gender identity, sexual behaviour, exposure to violence and sexually transmitted infections in children?

Treating gender incongruence in a mental health chapter was causing additional stigma for an already stigmatized condition. WHO officials added the hope that adding this condition to a sexual health chapter of the ICD codes would "help increase access to care for health interventions" and "destigmatize the condition."

So while the rest of the world is trying to destigmatise mental health conditions, the WHO is putting one of these mental health conditions in another section in order to destigmatise it. And they also see nothing wrong with saying that children have a sexual health condition when they show a dislike of gender stereotyping.

evidence suggests that transgender people often experience a disproportionately high burden of disease, including in the domains of mental, sexual and reproductive health.

But trans people being more likely to have a mental health condition is just what - a coincidence? And apparently children have a higher incidence of problems with sexual and reproductive health if they identify as trans.

Who wrote this? They sound insane.

The WHO have supported gender affirming care for a number of years. This is not new and has not been hidden- eg the revised ICD-11: https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/gender-incongruence-and-transgender-health-in-the-icd

I think this has been posted before but this is the only statement re Gender Affirming from WHO and as the link shows leads onto the statement about who will write the guidelines that started this thread.
https://www.who.int/news/item/28-06-2023-who-announces-the-development-of-the-guideline-on-the-health-of-trans-and-gender-diverse-people

But still provides no link as to how they reached this position back in June 2023 ie the five guidelines.

The recent statement referred to "Departments" at WHO but if you search WHO for "Departments" none come up.

So somehow these 5 guidelines imerged from ????????????? in June 2023?

^ oops that was supposed to be in reply to @IwantToRetire 😊

I understood what you were saying, don't worry, but my 'comment' regarding the consultation (i.e. the one I sent to the email address they provide) was specifically regarding the panel as that is what they were specifically asking for feedback on. In my email I also said that the WHO were wrong to be taking an affirmative approach, but I don't know if that will fall on deaf ears. I'll be reporting the whole thing to the WHO integrity line when I get more time.

There's also a petition someone shared on another thread that I've signed, if that makes any difference!

Oops should have said ‘covid’ was airborne.

The WHO resisted the growing evidence was airborne. And we’re rightly criticised by health professionals world wide.

So it doesn’t surprise me that they are still not evidence driven in this case.

On a thread yesterday I saw a poster using Turing treatment as an example of how we women are so so mean not backing the conversion therapy ban.

I was itching so badly to comment back that those drugs are exactly what the tra want teenage boys to be given instead of talking therapy which is now labelled conversion therapy. How fucked up. And so homphobic they can't even see what they are saying.

That Transgender Trend article shows just how deep this rot goes and just how deep misogyny and hatred of women is embedded. Some people will stop at nothing - no matter how dangerous, how unethical in order to impose their dubious world view on an unconsenting world.
Thank heavens so many women and other decent people are now aware of what's happening.

https://www.transgendertrend.com/world-health-organisation-sex-and-gender-page-disappears/

Came to make comments but so totally astounded by claims about Turing that I will have to go away and calm down.

How has the world become so crazy?

If we're now being told homosexuality is a 'gender identity'......

No. It bloody isn't. I don't have a gender identity, I don't have the time. I do have a sexual orientation, it's sex based, and I am becoming increasingly fuckwitphobic.

I'm trying to think if that's more or less ignorant than the person who claimed that Turing's hormone treatment was gender-affirming. I've quoted this before.

-----
Blog post that explores the idea of transing the dead as an extension of baptism of the dead:

williamaferguson.substack.com/p/trans-out-your-dead?s=r

That's a particular horrible example and the author correctly identifies that one enthusiastic baptiser of the dead describes Turing as "one of the first Gay men to go on estrogen."

Turing was given DES as a form of chemical castration - and that was presented as an option to imprisonment.

Alan was prosecuted under the Labouchere Amendment of 1855, a law that made homosexuality (“gross indecency”) a crime. In an arranged plea deal, Alan accepted chemical castration by way of Diethylstilbestrol (DES) in lieu of prison and upon conviction he was stripped of all security clearances and forbidden entry into the United States.

The ignorance and indifference to the reality of history is breathtaking.

--

(Do open up the image for the 'Fun Fact' text.)

I actually read an article yesterday online that tried to claim that Alan Turing was arrested for his 'gender identity' instead of his homosexuality. Just erasing and reorganising the history of everyone involved in the situation to political wankery.

This nasty and insidious batshit is everywhere.

Post from Transgender Trend about the change made by the WHO with a position they held in 2017. Looks like they tried to memory hole a useful page on sex and gender:

www.transgendertrend.com/world-health-organisation-sex-and-gender-page-disappears/

x.com/transgendertrd/status/1743574004365918401?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

who say complaint seems futile

I have never said this.

I have said over and over again, that everyone is complaining about the wrong thing.

The decision has already been taken by WHO as to their approach.

You need to be complaining about that, rather then saying who will write the public guidelines because they will write guidelines to meet the affirmative approach.

I dont understand why nobody understands this.

Look at the WHO statement original posted saying they want people to write the guidelines (and seriously I am not going to bother to post these agains) but if you do bother to look and actually read them, WHO is asking people to write guide lines that support an affirmative approach and use of hormones.

The issue is when and when did WHO agree this, what was the consultation process, etc..

ie whoever is appointed now to write guidelines will write guideline that complly with a pre-existing decision to, comply with the decision WHO has already taken behind our backs. ie

The guideline will focus in 5 areas:
> provision of gender-affirming care, including hormones;
> health workers education and training for the provision of gender-inclusive care;
> provision of health care for trans and gender diverse people who suffered interpersonal violence based in their needs;
> health policies that support gender-inclusive care, and
> legal recognition of self-determined gender identity.

Something is going seriously wrong with campaigns that people get caught up in this spiral of misinformation, everybody gets worked up, but it transpires that the individual or group who set themselves up to comment in the first place failed to grasp that actual situation.

Like raising money to for 2 court cases in Scotland that merely confirmed what was already known, that the way the GRA interacted with the EA was that for legal purposes a man with a GRC can say he was female (for all purposes) ie a legal woman.

So does anyone know if anyone is campaigning or raising the real problem that WHO has already decided what their policy.

All that is happening know is finding people to write the guidelines.

For those, like me, who were pondering what the connection between AIDs and transgenderism is, here are a couple of articles that I found useful:

https://gendercriticalwoman.blog/2022/07/09/united-nations-gender-ideology/

https://vaishnavisundar.com/surgery-grants-for-sex-reassignment/

Essentially, for some reason, the UN is diverting funding that was set aside for the elimination of AIDs to transgender clinics.

The only link I can see is that, in India, transsexual men are one of the most likely groups to contract AIDs, due to many of them turning to prostitution as a means to live.

Why then, if in India, MtF trans people are likely to end up in prostitution, would you put funding into the medical transition of children?! Surely if society isn't ready for a MtF trans person working an everyday job, you're sending these young boys down a pathway that would make them more vulnerable to contracting AIDs?!

@Gettingmadderallthetime

I submitted a "comment" to the 'comment' e-mail based on their selected panel and the fact it's completely biased (19 of 21 are somehow involved in transactivism and therefore are likely captured with gender ideology) but I plan on submitting a complaint to their integrity hotline when I have more time. Thanks for the info on this, I'll read through it properly before I submit something!

@Sinnerboy and @IwantToRetire and others who say complaint seems futile. Could this help?

I wrote this is as part of my first message on this thread. (Just coming back to catch up a bit but largely away and writing in haste). I said:

"Might be worth mentioning their Ethics statements (WHO's that is). https://www.who.int/about/ethics/code-of-conduct-for-responsible-research

There is an Integrity hotline. https://www.who.int/about/ethics/integrity-hotline - which allows for anonymised reporting of breaches and is administered by a third party."

What I meant to say was it might be worth mentioning to readers in this thread where the Ethics statements on the WHO website are and what they claim.
This is because they have a clear appreciation (according to what is said on the website) as to what constitutes poor research.
The first link above takes you to a page which has two documents. One is the code for research and one is about Misconduct in Research. That is prefaced by this statement (see bold parts)

Intentionally fraudulent research activities and poor
practices can result in harmful consequences, not
only on WHO’s reputation but also on public health
and trust in international organizations. It also has
repercussions on science, whose impact is as difficult
to estimate as it is to mitigate.

Its also tells you what misconduct in research is ... there appears on the face of things to be several sources of complaint for this approach re guidelines.

I presume that receiving serious complaints = investigation, reporting up and a delay to reaching conclusions/creating guidance in February (which seems to be the plan).

I do not know enough about WHO or whistleblowing to be 100% sure its not a waste of time, but the integrity hotline could be a way forward. This is run by an external body and does not require identification.

Coming back with expansion on complaints about conflict of interest etc. and a way of doing so. This makes interesting reading. This is what WHO says it tries to avoid.

RESEARCH WRONGDOING
SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES:
ƒ Inappropriate development of research protocols.
ƒ Failure to disclose or take action on declared conflict
of interest.
ƒ Inadequate management of a research project.
ƒ Fabrication of data – deliberate creation, recording
and reporting of nonexistent results.
ƒ Falsification – deliberate manipulation of data to
change, or omit data.
ƒ Sabotage – intentionally damaging, destroying,
obstructing or otherwise harming a research project.
ƒ Plagiarism – the copying of ideas, data or text
(or various combinations of the three) without
authorization or acknowledgement.
ƒ Piracy – the deliberate exploitation of data from
others without authorization.
ƒ Conducting research in a manner which contravenes
the terms of approval granted by WHO or by other
relevant bodies and accepted by WHO as governing
the conduct of the research in question.
ƒ Conducting research for which WHO requires prior
approvals (for instance from national authorities)
without having failed to secure those approvals.
ƒ Failure to adhere to accepted ethical principles for
the conduct of research, in particular the World
Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical
Principles for Medical Research Involving Human
Subjects.
ƒ Failure to follow accepted procedures or exercise
due care for avoiding unreasonable risk of harm to
humans, animals or the environment.
ƒ Mismanagement or inadequate preservation of
data and/or primary materials.
ƒ Misappropriation of data.
ƒ Improper conduct in peer review.
ƒ Misrepresentation of interests, qualifications, and
experience.
ƒ Misrepresentation of involvement or authorship.
ƒ Failure to protect or the inappropriate use
or disclosure of confidential or proprietary
information, or the misuse of intellectual property.
ƒ Improper dealing with allegations of wrongdoing.
Wrongdoing in research does not include honest
errors or differences in interpretations or judgements
of data.