WHO publishes 'controversial gender guidance'

My 2 year old daughter said "I'm not a girl, I'm a La!" last week - that was pretty creative. I wonder how to help her affirm her new La-gender - do I dress her as a musical note now? Refer to her as La-self?

All children are "gender creative" to some degree, surely?!

Interesting point. We aren't supposed to feel euphoric about our gender. That's a heightened abnormal response.

This.

Michael Brady seems to think so…

I'm borrowing this from MN notes.

I'm interested in the impartiality of the NHS LGBT+ team. If we recall this story from 2022 where Brady claimed to chair the review and reassured some groups that although there was an obligation to listen to others, they would be ignored (I paraphrase).

The NHS review into single-sex wards is being carried out by a "trans advocate" who has said that rules that allow patients to self-identify their gender will not be changed, The Telegraph can reveal.

Dr Michael Brady, the national adviser for LGBT health at NHS England, has written to campaign groups telling them that there is “no plan to reduce existing rights of trans people”. Controversial charities Stonewall and Mermaids had contributed “very helpfully” to the process, Dr Brady told the Trans NHS Staff Network in emails seen by The Telegraph.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/15/fears-flawed-nhs-single-sex-wards-review-carried-trans-advocate/

Also: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10618541/Womens-groups-claim-EXCLUDED-flawed-NHS-review-single-sex-hospital-wards.html

MN thread: We might also recall that the NHS denied that Brady was chairing the review (a claim that he made).

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4506395-Fears-over-flawed-NHS-single-sex-wards-review-carried-out-by-trans-advocate

ourduty.group/2024/01/03/the-world-health-organization-is-promoting-controversial-gender-affirming-approach-on-a-global-scale/

Who in that biased group is going to advocate for the rights of LGB youth? For their right to not be medicated into heterosexuality?

Indeed. All the while bleating about 'inclusivity'. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Almost as if some groups are more worthy of inclusion than others / some animals are more equal than others.

I think that, even if they are inundated with complaints and evidence that they are dangerously wrong, that they will simply ignore it and possibly lie about the levels of complaints, dismissing them as a tiny irrelevance.

Its almost more than ignore.

Its like they dont even recognise that there are women and lesbians and gay men who object to the affirm trans agenda for totally valid reason. Because they dont think they are valid, they dont even bring them into the process of deciding policy.

Well, you're not wrong there, Frood, sad to say. Let's just hope that, like any other epidemic, they'll burn out eventually.

Yes. Stepping round the frantic nitpicking derailing, this has been the MO of this political lobby since the start. Capture the group, do it under the table, present it as a fait accompli and try and force it through with as few people as possible noticing.

And yes, based on the arrogant delusionality that anyone who does not agree with them is subhuman scum acting only from the worst motives. More and more evidence that political capture by this lobby kills whatever host it forces itself inside, and is a massive safeguarding disaster.

IwantToRetire · 29/12/2023 18:13

I did say this yesterday, but in fact even discussing who is one the panel seems irrelevant if WHO have already said that the guidelines will be about the affirmative approach, including use of hormones.

We could waste hours trying to flood them with suggestion for people we think better placed to promote watchful waiting, but it will be a complete waste of time if they have already decided the approach, and just want guidelines on that.

I think that that is their entire, sordid plan, to present a fait accompli, as cooked up by the highly partisan group, which consists solely of trans members and activists. There is a deliberate bias, with no room for dissenting, moderating voices, because they are determined to influence governments and healthcare organisations and to have no objections.

I think that, even if they are inundated with complaints and evidence that they are dangerously wrong, that they will simply ignore it and possibly lie about the levels of complaints, dismissing them as a tiny irrelevance.

Is the answer no, you can’t show me anywhere that says this forum is just for those who agree with ‘gender critical’ views and tactics?

Unfortunately a couple of posters aren’t going to be able to identify every lie told or every distortion posted on this forum.

But even a random dip sample of the 1% of lies told is helpful ‘sunlight’ (that is the preferred term, right) of the sort of tactics used. I can understand that you might prefer to be in a 100% echo chamber but you’ll just have to live with 99% of posters agreeing with you and the other 1% calling out the lies when there’s opportunity to do so.

Me with my pesky ability to read what people say and how it contradicts what posters claim they have said, you mean.

No ‘GC tactics and lies’ indeed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12917509/WHO-accused-trans-bias-calling-self-ID-right-transgender-care.html

WHO haven't set policy yet

They have set the policy. They quote it in the notice for "experts" to write the guidelines. Quote:

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.

https://www.who.int/news/item/18-12-2023-who-announces-the-development-of-a-guideline-on-the-health-of-trans-and-gender-diverse-people

They aren't saying we are investigating these options.

They are saying we know what the guidelines should cover.

It / they have decided what they want.

If they were recruiting people to investigate what the guidelines would say they wouldn't have had the list highlighted above.

I think that you know the answer to that, but neither do you engage in good faith debate. According to you, all FWR posters lie and throw out crap and are inaccurate. So, posting seems a waste of your time. Yet, here you are. Ah well. Life’s rich tapestry and all that as my MiL used to say.

WHO haven't set policy yet, but I strongly suspect that Ashley will push for Lupron on demand based on Ashley's previous statements.

I just don't understand how WHO can make these policy changes with no evidence base.

It is obscene to experiment on children's fertility, IQ and god knows what else like this.

There are no gc tactics or lies. Only reality, evidence of harm from drugs and tw in female spaces, and sunlight from people like you who show the whole movement up for its contradictions.

Can you point me to the rules that say this forum is only for those who agree with ‘gender critical’ views and tactics?

And this also:

In response to post late last night / early this morning as to what we can do about the fact that the WHO policy is already decided, see information from @VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia showing how far back this was done.

Its a waste of time to complain about the handmaids who will rush to write this up, we need to be challenging how, and if behind closed doors, WHO decided there is no problem with prescribing hormones.

In response to post late last night / early this morning as to what we can do about the fact that the WHO policy is already decided, see information from @VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia showing how far back this was done.

Its a waste of time to complain about the handmaids who will rush to write this up, we need to be challenging how, and if behind closed doors, WHO decided there is no problem with prescribing hormones.

Wouldn't 'gender-creative' include all feminist girls in retrogressive societies? They are refusing to live according to the gender norms there.

I don't see the distinction, which suggests that this ideology is sexist.

You appear to hold the opposite position of the position held by many who read and post on these threads i.e. that sex is immutable and binary and that gender is an unhelpful, often reductive and harmful, social construct that largely serves men (of the biological kind).

So what is the point of you coming on these threads? You only get incensed. Everything everyone else says is a lie. As such, continuing to post here cannot be helpful for you so I’m not sure what what you hope for by continuing to reply to comments?

Are you hoping if you repeat this long enough you can blot everything else out? I'm honestly lost at this point to try and understand you.

This paragraph is shocking enough, accurate quoting included.

In fact the statement is explicitly qualified “in caring for trans and gender creative youth, puberty blockers must be seen as the default position, to be readily prescribed since they leave the largest space for future identity development and negotiation”.