WHO publishes 'controversial gender guidance'

WHO has done and still does much fantastic work on many important health issues and I, for one, would be dismayed by the UK withdrawing funding. It is an organisation funded by govts and govts put tremendous pressure on WHO personnel i.e. the Covid pandemic. This doesn’t mean it needs to be disbanded.

It is unfortunate that WHO is not seeing the parallels with the tobacco industry influence on health policy and those with the vested interests (big pharma, certain elements in health care) in pushing medical transition of children and young adults before they are able to make an informed decision.

Because it’s interesting that WHO has started a campaign about the tobacco influence on young people:

The World Health Organization (WHO), today, officially launches the "Stop the lies" campaign as a vital initiative to protect young people from the tobacco big pharma industry and their deadly products PBs / cross sex hormones / experimental surgery, by calling for an end to tobacco big pharma industry interference in health policy. “WHO stands with young people globally who have demanded governments protect them against a deadly industry that targets them with new harmful products PBs / cross sex hormones / experimental surgery while outright lying about the health impacts. We call on all countries to safeguard health policies from this deadly industry by not letting them have a seat at the policy-making table,” said Dr Ruediger Krech, Director of Health Promotion, WHO.

And the article mentions the tactics used by the tobacco industry including using front groups and third parties such as social media influencers, sponsored events, and funding scientists and biased research. Familiar?

Yet, WHO seems oblivious in recognising any parallels here with the impact of the combined vested interests of some trans organisations, surgeons, and big pharma.

I see. They suggest Jazz Jennings' situation is a positive one.

We can expect to see more pseudo vaginas made out of colons in future, then.

Thanks to those clarifying the use of the new terms transmac / transfemme. On the one hand, these labels seem to move away from appropriating the
biological sex-based ‘men’ and ‘women’, which is helpful. On the other hand, it does feel regressive. ‘Tomboy’ was bad enough, but I’m pretty sure I’d have been labelled transmac as a young teenager if we’re simply talking about presentation.

Re: the proposed panel members. Yes, on the one hand, these are experts in their fields inasmuch as their personal interests have driven them to become wholly immersed in the issues. However, the outcome of this panel is as certain as would be the outcome of WHO’s panel on tobacco use being populated by experts from the tobacco industry. The term ‘vested interests’ comes to mind as much, or perhaps more than, the label of ‘expert’.

They did not say puberty blockers take a toll. They said that transitioning after going through puberty takes a toll that transitioning without having gone through puberty does not.

So outright lying then. I'm not sure how this improves things.

The response isn’t to a global policy. It is to the make up of the panel.

This isn’t some public policy consultation - it is a window of time for any conflicts of interest to be highlighted to the WHO before the panel fully begins its work.

Aside from the western centric view that you can’t ask people to work at some point in a three week period over December, even in the west very few people are entirely unavailable for a three week period to look at 21 names and email any concerns about conflicts of interest.

No. You’ve totally got what they said wrong.

They did not say puberty blockers take a toll. They said that transitioning after going through puberty takes a toll that transitioning without having gone through puberty does not.

You can agree or disagree but making up the opposite of what they say is disingenuous.

How do we 'sound the alarm' as it were.. to the UK Mission to UN / WHO etc to ask them to comment on the lack of participants in the consultation who have questions over the evidence base surrounding affirmation and use of hormones..

Or indeed teenaged girls anywhere.

Well 11 of the panel are people who most posters on here would regard as women, but I guess their views and professional experience should be dismissed right?

Actually part of me wonders if its not worth just letting them push it all to the most absurd degree - let them suggest all children should be put on Lupron - to hasten the ending. The more extreme the approach the quicker it will all fall.

I say all that, but anyone with young children knows they are going to be the ones at risk of being collateral damage.

I'd be concerned for the coordination of efforts around future pandemics.

Yes. I find it by turns dismaying and sad. I loved the idea of the UN and the principles it was founded on. In practice, it seems too easily gamed and misused.

One could see the corrosive and toxic power of genderwang as a useful object lesson in how organisations are vulnerable and susceptible to concerted efforts to game them.

Again: those who would have us believe absurdities ...

The EHRC are interesting to watch in this respect as they are the one institution that has realised and started to take strong action to recover. They're being fought all the way, I'll wait to see if it turns out to be possible to return to a neutral, objective, trustworthy and uncaptured state once it's happened.

Thank you @Gettingmadderallthetime and @VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia that all makes more sense now.

The unhelpful title of the article makes an already baffling and hurried process even more difficult to understand.

Hopefully the organisations that have some influence in the UK will find a way to get the UK voice heard on this. The government won't have the appetite to do so as it's still being fought on the home front. And hopefully the other countries that are at a similar stage of getting gender identity belief out of public institutions will do the same. Individual public voices aren't going to touch the sides at this stage. And then the risk, as stated above, is that when they finally do issue the draft guidance, individual voices will make no difference to the final outcome.

This is a very good example of what happens when the long game is played well and in line with the strategy laid out in the Dentons files. Small glimmer of hope: 1) this kind of thing has been happening at scale for 20+ years and more people now know about the tactics 2) countries like the UK are starting to make headway in stopping it from happening. The updated EHRC guidance on protected characteristics and draft guidance for schools show that there must logically be some "counter-tactics" at work. I'm looking forward to hearing what Kemi Badenoch can share about this when she gets the chance to do so.
So it won't win in the long term. The sad part is that people will continue to be harmed until it is eventually stopped.

Yes they are fighting for survival and will continue to lobby a lie to do it

Sadly a lot of once reputable, trustworthy institutions have been politically captured to trade on that reputation and trust to gain political power and force through the agenda.

They are now emptied of any meaning or remaining value, and are compromised beyond survival. We're going to see many go down who fell prey to the activist bug.

This is from the Consolidated guidelines on HIV, viral hepatitis and STI prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care for key populations

https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/360601/9789240052390-eng.pdf?sequence=1

Key populations: defined groups who, due to specific higher-risk behaviours, are at increased risk of HIV, viral hepatitis or STIs irrespective of the epidemic type or local context. Also, they often have legal and social issues related to their behaviours that increase their vulnerability to HIV. These guidelines focus on five key populations: 1) men who have sex with men; 2) people who inject drugs; 3) people in prisons and other closed settings; 4) sex workers; and 5) trans and gender diverse people. People in prisons and other closed settings are also included in these guidelines because of the often high levels of incarceration of the other groups, and the increased risk behaviours and lack of HIV, viral hepatitis and STI services in these settings.

And this is what they say about including 'trans and gender diverse people' in the key populations.

Transgender people are around 13 times more likely to be HIV-positive than other adults of reproductive age. In some regions, transgender women account for disproportionally large shares of new infections, including Asia and the Pacific (7%), Latin America (6%) and the Caribbean (5%). HIV prevalence among transgender women is estimated to be 28.4% in Eastern and Southern Africa; 13.5% in Western and Central Africa; 22.2% in Latin America; and 23.7% in the Caribbean (UNAIDS, 2020). Little data is available for transgender men and other transgender populations regarding HIV epidemiology.

Note the switch from 'transgender people' in the first sentence, to 'transgender women' in the second, then at the end the acknowledgement that they have no data for 'transgender men'. Also the geographical area that these high infection rates relate to is limited and doesn't include Europe, North America or Australasia where a very different demographic are identifying as transgender.

If the WHO's concern is about HIV in male transsexual sex workers in Latin America, the Caribbean and parts of Asia, then they shouldn't be making guidelines which will be used totally inappropriately for teenage girls in countries like the UK.

The WHO is not to be trusted. Our government should withdraw funding and certainly not sign any binding treaties.

This clearly isn't the same as knowing she's fully aware but it's been put on the Baroness's radar:

https://x.com/baronessnichol/status/1740988678665867508?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

It’s hugely concerning. I wonder what the US involvement is wrt funding

Yes any name they want no issue. We’ve always done groupings eg goth, emo, but use sex class for spaces etc

Thank you vita.

What is very strange about this is that it's not just the U.K. that has been rowing back on pbs for children.

A number of other EU countries have and must also be looking at their own evidence to make those decisions.

We know that other experts in a range of countries have been speaking out about this.

Who makes the appointments to such panels?

Thanks @VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia those links are really useful.

We seem to be at the stage of trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.

We need to be finding out who opened the door to this now entrenched position of affirming transition (at any age?).

The problem is whatever anyone of us might think about WHO its guidelines will be use by all those who just look to "authorities" to tell them what to say and do.

(To late to look at links tonight but will try and do it tomorrow - what a mess)

https://www.who.int/teams/global-hiv-hepatitis-and-stis-programmes/populations/transgender-people Go to the bottom and read https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/272051/PMC5327942.pdf It's gone from that to recruiting panellists who want to give all children lupron in less than six years. Apparently silently. Who has been talking to who behind closed doors and how much money changed hands?

They started this back in June www.who.int/news/item/28-06-2023-who-announces-the-development-of-the-guideline-on-the-health-of-trans-and-gender-diverse-people