WHO publishes 'controversial gender guidance'

This is so bad. I loathe these adults wtf are they thinking

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-fix-is-in-again

Glinner's substack have done an analysis of some of those who've contributed to this. It's very predictable
Not sure if the link can be published on here?

Fucking hell!

Youth who take puberty blockers have their options wide open, their bodies unaltered by either testosterone or oestrogen.

That line genuinely makes me feel a bit sick. We are meant to have our bodies (and brains) altered by our sex hormones in our youth. That's the fucking point. Young bodies unaltered by sex hormones with 'options wide open' as a phrase is a fucking parade of bright red flags. Hiding in plain sight.

Didn't the guy from the Trevor project say that transing people would cure AIDS?

So in the first instance we could also point out the timing and short window is also unfair and strange?

Well that was my immediate unprofessional opinion. Not only the timing but only 3 weeks.

I know the whole world doesn't go yuletide crazy, but as a Geneva(?) based organisation it seems really strange.

And @WyrdyGrob has pointed out that a professional opinion wanting a true response wouldn't do it.

So in the first instance we could also point out the timing and short window is also unfair and strange?

what fuckwit would consult over Christmas…

Exactly

And why is the contact email one for hiv-aids??????

In a previous life i ran a lot of public consultations. There’s an unofficial rule that you dont put anything out between mid December and mid January. Mainly because we want an outcome that is representative of actual opinion but also we were warned of the risk of a legal challenge. (Actual quote from our expert — what fuckwit would consult over Christmas… unless they had something to hide)

Probably already posted but:

In line with WHO policy on conflict of interest, members of the public and interested organizations can access the biographies of the GDG members for this guideline and inform WHO of their views about them. The list comprises 21 members. All comments should be sent by email to [email protected] by 8 January 2024.

ie they published on 18 December, a period when many people will be busy with festive / holiday type things, and have given a deadline of 3 weeks to respond. To a global policy. If that doesn't make their motives look dodgy I certainly dont know what to think.

They aren't meeting to late February, so could easily have had a later end date for comments.

Talk about underhand.

This is so problematic. The who are a subset of the un. This sets out the framework of what good care should be globally. We really are so far ahead in the UK even though still so far to go. Sad the gender non conformity of the 80s and 90s couldn't continue 😢

It feels like it is all over. The activists will have won if this goes through.

It’s depressing as anything

The whole thing is a leaky colander and we fix one bit and another rears up

I don’t know how we fix it atm

Thank you, but I can't read them! Are you able to link at all?

So we can probably get together a response that lays out concerns?

• Conflict of interest
• Lack of balanced views
• Lack of expert/informed input
• Suggestions of additional sources to balance

We can do that in a week.

The attached images are screen shots (sorry if they have slipped out of order) from the WHO guidelines on developing guidance (and who says the UN is a bureaucratic nightmare?) that lay out what constitutes a conflict of interest, which it looks like the consultation is exploring.

It's a tricky area for sure, unlike say malaria guidelines, it seems like interest/conflict of could be very closely aligned...

@OldCrone I read that to mean an opportunity to comment on the panel members. It seems like it would be worthwhile as a scan read doesn't scream balance and I don't see anyone who obviously has a research background on the impacts of puberty blockers, which as a lay-person I would say was key. As the remit of the panel is to determine what knowledge gaps there are for writing the guidelines then it would make sense to have people on the panel who are at the forefront of that (albeit limitied) research.

Fwiw I've worked alongside WHO developing standards, and some of the staff were fantastic whilst others were genuinely terrible, completely unqualified egomaniacs. Trouble is, once it gets to be WHO guidance its flipping hard to go against even if its "soft influence" on global health policy.

Every time I think we might be taking a step forward some bullshit like this appears. If much remains unknown about long term effects of puberty blockers why would anyone think giving them to children is a good idea?! It is really terrifying that this is coming from WHO. Jesus Christ what next, how the hell do we protect our children from all of this, when is the madness going to end???!!!

on “the health of trans and gender diverse people”, with a focus on access to hormones and surgeries (what it calls “gender-inclusive care”)

This part is really, really asinine. Throw in a buzzword that at the same time makes people who question this 'care' look like assholes for being 'exclusionary'.

Women?! Good lord, who on earth cares about women!

Given that at least some of the five mentioned areas (self-id effects and if 'gender-inclusive care' means that women are erased) they are going to discuss will directly affect women's rights, surely this panel should have some representatives from women's organisations, too?

Sorry, slight tangent. But relevant. Boumann works closely with Arcelus.

https://www.institutemh.org.uk/news/1629-professor-jon-arcelus-contributes-to-new-global-guidelines-for-the-care-of-transgender-and-gender-diverse-people

Here's the NHS casually dropping eunuchs into the conversation, again.