Unicef change 'sex' to 'gender' in their summary of UNCRC

[BuzzShitbagBobbly]

So apparently Unicef UK know better than the authors of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

UN version:
Article 2
1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

Unicef version:
Article 2 (non-discrimination) The Convention applies to every child without discrimination, whatever their ethnicity, gender, religion, language, abilities or any other status, whatever they think or say, whatever their family background.

(I saw it on twitter, but I forgot to copy the link to the tweet calling on Unicef to correct it. Both docs available at www.unicef.org.uk/what-we-do/un-convention-child-rights/)

Google does suggest historic links/collaborations between Unicef and Stonewall, to nobody's surprise. This change is deliberate, and must have been made by someone with a vested interest in promoting gender ideology - what other reason to change a clear biological definition to an airy-fairy feeling? This change has no benefit to children (and potentially harms), which seems grimly ironic given the purpose of the whole document.

That is shocking. Really.

Really depressing.

The first is the (actual) legal text.

The second is the 'simplified' summary.

You don't 'summarise' something by changing what it means.

You don't 'summarise' something by changing what it means.

Exactly. Thank you alias

What if they'd changed Article 1, so "child" was no longer "every human being below the age of 18 years" to "anyone who feels like a child"? Would that be ok as a "summary"

UNICEF should already be aware that people who intend harm to children can and do infiltrate their organisation. So they should be looking very carefully at the material it produces or endorses to see whether it could cause harm in anyway.

For example, Peter Newell co-wrote, with his partner at the time, a key document about the implementation of the rights of the child. This is the document and yes gender is often used instead of sex, unless referring to the original child's rights agreement.

www.unicef.org/publications/files/Implementation_Handbook_for_the_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child_Part_1_of_3.pdf

Peter Newell has since been convicted of raping a child.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5399247/amp/UNICEF-kids-rights-campaigner-jailed-rape-boy-13.html

Obviously I am not saying that Peter Newell was the first person responsible for the change of word, I doubt that he was. Neither do I think that it especially likely that the implementation document contains stuff especially designed to enable predators to access children easier. I think Peter Newell used all the children's rights work that he did as a cover for who he was and what he was doing to children - does that sound like a familiar strategy.

I do think that UNICEF should be more alert to the likelihood that not everyone who works for them has children's best interests at heart and that things like changing the word 'sex' for the word 'gender' causes harm and confusion.

From the implementation document

You don't 'summarise' something by changing what it means.

This.

They have been explicitly notified of the issue via the twitter tag, so if they now keep it that way, then what? Are they blatantly saying they mean gender feelings, not bio sex?

I might email them as well, can't hurt. (I can then use that email as a template for every other sodding organisation who uses gender when they mean sex...)

It's bizarre. Presumably the point of Unicef paraphrasing the convention was to turn it into plain English for the lay person. But even if they argued that gender and sex were synonymous, I wouldn't accept that gender is a simpler term than sex.

Sex is blatantly relevant to charities such as Unicef.

Babies murdered and abandoned at birth, sold into marriage as children, blocked from education, suffering child pregnancy, FGM, breast ironing, rape, dying in menstruation huts etc etc have biology in common and biology is the sole root of their suffering. An accident of birth that means disadvantage for life.

They can't identify out of it. So it's beyond insulting to imply they identified into it. And to cover it up and hide it and make help harder for them to protect the feelings of males..... words fail.

Sorry, had a cup of tea and am less incandescent.... actual practical point was: how the heck are a charity focused on such things managing such profound cognitive dissonance?