Gay people deserve much better than being constantly being the target of misinformation campaigns related to pedophilia.
I agree they deserve much better than that. And if the gay rights movement, and a number of organisations engaged in that campaign, had always been as diligent in ensuring that paedophiles cannot co-opt their campaigns for their own purposes of child sexual abuse and exploitation you might have a point. Unfortunately they were not always careful to do so.
Children also deserve much better than having their safeguarding needs ignored and those concerned with safeguarding children vilified for raising concerns about risks to children and attempts to dismantle the safeguarding frameworks we have adopted to keep them safe from exploitation and abuse.
*If we lived in a remotely tolerant society:
- People would have interpreted the document as intended (it's quite clearly referring to access to sex/sexual/reproductive health services)*
No. The reader is under no obligation to interpret a text in the manner intended by the author. If an author intends the reader to take away a particular meaning, then the author writes with clarity, defines all terms precisely and so leaves nothing to interpretation.
Given the type of document we are concerned with here (a refutation and correction of an official UN declaration), the author would also be expected to analyse the target document critically (highlighting its shortcomings and errors in detail and with explanation, which can be done in footnotes and references accompanying the main document). They are tasked with providing evidence for any claims made and demands for substantial (let alone fundamental) changes in international and national law and policy must come with detailed examples of the type of solutions sought. Again, this can be done in an annex or supplemental documents.
None of this happened with this declaration. It's badly written, superficially argued, ambiguous to the extreme. It does not sufficiently consider the vast differences in the lives and struggles of its global audience, which means that a measure they call for (for instance regarding HIV-disclosure) may have a negative effect in the UK but a positive one in sub-Saharan Africa.
That's why declarations like this one, intended to speak to all peoples all over the world, are normally drafted much more carefully. As NiceGerbil points out in several comments, the official summit declaration is much better written than this alternative.
2. People would have targeted concerns to the Women's Caucus rather than at gay organisations.
Original concerns were raised at both. Few organisations have been as vocal about the declaration as ILGA. Indeed, if you Google it, you'll find that only a handful of organisations have celebrated and promoted it as much as ILGA.
And this particular instance of targeting happened during a party-political event concerned with women and girls and their rights, highlighting that the government party was funding organisations with a thoroughly questionable track record on women's rights under the Equality Act who were members of an organisation signed up to changing consent laws for adolescents. (A group that encompasses children as young as ten and young adults aged nineteen.)
Furthermore, the declaration was published by the Women's Rights Caucus as written by its members and published in the name of its members.
The Women's Rights Caucus is not an actual organisation however, but a meeting (to be precise, a fringe event at the annual global UN Women summit) of a loose "coalition" of now over 200 different organisations working in equalities. They seem to be critical of the mainstream UN Commission on the State of Women, certainly they opposed with their "alternative" feminist declaration the declaration adopted by the majority of delegates at the 65th session of the CSW in 2020. So it's not an organisation that exists and acts outside of the annual UN Women summit, of which it is not an official part (not one mention of the Women's Rights Caucus on the UN Women website. Even though the caucus published statements at least twice before this one.)
In conclusion I think that in the absence of an actual organisation to take to task over the declaration, it is therefore legitimate to single out local members of a co-signing and co-authoring organisation to highlight concerns.
3. People would have listened to the clarifications and moved on.
Only if those clarifications a) clarified and b) satisfied. It's not any kind of intolerant to remain doubtful after hearing a clarification that doesn't answer one's questions or concerns, especially when it regards the safeguarding of vulnerable groups