WHO publishes 'controversial gender guidance'

[IcakethereforeIam]

Eliza Mondegreen in Unherd sounding the alarm, all the alarms.

https://unherd.com/thepost/who-quietly-publishes-controversial-gender-guidance/

There's a consultation period that closes on 8th January, I think.

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.

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)

what fuckwit would consult over Christmas…

Exactly

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

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

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.

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

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.

Fucking hell!

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?

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

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

This is about the formation of a guideline development group.
This link takes you to the WHO guidance for setting up GDGs, https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/145714/9789241548960_eng.pdf

Note this ...
Potential members of the GDG are identified by the steering group and
are selected to encompass the technical skills, diverse perspectives and geo-
graphic representation needed.

It may be that these do NOT represent diverse perspectives or the geographical representation needed. For example would it be sensible to ensure that countries which have done large amounts of work in this area and collected evidence should be in this mix?

Might be worth mentioning their Ethics statements (WHO's that is). https://www.who.int/about/ethics/code-of-conduct-for-responsible-research

There is an Integrity hotline. https://www.who.int/about/ethics/integrity-hotline - which allows for anonymised reporting of breaches and is administered by a third party.

I am reading this timescale (which does seem deliberately chosen to reduce commenting) to relate to comments on the GDG but I am not confident about anything here as its all new to me and I have just skimmed.

Useful response by SEGM

https://segm.org/world-health-organization-transgender-guidelines

So Florence Ashley argues that letting this stage (puberty) of human development progress uninterrupted “strongly favours cis embodiment by raising the psychological and medical toll of transitioning”.

Am I reading this right - Ashley recognises that puberty blockers cause a psychological and mental toll, and believes this toll needs to be imposed on ALL teenagers, so that “cis-gender” people are not at an advantage???

And this is the sort of person WHO feels is best qualified to advise them on this?

Yep.

No, it's rather the opposite. The argument being made is that if you let children develop normally it is then harder to transition - so 'cis' children have an advantage by growing steadily into their own adult sex without having to reverse and have a second go on the 'correct' path. By giving puberty blockers to 'trans children' so they don't go down the 'wrong' path they can then continue on the 'correct' path more easily (without the physical and metal toll of having to cross over after 'wrong' development) - equalising advantage.

Not surprised you misread though. It's rather convoluted thinking.

It's rather convoluted thinking.

This has always been the trans arguement, not only because as stated it stops them experiencing puberty of their actual sex and can "smoothly" transition (which sort of suggest that if puberty only entrenches your biological sex then it is real.

But also because those who have transitioned later in life have complained if only they could have transitioned younger they could more easily create the appearance of someone of the opposite sex.

This is all part of their "literal violence" scenario.

But what of course they dont say is that if you allow someone so young to have affirmative hormones etc., than it means that if and when they de-transition they are in a far worse situation in terms of being able to fully become the biological sex they really are.

Thanks @Gettingmadderallthetime for making this clear

This is about the formation of a guideline development group.
This link takes you to the WHO guidance for setting up GDGs, ^iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/145714/9789241548960_eng.pdf^

I realised after I posted in haste that I hadn't been clear, but in my head I was thinking who has time to check out all these people already appointed and / or suggest who should be in the group.

So I do think the very short consultation period on this crucial aspect of forming guideline, is definitely wrong. And probably deliberately so.

Although it is possible WHO itself is to blame because effectively they have said in advance what the guidelines will say, eg affirmation.

Maybe there was an earlier consultation or in principle statement which slipped out over the summer holidays.

Thankfully the WHO seems, for now, to have resisted the worldwide anti-trans reactionary swing and has published sensible and appropriate guidance in line with what people who have actually experienced these treatments first-hand have been saying for years.

Good for them. Is the extinction burst finally, at long last, ending?

who has time to check out all these people

I meant to add no doubt the combined minds of FWR will do that in record time!

But if 80% of ‘trans’ kids desist under watchful waiting, why would anyone medicate all of them? Or are we still in the evidence-free paradigm where puberty blockers are completely reversible with no side effects here?

Thanks for the link, shocking reading. It did make me laugh when he decried the "shitiness of straight men..." Surely he is one ?

Riittakerttu Kaltiala should certainly be on the panel, and someone from, say, Sweden.

And at least one of the critical researchers into puberty blocking and the Dutch protocol. Stephen Levine or Julia Mason or, more generally in the wider field, Michael Biggs.

And as I noted earlier, given that this panel is going to recommend 'inclusive care' rules, it's important that the panel understands how forcing gender identity ideology on everybody, including people who don't share the religion, means that many women, in particular, will feel excluded and humiliated and ridiculed by having their sex-based gender labels turned into body parts or functions. (Men would feel humiliated, too, if they were actually dehumanised in the same way as women already routinely are.)

In other words, the panel should not simply ignore the clash of rights or the clash of the needs of various demographic groups in the recommendations it makes. Everybody should matter here.

So the consultation is on the composition of the panel, not on the content of the guidelines (because the guidelines will be drawn up by the panel once they have met to discuss "evidence")... I think I've got that right.

Apologies if this is a daft question and/or is answered above and I've missed it:

Does anyone know if the guidelines that the panel come up following their February meeting with will be put out for review and consultation before being finalised and released? Or will this panel have the autonomy to create and release guidelines, without any consultation, once they have written them?

There's so much information to try and take in on this one that I've ended up a little lost.

@BonfireLady if they make the consultation period for the whole done and dusted guidelines the same sort of speed as they have done this panel consult then I think it will be REALLY hard to comment by then.

Thank you @Imnobody4 for posting the SEGM response. I assume that they may have started researching this back in June when some of the names were known. Its a long and thorough document and feel that this should happen at every stage (comment on what they have just done).

@ButterflyHatched its not the guidelines yet. But I think you can see that if this group are aiming to be open and above board about consultations on anything then pressing start on 18 Dec with end date of 8 Jan is asking for people to be hostile to the process - whatever it is. (The WHO holds itself to a high standard which is why I flagged their Ethics statements and Integrity hotline. I don't think they have (yet) met their own standards. If they can meet those standards then any guidelines will be met with more confidence and that is surely what you want (not boycotts and challenges).