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.

Slight derail, but Florence Ashley describes themselves as transfeminine. How is transfeminine different from trans woman? Is it meant to replace trans woman?

Otherwise, looking at the panel biographies, it strikes me just how prolific the activists have been in furthering an agenda with the many publications, sitting on committees, writing national and international health care policy, pushing for new ‘guidelines’ all with a very specific agenda focused on building an agenda that affirms/validates the needs of a vanishingly small group of people.

Amazing at the power, speed, and scale of what has been achieved by mostly men. It would have to be men, because if these issues were primarily women’s issues, they’d still be ignored.

Cleverly piggybacking on work based on good intentions to support the LGB community, but seemingly no boundaries can ever be acceptable as the agenda has progressed into pathologising vulnerable children and young adults. Yet, you wonder just how much someone such as Florence Ashley would truly have wished to have blocked their puberty and ended up with a strong possibility of not being able to be a fully sexual being?

The tragedy is how more and more I see the TI affecting vulnerable autistic teens / young adults with black and white thinking, difficulty picking up on other’s malicious intentions, and looking for a script they are so susceptible to echoing the beliefs they read online without questioning it. And as they don’t fit into rigid sexual stereotypes and so end up believing that if they’re not a Kardashian female or a Tate male then they must be trans.

Just a quick aside - not wanting to derail here:

Transmasc and Transfemme are rising in popularity as terms used to describe trans people in terms of the important, current part (who they are) and not in terms of whatever plumbing/history they have. It avoids the many issues that the 'AFAB/AMAB' descriptors (always hated them) and their FtM/MtF predecessors had while sidestepping the culture war-baiting sex/gender definition contention.

Transmasc just neutrally describes a trans person with a masculine presentation.

Yep, transmasc is just another name for a bloke. It's dead simple and easy to understand. Just focus on the haircut, then everything makes total sense.

Transmasc just neutrally describes a trans person with a masculine presentation.

"Transfeminine" person Florence Ashley says this about florenceself:

Even though I experience gender dysphoria vis-à-vis my beard, my conscious decision not to continue with electrolysis has allowed me to develop a stronger sense of myself as a person outside the binary – although I remain well shaved most of the time.

So "transfeminine" in this case seems to mean "bloke who sometimes has a beard".

https://www.florenceashley.com/uploads/1/2/4/4/124439164/ashley_thinking_an_ethics_of_gender_exploration_-_against_delaying_transition_for_transgender_and_gender_creative_youth.pdf

Ah but it's a girlybeard. Easy to tell the diff.

Transmasc just neutrally describes a trans person with a masculine presentation.

Basically sexist stereotyping

That's all there is!

People can describe themselves however they choose, so long as they're not male people trying to use this language obfuscation to force their way into female people's spaces. Sex is the bit that matters in that case because it is about impact on others: not how an individual would like to express themselves.

Just to get back to the actual short consultation period notice, because I first reacted to how unprofessional their approach was I missed a faily important point.

I did say this yesterday, but in fact even discussing who is one the panel seems irrelevant if WHO have already said that the guidelines will be about the affirmative approach, including use of hormones.

When was this decision taken and who by.

We could waste hours trying to flood them with suggestion for people we think better placed to promote watchful waiting, but it will be a complete waste of time if they have already decided the approach, and just want guidelines on that.

Does anyone know when and how this decision was reached?

Was there an open consultation?

I started losing respect for the WHO as a child when they couldn't seem to focus on diseases like malaria, tetanus and polio (assume all your guesses as to why I would be interested in these ailments to be correct) .

I lost all respect for them when they failed to have any evidence based backbone at the start of covid.

Colour me blasé now they have complete disregard for opposing views coupled with total lack of evidence.

Meh. It's time for the entire UN to be reformed or disbanded anyway.

Well that headline from Unherd is hella misleading. There's no guidance published yet.

Where do I find the WHO's consultation process for this? It's here. And should we tip off any of these groups https://sex-matters.org/posts/category/groups-defending-sex-based-rights/ or any Lords (e.g. Baroness Nicholson)?

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

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?

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)

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?

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 ...