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.

I'd be concerned for the coordination of efforts around future pandemics.

Actually part of me wonders if its not worth just letting them push it all to the most absurd degree - let them suggest all children should be put on Lupron - to hasten the ending. The more extreme the approach the quicker it will all fall.

I say all that, but anyone with young children knows they are going to be the ones at risk of being collateral damage.

Well 11 of the panel are people who most posters on here would regard as women, but I guess their views and professional experience should be dismissed right?

Or indeed teenaged girls anywhere.

How do we 'sound the alarm' as it were.. to the UK Mission to UN / WHO etc to ask them to comment on the lack of participants in the consultation who have questions over the evidence base surrounding affirmation and use of hormones..

No. You’ve totally got what they said wrong.

They did not say puberty blockers take a toll. They said that transitioning after going through puberty takes a toll that transitioning without having gone through puberty does not.

You can agree or disagree but making up the opposite of what they say is disingenuous.

The response isn’t to a global policy. It is to the make up of the panel.

This isn’t some public policy consultation - it is a window of time for any conflicts of interest to be highlighted to the WHO before the panel fully begins its work.

Aside from the western centric view that you can’t ask people to work at some point in a three week period over December, even in the west very few people are entirely unavailable for a three week period to look at 21 names and email any concerns about conflicts of interest.

They did not say puberty blockers take a toll. They said that transitioning after going through puberty takes a toll that transitioning without having gone through puberty does not.

So outright lying then. I'm not sure how this improves things.

Thanks to those clarifying the use of the new terms transmac / transfemme. On the one hand, these labels seem to move away from appropriating the
biological sex-based ‘men’ and ‘women’, which is helpful. On the other hand, it does feel regressive. ‘Tomboy’ was bad enough, but I’m pretty sure I’d have been labelled transmac as a young teenager if we’re simply talking about presentation.

Re: the proposed panel members. Yes, on the one hand, these are experts in their fields inasmuch as their personal interests have driven them to become wholly immersed in the issues. However, the outcome of this panel is as certain as would be the outcome of WHO’s panel on tobacco use being populated by experts from the tobacco industry. The term ‘vested interests’ comes to mind as much, or perhaps more than, the label of ‘expert’.

I see. They suggest Jazz Jennings' situation is a positive one.

We can expect to see more pseudo vaginas made out of colons in future, then.

WHO has done and still does much fantastic work on many important health issues and I, for one, would be dismayed by the UK withdrawing funding. It is an organisation funded by govts and govts put tremendous pressure on WHO personnel i.e. the Covid pandemic. This doesn’t mean it needs to be disbanded.

It is unfortunate that WHO is not seeing the parallels with the tobacco industry influence on health policy and those with the vested interests (big pharma, certain elements in health care) in pushing medical transition of children and young adults before they are able to make an informed decision.

Because it’s interesting that WHO has started a campaign about the tobacco influence on young people:

The World Health Organization (WHO), today, officially launches the "Stop the lies" campaign as a vital initiative to protect young people from the tobacco big pharma industry and their deadly products PBs / cross sex hormones / experimental surgery, by calling for an end to tobacco big pharma industry interference in health policy. “WHO stands with young people globally who have demanded governments protect them against a deadly industry that targets them with new harmful products PBs / cross sex hormones / experimental surgery while outright lying about the health impacts. We call on all countries to safeguard health policies from this deadly industry by not letting them have a seat at the policy-making table,” said Dr Ruediger Krech, Director of Health Promotion, WHO.

And the article mentions the tactics used by the tobacco industry including using front groups and third parties such as social media influencers, sponsored events, and funding scientists and biased research. Familiar?

Yet, WHO seems oblivious in recognising any parallels here with the impact of the combined vested interests of some trans organisations, surgeons, and big pharma.

Yes. As I said, it's exposing weaknesses and vulnerabilities in many organisations that do otherwise do good work.

Stonewall was also an amazing group.

Once.

There are a few countries rowing back on affirmation only, puberty blockers, etc. because they've looked at the evidence. If the WHO produces guidelines that expects these countries to change path again, I suspect they're going to have to show their working.

Interesting point. We aren't supposed to feel euphoric about our gender. That's a heightened abnormal response.

Just to repeat as I know I fell into this trap but:

The position of WHO is already decided.

They are merely asking for people to write the guidelines for what they believe is the best approach ie affirmative action including use of hormones.

That is the problem.

They aren't saying we dont have a position.

Just who are the "best" people to write the guidelines for our already decided position.

This is a great thread on X by Leo Sapir, laying out the key problems with the approach (the conflict of interest in the panel and lack of attempt to mitigate, the short time period and clash with festive season of consultation and the predetermined outcome):

https://twitter.com/LeorSapir/status/1741210385108136119?t=Y4Ww3-s3E3KQxgF-ltJRzw&s=19

It also includes a petition. Hopefully I'm allowed to post the link to this.

Copying separately in case it gets deleted.

https://who-decides.org/home?val_dt=260ca9dd8a4577fc00b7bd5810298076#sign

Weirdly, the link jumps straight to the assumption that the reader is signing it, but you can scroll up to the top to read what it actually says. Then back down again to sign it. Hopefully they will fix that glitch soon.

Looking through the list of signatories, there is some duplication. Also it seems to be the case that if you give your name, this will be published. Overall, not the best way to run a petition.

However, there are some encouraging names on the list.

I saw one person named as "anonymous". I may do the same and use the email validation to prove that I am me.

It's better than no petition at all, but certainly not ideal. It would be very easy for the WHO to point out its flaws if they don't sort out the duplication issue.

I wonder if a refusal to engage with a process and outcome that was vitiated at the outset is a better approach.

I'm unsure that signing a petition in this case won't simply make it look like this is A Good Thing that some people Want To Be A Part Of. Why? It looks nothing but dangerous.

I'd want our government to say why they will not engage with it, and why the NHS won't touch it.

I don't want a place at this particular table, frankly. Let them do all this nonsense and then say "oh that's nice, but we aren't using it ever".

It would have far more impact.

Hasn't there been other guidance published then hastily withdrawn/memory holed when the grown ups looked at it and went 'really?'.

I'm hoping this will put egg on some faces at the WHO, which will be to the detriment of the organisation as a whole unfortunately.

I'd want our government to say why they will not engage with it, and why the NHS won't touch it.

I don't want a place at this particular table, frankly. Let them do all this nonsense and then say "oh that's nice, but we aren't using it ever".

Strong agreement. Plus: And these are the principled and principal reasons that this guidance shall appear neither in NHS nor NICE guidelines nor recommendations.

On balance, I'm inclined to agree.
If I had more confidence that I could trust the survey to be handled well by those running it, I would add my name anonymously to it i.e. if they could see my name but they kept it private (like the UK government petitions).
A large demonstration that there is resistance to an approach does have its own merits. Equally, if it's not signed by many this could convey an unintended message that it's not something that people find important.

However, given I don't have that confidence (I hadn't seen its flaws until I looked through it more thoroughly) and the NHS-commissioned Cass Review is already gaining traction, I feel we're in a good place to let it play out in England. If I were in Scotland I may feel differently again, given the NHS there is actively pushing against the Cass Review and saying that it isn't relevant in Scotland. It's frustrating and concerning watching the strategy that the WHO is using play out at a world scale.

Interesting points. If this panel of 'experts' produce anything, it will be very rigorously examined by actual experts and they might find that these biased, underhanded tactics embarrass them and do more harm than they anticipate.

I suspect they'll come up with something like that batshit trans health are the tras in Scotland came up with. Perhaps, if they're awake to that, they'll surprise us. Otherwise it could be #operationletthemspeak in spades.