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.

WTF is 'gender creative'? If all such kids are to get blockers. I'd like to hear that defined.

The absolute fucking irony of a genderist accusing the posters on here of being indifferent to the truth. Is it April 1st rather than New Nears Day?!!!

In fact the statement is explicitly qualified “in caring for trans and gender creative youth, puberty blockers must be seen as the default position, to be readily prescribed since they leave the largest space for future identity development and negotiation”.

wtf. What is wrong with these people advocating this for children

Thanks for proving that it is a lie to claim Florence Ashley thinks puberty blockers should be the default for all children.

It wasn't a lie, it was a misunderstanding of a fairly ambiguous quote which was given out of context. This was explained in earlier posts.

Clinician hesitancy as well as the belief that a considerable amount of prior gender exploration must be undertaken before prescribing puberty blocker appear to be unjustified and uncritical

What do you think this means? It reads to me as though FA does seem to think that any child who wants them should be given them, even if this is just because it is fashionable for a group of girls to all identify as non-binary. Do you have anything to say about teenagers following a trend, who are not in the least bit distressed about their sex, being given these harmful drugs?

Issuing a correction here.

2. It is Ashley, not WHO, who is currently advocating the mass universal medication of the vulnerable autistic and gay children who are overrepresented at child and adolescent gender identity services with puberty blockers.

3. This is the wrong set of questions when it comes to Ashley's proposal that all of the vulnerable autistic and gay children who are overrepresented at child and adolescent gender identity services take blockers.

The relevant set of questions goes something like:

• Why should a huge, >99.9% majority the vulnerable autistic and gay children who are overrepresented at child and adolescent gender identity services be subjected to the known risks of puberty blockers for the sake of a tiny tiny, <0.1% minority of children who actually will eventually transition?
• Who gains from mass medicating the vulnerable autistic and gay children who are overrepresented at child and adolescent gender identity services like this and how?
• Who gains from having a majority of the vulnerable autistic and gay children who are overrepresented at child and adolescent gender identity services delay their puberty?
• What unintended consequences might there be of giving all or most the vulnerable autistic and gay children who are overrepresented at child and adolescent gender identity services blockers: health, financial, social, and otherwise?
• What are the safeguarding risks associated with having huge numbers of vulnerable autistic and gay older teens with the bodies of pre-pubescent children?
• What are Ashley's clinical and scientific credentials, given that Ashley is promoting a medical intervention?
• What are Ashley's motives for promoting this medical intervention at such wide scale to the vulnerable autistic and gay children who are overrepresented at child and adolescent gender identity services?

It was gender dysphoria.

Now it is gender incongruence, gender questioning, gender exploration and now gender creative youth.

I'd expect all kids to be somewhat incongruent, questioning, explorative and creative as that's what kids do as part of growing up. Except these kids will never grow up if the medics get their hands on them.

'“in caring for trans and gender creative youth, puberty blockers must be seen as the default position'

What does 'gender creative' mean, PlanetteJanette? What children are not 'gender creative', if that makes it easier to answer?

Vito I wish we could get you into a meeting. They really need someone capable of critical thinking, reading comprehension and basic safeguarding.

I do also wonder how much issues with literal thinking, rigidity of thinking and black and white thinking with anger and blame for anyone using language not matching these standards is playing a part here.

I'm not unsympathetic, I live with a family member who experiences such struggles, but is able even as a teen to understand that this presents them with a distorted view of facts and perceptions at times and that care needs to be taken to gain more information due to this.

https://twitter.com/Psychgirl211/status/1740801132061180133

I read this thread on Twitter about potential reduction in IQ following puberty blockers. Surely if it’s even a possibility then there should be a very cautious approach, with more research before widespread recommendation?

And in the case mentioned the person went from IQ 80 (low normal) to IQ 70 (borderline learning disability) - that’s a huge difference in functional ability.

I’ve seen the tactic time and again on here.

Throw out any old crap and others lap it up. This is not a group of people for whom accuracy matters.

This paragraph is shocking enough, accurate quoting included.

In fact the statement is explicitly qualified “in caring for trans and gender creative youth, puberty blockers must be seen as the default position, to be readily prescribed since they leave the largest space for future identity development and negotiation”.

Are you hoping if you repeat this long enough you can blot everything else out? I'm honestly lost at this point to try and understand you.

You appear to hold the opposite position of the position held by many who read and post on these threads i.e. that sex is immutable and binary and that gender is an unhelpful, often reductive and harmful, social construct that largely serves men (of the biological kind).

So what is the point of you coming on these threads? You only get incensed. Everything everyone else says is a lie. As such, continuing to post here cannot be helpful for you so I’m not sure what what you hope for by continuing to reply to comments?

Wouldn't 'gender-creative' include all feminist girls in retrogressive societies? They are refusing to live according to the gender norms there.

I don't see the distinction, which suggests that this ideology is sexist.

In response to post late last night / early this morning as to what we can do about the fact that the WHO policy is already decided, see information from @VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia showing how far back this was done.

Its a waste of time to complain about the handmaids who will rush to write this up, we need to be challenging how, and if behind closed doors, WHO decided there is no problem with prescribing hormones.

And this also:

In response to post late last night / early this morning as to what we can do about the fact that the WHO policy is already decided, see information from @VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia showing how far back this was done.

Its a waste of time to complain about the handmaids who will rush to write this up, we need to be challenging how, and if behind closed doors, WHO decided there is no problem with prescribing hormones.

Can you point me to the rules that say this forum is only for those who agree with ‘gender critical’ views and tactics?

There are no gc tactics or lies. Only reality, evidence of harm from drugs and tw in female spaces, and sunlight from people like you who show the whole movement up for its contradictions.

I just don't understand how WHO can make these policy changes with no evidence base.

It is obscene to experiment on children's fertility, IQ and god knows what else like this.

WHO haven't set policy yet, but I strongly suspect that Ashley will push for Lupron on demand based on Ashley's previous statements.

I think that you know the answer to that, but neither do you engage in good faith debate. According to you, all FWR posters lie and throw out crap and are inaccurate. So, posting seems a waste of your time. Yet, here you are. Ah well. Life’s rich tapestry and all that as my MiL used to say.

WHO haven't set policy yet

They have set the policy. They quote it in the notice for "experts" to write the guidelines. Quote:

The guideline will focus in 5 areas: provision of gender-affirming care, including hormones; health workers education and training for the provision of gender-inclusive care; provision of health care for trans and gender diverse people who suffered interpersonal violence based in their needs; health policies that support gender-inclusive care, and legal recognition of self-determined gender identity.

https://www.who.int/news/item/18-12-2023-who-announces-the-development-of-a-guideline-on-the-health-of-trans-and-gender-diverse-people

They aren't saying we are investigating these options.

They are saying we know what the guidelines should cover.

It / they have decided what they want.

If they were recruiting people to investigate what the guidelines would say they wouldn't have had the list highlighted above.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12917509/WHO-accused-trans-bias-calling-self-ID-right-transgender-care.html

Me with my pesky ability to read what people say and how it contradicts what posters claim they have said, you mean.

No ‘GC tactics and lies’ indeed.