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.

Is the answer no, you can’t show me anywhere that says this forum is just for those who agree with ‘gender critical’ views and tactics?

Unfortunately a couple of posters aren’t going to be able to identify every lie told or every distortion posted on this forum.

But even a random dip sample of the 1% of lies told is helpful ‘sunlight’ (that is the preferred term, right) of the sort of tactics used. I can understand that you might prefer to be in a 100% echo chamber but you’ll just have to live with 99% of posters agreeing with you and the other 1% calling out the lies when there’s opportunity to do so.

IwantToRetire · 29/12/2023 18:13

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.

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.

I think that that is their entire, sordid plan, to present a fait accompli, as cooked up by the highly partisan group, which consists solely of trans members and activists. There is a deliberate bias, with no room for dissenting, moderating voices, because they are determined to influence governments and healthcare organisations and to have no objections.

I think that, even if they are inundated with complaints and evidence that they are dangerously wrong, that they will simply ignore it and possibly lie about the levels of complaints, dismissing them as a tiny irrelevance.

Yes. Stepping round the frantic nitpicking derailing, this has been the MO of this political lobby since the start. Capture the group, do it under the table, present it as a fait accompli and try and force it through with as few people as possible noticing.

And yes, based on the arrogant delusionality that anyone who does not agree with them is subhuman scum acting only from the worst motives. More and more evidence that political capture by this lobby kills whatever host it forces itself inside, and is a massive safeguarding disaster.

Well, you're not wrong there, Frood, sad to say. Let's just hope that, like any other epidemic, they'll burn out eventually.

I think that, even if they are inundated with complaints and evidence that they are dangerously wrong, that they will simply ignore it and possibly lie about the levels of complaints, dismissing them as a tiny irrelevance.

Its almost more than ignore.

Its like they dont even recognise that there are women and lesbians and gay men who object to the affirm trans agenda for totally valid reason. Because they dont think they are valid, they dont even bring them into the process of deciding policy.

Indeed. All the while bleating about 'inclusivity'. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Almost as if some groups are more worthy of inclusion than others / some animals are more equal than others.

Who in that biased group is going to advocate for the rights of LGB youth? For their right to not be medicated into heterosexuality?

ourduty.group/2024/01/03/the-world-health-organization-is-promoting-controversial-gender-affirming-approach-on-a-global-scale/

Michael Brady seems to think so…

I'm borrowing this from MN notes.

I'm interested in the impartiality of the NHS LGBT+ team. If we recall this story from 2022 where Brady claimed to chair the review and reassured some groups that although there was an obligation to listen to others, they would be ignored (I paraphrase).

The NHS review into single-sex wards is being carried out by a "trans advocate" who has said that rules that allow patients to self-identify their gender will not be changed, The Telegraph can reveal.

Dr Michael Brady, the national adviser for LGBT health at NHS England, has written to campaign groups telling them that there is “no plan to reduce existing rights of trans people”. Controversial charities Stonewall and Mermaids had contributed “very helpfully” to the process, Dr Brady told the Trans NHS Staff Network in emails seen by The Telegraph.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/15/fears-flawed-nhs-single-sex-wards-review-carried-trans-advocate/

Also: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10618541/Womens-groups-claim-EXCLUDED-flawed-NHS-review-single-sex-hospital-wards.html

MN thread: We might also recall that the NHS denied that Brady was chairing the review (a claim that he made).

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4506395-Fears-over-flawed-NHS-single-sex-wards-review-carried-out-by-trans-advocate

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

This.

My 2 year old daughter said "I'm not a girl, I'm a La!" last week - that was pretty creative. I wonder how to help her affirm her new La-gender - do I dress her as a musical note now? Refer to her as La-self?

All children are "gender creative" to some degree, surely?!

@Sinnerboy and @IwantToRetire and others who say complaint seems futile. Could this help?

I wrote this is as part of my first message on this thread. (Just coming back to catch up a bit but largely away and writing in haste). I said:

"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."

What I meant to say was it might be worth mentioning to readers in this thread where the Ethics statements on the WHO website are and what they claim.
This is because they have a clear appreciation (according to what is said on the website) as to what constitutes poor research.
The first link above takes you to a page which has two documents. One is the code for research and one is about Misconduct in Research. That is prefaced by this statement (see bold parts)

Intentionally fraudulent research activities and poor
practices can result in harmful consequences, not
only on WHO’s reputation but also on public health
and trust in international organizations. It also has
repercussions on science, whose impact is as difficult
to estimate as it is to mitigate.

Its also tells you what misconduct in research is ... there appears on the face of things to be several sources of complaint for this approach re guidelines.

I presume that receiving serious complaints = investigation, reporting up and a delay to reaching conclusions/creating guidance in February (which seems to be the plan).

I do not know enough about WHO or whistleblowing to be 100% sure its not a waste of time, but the integrity hotline could be a way forward. This is run by an external body and does not require identification.

Coming back with expansion on complaints about conflict of interest etc. and a way of doing so. This makes interesting reading. This is what WHO says it tries to avoid.

RESEARCH WRONGDOING
SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES:
ƒ Inappropriate development of research protocols.
ƒ Failure to disclose or take action on declared conflict
of interest.
ƒ Inadequate management of a research project.
ƒ Fabrication of data – deliberate creation, recording
and reporting of nonexistent results.
ƒ Falsification – deliberate manipulation of data to
change, or omit data.
ƒ Sabotage – intentionally damaging, destroying,
obstructing or otherwise harming a research project.
ƒ Plagiarism – the copying of ideas, data or text
(or various combinations of the three) without
authorization or acknowledgement.
ƒ Piracy – the deliberate exploitation of data from
others without authorization.
ƒ Conducting research in a manner which contravenes
the terms of approval granted by WHO or by other
relevant bodies and accepted by WHO as governing
the conduct of the research in question.
ƒ Conducting research for which WHO requires prior
approvals (for instance from national authorities)
without having failed to secure those approvals.
ƒ Failure to adhere to accepted ethical principles for
the conduct of research, in particular the World
Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical
Principles for Medical Research Involving Human
Subjects.
ƒ Failure to follow accepted procedures or exercise
due care for avoiding unreasonable risk of harm to
humans, animals or the environment.
ƒ Mismanagement or inadequate preservation of
data and/or primary materials.
ƒ Misappropriation of data.
ƒ Improper conduct in peer review.
ƒ Misrepresentation of interests, qualifications, and
experience.
ƒ Misrepresentation of involvement or authorship.
ƒ Failure to protect or the inappropriate use
or disclosure of confidential or proprietary
information, or the misuse of intellectual property.
ƒ Improper dealing with allegations of wrongdoing.
Wrongdoing in research does not include honest
errors or differences in interpretations or judgements
of data.

@Gettingmadderallthetime

I submitted a "comment" to the 'comment' e-mail based on their selected panel and the fact it's completely biased (19 of 21 are somehow involved in transactivism and therefore are likely captured with gender ideology) but I plan on submitting a complaint to their integrity hotline when I have more time. Thanks for the info on this, I'll read through it properly before I submit something!

For those, like me, who were pondering what the connection between AIDs and transgenderism is, here are a couple of articles that I found useful:

https://gendercriticalwoman.blog/2022/07/09/united-nations-gender-ideology/

https://vaishnavisundar.com/surgery-grants-for-sex-reassignment/

Essentially, for some reason, the UN is diverting funding that was set aside for the elimination of AIDs to transgender clinics.

The only link I can see is that, in India, transsexual men are one of the most likely groups to contract AIDs, due to many of them turning to prostitution as a means to live.

Why then, if in India, MtF trans people are likely to end up in prostitution, would you put funding into the medical transition of children?! Surely if society isn't ready for a MtF trans person working an everyday job, you're sending these young boys down a pathway that would make them more vulnerable to contracting AIDs?!

who say complaint seems futile

I have never said this.

I have said over and over again, that everyone is complaining about the wrong thing.

The decision has already been taken by WHO as to their approach.

You need to be complaining about that, rather then saying who will write the public guidelines because they will write guidelines to meet the affirmative approach.

I dont understand why nobody understands this.

Look at the WHO statement original posted saying they want people to write the guidelines (and seriously I am not going to bother to post these agains) but if you do bother to look and actually read them, WHO is asking people to write guide lines that support an affirmative approach and use of hormones.

The issue is when and when did WHO agree this, what was the consultation process, etc..

ie whoever is appointed now to write guidelines will write guideline that complly with a pre-existing decision to, comply with the decision WHO has already taken behind our backs. ie

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.

Something is going seriously wrong with campaigns that people get caught up in this spiral of misinformation, everybody gets worked up, but it transpires that the individual or group who set themselves up to comment in the first place failed to grasp that actual situation.

Like raising money to for 2 court cases in Scotland that merely confirmed what was already known, that the way the GRA interacted with the EA was that for legal purposes a man with a GRC can say he was female (for all purposes) ie a legal woman.

So does anyone know if anyone is campaigning or raising the real problem that WHO has already decided what their policy.

All that is happening know is finding people to write the guidelines.

Post from Transgender Trend about the change made by the WHO with a position they held in 2017. Looks like they tried to memory hole a useful page on sex and gender:

www.transgendertrend.com/world-health-organisation-sex-and-gender-page-disappears/

x.com/transgendertrd/status/1743574004365918401?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

I actually read an article yesterday online that tried to claim that Alan Turing was arrested for his 'gender identity' instead of his homosexuality. Just erasing and reorganising the history of everyone involved in the situation to political wankery.

This nasty and insidious batshit is everywhere.

I'm trying to think if that's more or less ignorant than the person who claimed that Turing's hormone treatment was gender-affirming. I've quoted this before.

-----
Blog post that explores the idea of transing the dead as an extension of baptism of the dead:

williamaferguson.substack.com/p/trans-out-your-dead?s=r

That's a particular horrible example and the author correctly identifies that one enthusiastic baptiser of the dead describes Turing as "one of the first Gay men to go on estrogen."

Turing was given DES as a form of chemical castration - and that was presented as an option to imprisonment.

Alan was prosecuted under the Labouchere Amendment of 1855, a law that made homosexuality (“gross indecency”) a crime. In an arranged plea deal, Alan accepted chemical castration by way of Diethylstilbestrol (DES) in lieu of prison and upon conviction he was stripped of all security clearances and forbidden entry into the United States.

The ignorance and indifference to the reality of history is breathtaking.

--

(Do open up the image for the 'Fun Fact' text.)

If we're now being told homosexuality is a 'gender identity'......

No. It bloody isn't. I don't have a gender identity, I don't have the time. I do have a sexual orientation, it's sex based, and I am becoming increasingly fuckwitphobic.

Came to make comments but so totally astounded by claims about Turing that I will have to go away and calm down.

How has the world become so crazy?

That Transgender Trend article shows just how deep this rot goes and just how deep misogyny and hatred of women is embedded. Some people will stop at nothing - no matter how dangerous, how unethical in order to impose their dubious world view on an unconsenting world.
Thank heavens so many women and other decent people are now aware of what's happening.

https://www.transgendertrend.com/world-health-organisation-sex-and-gender-page-disappears/

On a thread yesterday I saw a poster using Turing treatment as an example of how we women are so so mean not backing the conversion therapy ban.

I was itching so badly to comment back that those drugs are exactly what the tra want teenage boys to be given instead of talking therapy which is now labelled conversion therapy. How fucked up. And so homphobic they can't even see what they are saying.

The WHO resisted the growing evidence was airborne. And we’re rightly criticised by health professionals world wide.

So it doesn’t surprise me that they are still not evidence driven in this case.

Oops should have said ‘covid’ was airborne.

I understood what you were saying, don't worry, but my 'comment' regarding the consultation (i.e. the one I sent to the email address they provide) was specifically regarding the panel as that is what they were specifically asking for feedback on. In my email I also said that the WHO were wrong to be taking an affirmative approach, but I don't know if that will fall on deaf ears. I'll be reporting the whole thing to the WHO integrity line when I get more time.

There's also a petition someone shared on another thread that I've signed, if that makes any difference!