Not again! "Kinky secrets of UN trans expert revealed

[DerekFaker]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13119521/Sex-secrets-trans-kinky-Australian-bondage-bestiality-nudism-drugs-sex-change.html

"Critics say the group — which is made up of trans campaigners and advocates — is biased.

One trans activist member has already left the panel amid controversy, while another has been exposed for sharing X-rated Grindr hookup posts."

Is it really that difficult to find some normal trans people to do the job??? I'm astonished.

This is where faulty DEI gets us.

If you preferentially employ men who show potential indicators of perverted sexuality (which are likely publically available on these men’s social media) it’s unsurprising when the result is a rash of pervy men in positions of power.

While I think it’s important to put aside bias over sex or race and choice of partner, obvious signs of abnormal sexuality should not be ignored. There’s good reason why many people view inappropriately dressed men with suspicion and it’s not bigotry.

These revelations should not necessarily exclude Cook from work at the UN.

I do like the writing in this piece, dry and just a hint of tongue in cheek. (Though I do object to straight instead of strait laced.)

This person is ftm, that's why they're quoted in the article as offering their 'bonus hole' to men.

Nice understated work by the picture caption writer here!

Sigh. It never stops does it?

Someone with sexual boundaries this low, do they have any boundaries at all???, should not be in any position influencing policy or law. This should not be controversial to say.

Shocked - actually not that shocked!

THIS

It's like putting a raging alcoholic in charge of health information and policy decisions about alcohol.

What the hell is wrong with the UN these days - what bars you from a job? Do you have to commit a crime and be convicted before they'll sack you even if blatantly unsuitable for your job?

I'm finding myself increasingly thinking Trump might be on to something about the UN no longer being fit for purpose and that the US should stop funding it. What with this and the decision to put Iran as chair of the human rights council not long after the Iranian police killed a woman for not wearing a headscarf.

The UN is not a force for good as far as I can see, certainly not for women and girls.

While I think it’s important to put aside bias over sex or race and choice of partner, obvious signs of abnormal sexuality should not be ignored.

Exactly, and for very obvious reasons such as safeguarding. But organisations have been brainwashed into believing, or pretending to believe, that sex fetishism is harmless and normal.

Another post appears to show a large, black dog penetrating a man from behind.

Let's hope her next job isn't at UNCAHP.

Sigh. Once again the Daily Mail publishes a clear, fair and well-informed news story on an important issue that is hushed up by the sources I used to trust.

For anyone who says people’s sex lives are purely their own business — No, not when an undeclared special-interest group takes power in policy-making organisations.

And sex abuse of animals is not harmless.

Is there anyone, anyone at all, involved in transactivism who doesn't make it all about sex?

Including, in this case, abusing animals.

Why does, as a pp says, a complete lack of boundaries and an overt interest in talking about your sexual proclivities look like perfect job qualifications for the UN?

Jamie Reed, the gender clinic whistle-blower, has written about this panel and its bias, with the potential conflicts of interest, both intellectual and financial, of some of its members:

https://lgbtcouragecoalition.substack.com/p/transgender-health-who-under-fire

https://lgbtcouragecoalition.substack.com/p/round-2

I think this is the real issue, not whether a newly appointed panellist has a kinky sex life.

Thanks for the info.

My point about perverted sexuality also applies to women, it’s just less common. I guess it’s more the exhibitionism that tends to go along with abnormal sexuality in these cases that is the real red flag.

Bring your whole self to work seems to have become an excuse for poor boundaries about what should be private and what is acceptable.

I think it’s worse than a belief (or pretended belief) that it’s normal. There are organizations that would actually prioritize such people because of faulty DEI policies.

The group “kinky exhibitionists” might well have some correlation with the group “people who find it hard to get jobs” but that isn’t a group that should be prioritized by DEI policies, in my opinion, especially not in jobs where there is likely to be any influence over policies and children.

So many charmers representing this ideology. 🙄

The group “kinky exhibitionists” might well have some correlation with the group “people who find it hard to get jobs” but that isn’t a group that should be prioritized by DEI policies

Quite

This is where faulty DEI gets us.

I'm not sure the word "faulty" is entirely appropriate here. For many advocates of DEI this seems to be the end point which they are aiming for.

Well yes, but I feel like DEI should actually be a good principle. I had DEI training yesterday as a part of my induction into a civil service agency. It was actually the most enjoyable section of the day and the major take-home message was that we had to talk to each other to find out what things we had in common and what differences we had.

I think there’s a risk that something good will be lost if it’s thrown out altogether. But you are probably right that faulty was not exactly the right word. Bastardised is probably a better word because, as you say, this is deliberate action by certain groups, not an accident.

I wish I was genuinely shocked that a story has come to light about an individual in a position of this type.

But I think I've reached the point where so much of this shit is coming out that I read this and there is not a flicker of surprise in my head.

It's horrifying that this is becoming the norm of how some people live their life and that it's seen as perfectly acceptable to a great many people that this is OK because they are in that small minority of very vulnerable and oppressed people so we should just shut up and applaud their bravery.

It's not OK.

I never wanted to know this much about the sexual proclivities of random individuals.

That doesn't look like a healthy fat distribution for any youngish (wo)man, let alone one who is advising on health.

I wish I could say I'm surprised.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to question why peoples private lives are relevant to their jobs. Cos safeguarding. And because of bias - public policy should be evidence based, not ideology based.

Also, this quote has melted my brain:
"Cook also co-founded a safe sex campaign group called Grunt, which promotes 'hot, informed sex between trans guys and cis guys."

So... who is having sex with whom? How would you know whether this group is for you or not?

Hard agree on both of your points!

Agreed. From what I've seen of DEI this looks to be par for the course.
People start off with great intentions. Lets be equally nice to everyone.
It gets an acronym like DEI, the academics and activists move in, and it all goes to shit. What pops out of the other end bears no resemblance to the original intent, and if you disagree you're a white supremacist bigot, just like JKR.

Moral righteousness seems to be an acceptable subsititue for any and all of the following; comon sense, logic, debate, measuring results, reflecting on the results, self reflection, plurality of thought, a knowledge of history, child safeguarding, adapting views, respect for opposing views. Why bother with a long list of complex stuff when a large dollop of moral righteousness and a smug feeling of superioirty will cover all that and more?