Gender, COP29, and the Vatican

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxvpl5zw19o

'The Vatican has blocked discussions over women’s rights at the UN climate summit following a row over gay and transgender issues, sources have told BBC News.
Pope Francis’ representatives have aligned with Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and Egypt to obstruct a deal which would have provided more support, including financial help, for women at the forefront of climate change, Colombia’s environment minister told the BBC.

Countries at this year’s COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan were due to update the ten-year old UN action plan to make sure that any work on climate change took account of the experiences of women and channelled more money to them.
For a decade it has been called the Lima Work Programme on Gender.

But the Vatican, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and Egypt now do not want any reference to "gender" - over concerns it could include transgender women, and want references to gay woman removed, the BBC has been told by charities observing the talks and negotiators from other countries.'

'In the new plan African and EU countries wanted to also include a line that not all women’s experiences of climate change are the same - that they can differ depending on their "gender, sex, age and race".

The Vatican, along with Saudi Arabia, Russia, Egypt and Iran, said they took issue with the use of the word "gender" which they think could include transgender women, country negotiators told the BBC.'

women’s experiences of climate change [...] can differ depending on their "gender [or] sex, ".

It's not often I find myself in agreement with the Vatican, Saudi, Iran or Russia - never mind all 4 - but, er, no. They're right on that part, although it's infuriating that they're using this nonsense as an excuse to avoid helping women.

Same here

I'd be happy to discuss 'gender' and its implications, in its original sense - sex stereotyping, which can and does affect women.

But because 'gender' has now been repurposed to allegedly mean that men can pretend to be women, the word has become contentious and unreliable.

Maybe it should be

women’s experiences of climate change [...] can differ because of their sex and gendered roles?

While I'd usually be very suspicious of that bloc wanting to remove mention of gay women, I'm curious as to how their experiences specifically in relation to climate change might be different to any other women , ie why sexuality is of any relevance in this context?

It's not often I find myself in agreement with the Vatican, Saudi, Iran or Russia - never mind all 4 - but, er, no. They're right on that part, although it's infuriating that they're using this nonsense as an excuse to avoid helping women.

Completely agree, and how typical that women lose whatever happens.

I'd have thought that a huge factor for women would be poverty and health.

This was all very foreseeable and I am not surprised at all. Women will lose out if their concerns are joined with those of men who identify as women. This is what is meant by ‘women in all their diversity’ … but how can you make policies that address female concerns if males can be female?

The thing is though...in this case I don't think I care much about including the word 'gender' as well as 'sex' because the extra support will presumably be targeted at the people who actually need and it, and I'll bet that regardless of the wording, that'll be real women and girls

Why are the west throwing all women under the bus here?

Surely the agreed point is the biggest threat to the world is climate change with women at the forefront of that. So in recognising the biggest threat to the world is climate change, perhaps our priority choices should actually reflect that. Women aren't going to be doing much with their human rights if they are dead from the effects of climate change, now are they?

Instead ALL women (regardless of sexuality) are going to be negatively impacted by money not being released by this. And passing this based on sex not gender would exclude a very tiny number of men who identify as women especially since the countries most affected by climate change haven't replaced sex with gender anyway. And the reference to gay women is completely irrelevant to climate change anyway, unless lesbians somehow wave their hands and this somehow increases the global temperature. Its totally bizarre why its being included in the first place.

In practice we have a situation where due to the pride and stubborness of 'progressive countries' because males can't be included, all those women should suffer just because they don't want Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Egypt and The Vatican 'to win'.

Can we just pause for a 'Are We The Baddies?' moment here please.

I have had to turn myself into a single issue voter and this is my issue. So, I will stand with them on this and be thankful.

There must be talk about trans around the Vatican filtering down because, every once in a while, our priest makes a little mention.

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2024/04/08/240408c.html

The Vatican position on VA, femicide, abortion, 'sex change', surrogacy, and other issues.

Iran?? With the mostly trans 'women's ' football team?

So “women’s experience of climate change……can differ depending on their….sex” Nah, all women are the same sex

Agree with pp’s, Russia, Iran and the Vatican on this one - who’d have thought?! Given the speed with which men take over women’s stuff when given half a chance (see cycling in the US) and how gender ideology has made eg Stonewall and the Green Party not fit for purpose, I think it’s probably worth making a stand to protect this. Well done Francis

So do they not think women are real women if they don't love men romantically and sexually?

Lesbians are women. Why are they being so anti-woman?

‘In the new plan African and EU countries wanted to also include a line that not all women’s experiences of climate change are the same - that they can differ depending on their "gender, sex, age and race".’
**
‘Charities observing this were surprised as over the course of a decade these countries had not taken issue with the use of the word.
“I was shocked when the Vatican raised their flag and opposed the human rights language,” said Sostina Takure, from Christian charity ACT Alliance. "My heart shattered into a million pieces."’

They are so fucking disingenuous. They tried to shove this change to the meaning of a word in, relying on the fact that it would open those who object to accusations of not prioritizing suffering women, and now the objections are in and they’re crying the usual crocodile tears and pretending this is “human rights” language and not the neoreligious language of transactivism.

Why do they feel the need to try and insert their narrative into everything?

Get men the eff out of women’s everything. Why didn’t they just keep the sex category as it is? Ditch any nonsense that it encompasses any sort of man. That is anti-scientific, flat earth sh*te which should have never been given a second’s consideration anyway. Then pass the resolution in the interest of women and girls. The only kind. People are happily sabotaging women’s rights to get their kicks. People supporting that should be ashamed of themselves.

Human rights? Just the usual deeply misogynistic rubbish trying to hitch a free ride under cover. They couldn’t give a toss if it does actually damage the human rights of women and children.