Reem Alsalem at UN Human Rights Meeting.

[ArabellaScott]

Absolutely barnstorming speech here from Reem.

"Erasing women and women-specific language and needs based on their sex is not only wrong, but also demeaning, regressive and constitutes one of the worst forms of violence that women and girls can experience," @UNSRVAW
Reem Alsalem told the @UN Human Rights Council.'

From about 01.30.

https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k14/k14sfu55rh

She is followed by Mr Manley (yes, really), UK Ambassador.

And then towards the end, Alsalem is responded to/heckled by someone in a leather dress, who then made an aggressive, snarling face while the next person was talking.

This person, it seems, is trans identifying male sex worker, Sabrina Sanchez. https://www.eswalliance.org/ban_on_buying_sex

His insta is very much NSFW, Content warning, etc.

I hope there will be a transcript later, Reem's speech was really excellent.

She will be presenting the final report on the UK later this year. Can't wait.

Edited advance version:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/country-reports/ahrc5947add1-visit-united-kingdom-great-britain-and-northern-ireland

Here's the chap in leather snarling as he gets up to leave.

Why the UN entertains this kind of behaviour, I do not know.

Gosh what a charmer

Great work from Reem Alsalem there.

As to him… Operation Let Them Snarl.

Tsk tsk..Very unladylike behaviour Sabrina..

Its amazing how men identifying as things behave the minute women talk about their needs.

Very binary. Very sex based. Very predictable.

I'll admit the acting like a peeved jack russell terrier is new.

You would think if they identified as and with women they'd be interested in and care about 'other' women.

Go figure.

Did Manley say he supported the statement from Columbia that represented multiple countries… and Columbia said that what really mattered was gender not sex? (At about 1:57) or it did I hear it wrong? I hope I did!

I'm listening again, Twoeight.

(Sidenote: It's quite disconcerting that the translators often have the opposite sex to the speakers.)

The chap translating for Colombia said 'the signal went too fast for complete interpretation' 😄I don't hear anything from Manley, though?

Canada is as you'd expected going all out for gender rather than sex.

Switzerland also is rejecting 'sex based violence' and says that's regressive.

The Holy See is full on terfy, though. Again, as expected. I haven't time to listen to the whole meeting right now, I hope some other countries supported Reem, though.

I had another listen and I’m still not sure what was actually said! Simon M at the end of his time expresses support to the joint statement that Columbia will deliver based on established terms such as gender based violence.
Then when Columbia get their moment the woman goes so fast the poor translator can’t keep up! She seems to be saying that it is gender that matters and this is a social construct not limited to biology…
so does that mean that both SM and Columbia (who represented 37 countries) think it’s still gender that matters not sex?

Not necessarily SM, I don't think? Lots of speakers, different viewpoints. Colombia, yes. I haven't listened to the whole event.

It is beyond belief that so many representatives attend a session focusing on violence against women and girls, and their main responses are:
But gender…
But men…
But biological sex is regressive…
But the most marginalised and vulnerable are a special subsection that need to be centred…
But how dare you insult “women” by using a definition based on biological sex…
But it is disgusting that an INTERSECTIONAL approach isn’t the main focus (ie MALES are not being considered as most important when it comes to a report on violence against women and girls - shame on you).

Also noted that only 1 person had revealing, inappropriately low cut clothes on.

And (I have no idea why) I keep thinking of Elmo.

I despair.

Ah, yes, sorry, you're right. He makes a statement right at the end of his speech, 1.38, to say that he supports use of terms 'gender based violence' over 'sex based violence'.

100%

Every time those people complained that 'sex' or 'biology' is too restrictive, what they are saying is that it's not possible for women to have policies focused on them, on VAWG, because it excludes males, and it's unacceptable to exclude males.

Very revealing - and I'm not referring to the dress..
I think that photo should be used as a visual illustration of 'Let them speak' - 'Operation Let Them Snarl'!

Actually, now I think about it, I'm very glad that Sabrina Sanchez was there to represent the reason that all those very serious and noble people object to women organising on the basis of biological sex.

Because otherwise, they'd be omitting to consider men like him, who presents himself on Instagram in bondage, naked, pornified, etc. And is head of a 'sex worker' organisation. Who rants at the committee, and then stands up and snarls when he leaves (02:57).

This man is being given more importance than women. We are not to exclude him, and representatives were queuing up to scold Reem for doing so.

But he provided a very vivid illustration of exactly who and what they are supporting.

I've blurred the images here, some nudity.

I think perhaps MN doesn't want to share them, which is fair enough.

The one that is perhaps most objectionable is one of the few that aren't him nude or in bondage gear. I'll post it here on its own.

Back in January the NAO released a report into the home office tackling of violence against women and girls. I've just rechecked on that and it refers to gender based violence so the UK isn't any better. Hopefully following the SC ruling that will change and going forward the audit will be sex based. I'd be interested to see the difference that makes to the numbers quoted.

People need to start acknowledging that VAWG is based on sex not gender at least Reem Alsalem does.

Why is biological sex regressive?

Because its a barrier stopping men using women for multiple purposes, many of which are sexual and all of which are abusive.

Why is gender progressive?

Because it permits men to use women for multiple purposes, many of which are sexual and all of which are abusive.

This is a lot of balderdash to try and make this subordination of women and attempts to fix mens sexual rights in law sound palatable. It's sales patter.

It fails.

Was this the speech based on this?
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5343385-erasure-of-sex-specific-language-and-categories-reem-alsalem

As Twoeight said upthread, the UK's Amassador and rep at the UN said at the end of his speech that the UK would continue to use the term 'gender based' violence, not 'sex based'.

Probably, yes. That's the report she references.

Does anyone know how, given the degree of capture of many UN organizations, to the GI, Reem Alsalem was appointed to her position and how she's managed to preserve it? Given her 2022 letter warning against Scottish self-id, I assumed she would be soon ousted. The ferocity of the backlash was blood curdling, and she was clearly out of sync with the Biden administration and Europe.

The letter itself was remarkable, both in its lucidity and by the fact that it presented the problems of self-id in such a clear-cut way that it forced the Scottish government, and Sturgeon in particular, to simply refuse to address them - no debate! That was really the beginning of the end for Sturgeon.