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

I'm seeing my sister later, I will check in with her to see if her trans sister existing is the "worst forms of violence that women and girls can experience".

Reem had worked in the UN for some time as Special Rapporteur on VAWG before the issue came to her attention, I believe.

And it was over the Scottish Government's Self ID proposal - I don't know whether she was just writing a report on the UK coincidentally or what, don't know how the UN processes work.

For all the people who say it’s gender not sex Thats matters, I have never heard them say why it’s gender not sex that matters. Where is their evidence that it’s a persons GI that affects their sexual voyeurism or sexual violence or other violence, and not their sex.

Why are these countries saying this not presenting their data for that position?

So, you’ve made it all about you ???

That figures !

The arguments I heard were that if one focused on sex, some people would be excluded. I.e., men.

"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,"

You might have missed that bit from the quote.

Existence and taking these actions against women are two different things. Confusing the two tries to paint the oppression of women as a man's right and to imply that questioning political lobby actions against women is to question his existence.

I don't think 'it causes me an existential crisis' is really a justification for doing this to women. Or an excuse to not have to look at, acknowledge and take responsibility for the impact on women.

Bee's existential crisis clearly matters more than women's existential crises to some.

Why is that?

Reem is once again standing up to the world, or to those grifters who claim to speak for it. Thanks to her for all her work. 👏😁

In society’s still dominated by men, (which is all of them), I think there’s a desire to emphasize gender over sex, because acknowledging sex-based issues would require men to confront and manage the problematic behaviour of other men.

By framing the conversation around gender, the responsibility is subtly shifted onto women, whose concerns are dismissed again and again. This evasion allows men to avoid seeking real solutions while maintaining their image even when they fall short.

The addiction to exaggeration and misrepresentation really is doing the trans side no good in the long run. No one is saying you don't exist. Reem isn't saying your existence in itself is a threat. In fact she went to great lengths to explain that that's not what she's saying:

"It is important to note that insistence on safeguarding and risk management protocols does not arise from the belief that transgender people represent a safeguarding threat. It is instead based on empirical evidence that demonstrates that the majority of sex offenders are male, and that persistent sex offenders will go to great lengths to gain access to those they wish to abuse. One way they can do this is by abusing the process to access single-sex spaces or to take up roles which are normally reserved to women for safeguarding reasons."

Here she isn't even making the claim that TW are an equivalent threat as biological men. She is simply saying that even if we take as a given that true trans identifying men are of zero threat to women there will still be some non-true trans identifying men who will use the trans women identity as a way to get access to women and there is no way to distinguish between the two.

The best TRAs can come up with against that argument is that: No cis man would ever identify as a woman for any reason. That is flatly contradicted by real-life cases. In fact trans people themselves use the argument that: this or that trans identified person who committed some heinous crime was not really trans!

archive.ph/bdukG

Which again states that the most important thing about women and their rights is using them to benefit men. Women's rights may never be inconvenient to their betters.

It's pure sexism and misogyny. Mens sexual rights movement.

Only men have the social power to do this to women, and then use all kinds of pressure to hide it and excuse it. 'Cry bullying' I think was a behavioural term used by a judge at one of the more recent court cases? Where it sounds like vulnerability and claims of victimhood in order to gain sympathy and leverage to have power over and harm another.

Just makes an entitled man, look like an entitled man, however he identifies.

it’s the ‘it’s all about me and my rights’ mantra that ultimately shows them for what they are and truly feel about any woman.

It's a strategy of collapsing the one thing into the other. In essence: if you question the actions of the political lobby (what ever they may be) you question me.

This hands over a script in which your part is to rush up with sympathy and damp towels and reassure how much you love and respect and defer to, while drying tears and affirming. It shifts the conversation somewhere much more comfortable and re sets the power balance.

If someone is engaged in and supporting removing women's right to their own language, definitions and sex based spaces for their own personal benefit I absolutely do question them. And I am fine with them feeling uncomfortable about that. They should do.

Does anyone have the link the hand for the PM session they referred to at the end?

https://genevasolutions.news/human-rights/un-expert-wants-to-make-women-s-rights-about-biology-campaigners-warn-its-anti-gender-rhetoric

Pish write up. Alsalem has asked for a right to reply, according to her X.

Definitely a one sided hatchet job. Nobody is trying to roll back 'trans right's', she's just trying to protect women and children from violence. I hope she gets the right to reply, so she can set the record straight on all the wrongs in this article.

“She could have just said she hates us,” Sánchez says. “At least that would be honest.” - cry bully much.

"Alsalem is expected to conclude her second term in 2026 and cannot be appointed to a third one."
I didn't realise that, our cause will be sunk without her fighting at the top. 😒

Oof! How embarrassing for you Bee. Maybe try reading before commenting next time!

No, I'm taking the piss out of the insane hyperbole 🙄

Honestly, it's so interesting seeing how you rabble rouse each other to become outraged. Must be a dour existence tho

I hope Reem does get to refute that article, it entirely misrepresents her views.

Hyperbole!

<Ticks off next square>

It’s also a DARVO, considering the unhinged hyperbole of TRAs.

Excellent. Reem's speech is now up on youtube.

Welcome news Reem's mandate has been renewed.

https://x.com/UNSRVAW/status/1942523463685791762?t=pYpjkyzgxkQ403JaJh7AjA&s=09

Pleased that my mandate, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls was renewed for another three year period (so to June 2028)

#HRC59 | A/HRC/59/L.24/Rev.1 on accelerating efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls: prevention through the fulfilment of economic, social and cultural rights was ADOPTED without a vote.

That is really good news!

Thanks for posting info, as not always possible to keep up to date.

We know you’re there, MrBeeKind, don’t worry. But this isn’t about you.

This is about the words we use about women, and how we are allowed to keep them.

I'm glad to hear that.

Unfortunate that her role is so needed, but sadly it is.