Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Opinion

Female UN expert calls for ban on men in women’s sports, gets accused of ‘demeaning language’

Published

3 days ago

6 minute read

Reem Alsalem

From LifeSiteNews

By Ordo Iuris

“Giving men so-called hormone blockers so they can compete with women – as some sports leagues do – doesn’t work”

United Nations Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem, in a recent report, called on countries and sporting organization authorities not to allow “men who identify as women” to compete in female sports competitions.

  • The U.S. representative to the UN accused Alsalem of using “degrading language” and of “bullying and gender misinformation.”
  • Delegates from Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, France, Mexico, Colombia, and other Western countries raised similar objections.
  • “Gender should be understood in its ordinary sense as biological sex,” Alsalem said during the report’s presentation, citing the agreement from the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing.
  • Alsalem’s approach challenges the assumptions of Western and UN-backed gender policies, which are based on gender as a social construct unrelated to biological sex.

In her latest report to the General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Reem Alsalem, called on countries to stop allowing “men who identify as women” to compete against women and girls in sports. The U.S. representative to the UN, wearing a badge on his jacket with the colors of the LBGT and trans lobbies, accused her of using “degrading language” against trans athletes, as well as spreading “gender misinformation” and “bullying.” Delegates from Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, France, Mexico, Colombia, and other Western countries made similar accusations.

READ: Women’s sports are under siege by male participants, and no one seems to be stopping it

According to the report, allowing men declaring female gender into women’s competitions also leads to women and girls experiencing “extreme psychological distress,” due to physical imbalance with rivals, loss of fair competition and educational and economic opportunities, and violations of privacy (e.g., in locker rooms). Alsalem says that, in recent years, more than 600 female athletes have lost some 890 medals in more than 400 competitions, in 29 different sports, due to policies allowing men to compete against women.

“Giving men so-called hormone blockers so they can compete with women – as some sports leagues do – doesn’t work,” Alsalem said. It does not reduce men’s natural advantage, and strong hormone drugs can even harm an athlete’s health.

“Human rights language and principles must continue to be consistent with science and facts, including biological ones,” the expert argued. “Multiple studies have given evidence that athletes born males have a performance advantage in sports throughout their lives although this is most apparent after puberty.” Alsalem also mentioned the risk of injury to female athletes, which is knowingly increased when competing with biological men, whether they identify as men or women, the physical harm suffered by women against male athletes can be characterized as violence, according to the special rapporteur.

“Sex must be understood in its ordinary meaning to mean biological sex,” Alsalem said, citing a declaration from the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing. She continued by stating that “sex based on biology” has been established in the international human-rights catalog, as opposed to the concept of “gender.” According to Alsalem, the two categories should not be confused.

Julia Książek, of the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law, stated:

Reem Alsalem identified a major problem that became fully apparent at the Paris Olympics this year, when it became evident that women were no longer competing against women, but also men who ‘identify’ as women. The UN expert rightly noted in her report that athletes’ mental identification does not in any way affect their biological predisposition, which they have by being men. This type of situation is the result of lobbying in international law for the concept of ‘sex with social context’ – gender. The first event raising questions about the use of the ‘gender’ construct was the 1995 World Conference on the Rights of Women in Beijing. The debate around its final declaration stirred controversy precisely because of the definition of gender, listed in the text as ‘gender’ rather than ‘sex.’ Under pressure from a large group of UN member states, the conference chairman clearly stated that the word gender was used in the ordinary, generally accepted sense in which it appears in UN documents, recalling the non-binding declarations attached to the final declarations of UN conferences in the early 1990s. He also stressed that there was no intention to give a new meaning to the term that would differ from the generally accepted one. Reem Alsalem also noted this in her report.

The Ordo Iuris Institute has long opposed the gender lobby in sports. In 2020, the Institute’s experts prepared an analysis of a draft UN resolution, which maintained that athletes should be allowed to participate in competitions according to their subjective feelings about gender.

This article was originally published on Ordo Iuris’ English-language page.  Edited and reprinted with permission. 

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
National / 50 mins ago

BC election officials still need to count 65k ballots in virtual tie between Conservatives, NDP

Brownstone Institute / 1 hour ago

Is the Influenza Threat Exaggerated?

Uncategorized / 5 hours ago

Canadian man euthanized after COVID shot injuries

Brownstone Institute

Is the Influenza Threat Exaggerated?

Published on October 25, 2024

By

From the Brownstone Institute

By Tom Jefferson 

I  beg all of you who were or will be offered an influenza vaccination to consider the content of this post when deciding whether to accept.

We have published posts presenting evidence that the influenza threat has been inflated.

The US authorities knew that fraud was essentially taking place, and they bent over backward to defend each other and cover up the scam.

Here’s the first part of the story of why I have suspected and then known about this for at least 25 years.

In the mid-1990s, as the Cochrane Collaboration was starting, some of us in its Acute Respiratory Infection Group started writing protocols for Cochrane reviews on the topics that interested us (Cochrane being then a volunteer bottom-up organization).

In my case, it was influenza and other respiratory agents. So, we wrote protocols and published reviews on the effects (effectiveness and harms) of influenza vaccines (all types of inactivated and live attenuated) on children, adults, asthmatics, the elderly, and those who care for the elderly.

We initially looked only at randomized controlled trials and then bowed to pressure to include observational data. The latter were quickly ditched to preserve our sanity. That’s because observational data, in this case, told you everything and its opposite—not a new story.

I was eventually kicked out of the asthmatics review, but the other four were updated continually until we realised there was no point in going on, and 3 of the reviews were stabilized (no more updates). The three stabilized reviews are:

  1. Demicheli V, Jefferson T, et al. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. 2018
  2. Jefferson T, Rivetti et al. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children. 2018
  3. Demicheli V, Jefferson T et al. Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly. 2018
  4. Thomas RE, Jefferson T, et al. Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who care for people aged 60 or older living in long-term care institutions. 

(The fourth review is currently being updated.)

The reviews have been cited several thousand times and read many more times. They include data from 105 (real) placebo-controlled trials involving over 100,000 individuals.

So that’s the background. By this stage, you will be asking: so what?

The so what is that randomised (real) placebo-controlled trials give you a good idea of the incidence of influenza (in the older trials, by a rise in antibody titres and or a viral positive culture isolate). When you pool the data together, you are not looking at one trial or dataset; you are looking at several data sets observed and recorded at the height of the “winter crisis” season.

In the healthy adult’s review, the placebo arm picked up 465 cases out of 18,593 participants. So, of the folks with symptoms, 97.5% were not caused by influenza. No trials were able to detect deaths, and hospitalisations were relatively rare. The trials spanned 50 years of data, so we had all the highs, the lows, and the maybes and even 2 influenza pandemics.

Trials are studies where researchers can control things, verify, and follow up on cases. The placebo arm incidence is essential for an accurate view of what is happening. Models are not required. Once we started looking at the verified influenza deaths in the placebo arm, we saw that the number of cases was in the hundreds. Complications were very rare; for deaths, we found zilch—certainly not the figures put forward by the CDC, which not even Anthony Fauci believed. This fits with the data we showed here and here.

So influenza is rare, loads more agents causing the same signs, symptoms are lumped under the appalling term “flu,” and population interventions such as inactivated vaccines do not stand a chance against a relatively rare moving target like influenza. So you see my mummy was right when she used to say to me: “Tommy darling, never use the F word.”

In the next posts, TTE will explain how and why inflating the threat is essential to keeping unethical bodies like the CDC and the UKHSA going (I mention these two, but they are all at it) and analyse some misleading statements and policies based on deceptive and inflated data.

This post was written by an old geezer who’s been working on this for three decades and hopes that the content of posts like these will be his legacy.

Other Relevant Work

Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Debalini M G, Rivetti A, Demicheli V. Relation of study quality, concordance, take home message, funding, and impact in studies of influenza vaccines: systematic review BMJ 2009; 338 :b354 doi:10.1136/bmj.b354

Jefferson T. Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence BMJ 2006; 333 :912 doi:10.1136/bmj.38995.531701.80

Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Debalini MG, Rivetti A, Demicheli V. Inactivated influenza vaccines: methods, policies, and politics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Jul;62(7):677-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.07.001. Epub 2009 Jan 4. PMID: 19124222.

Doshi P. Are US flu death figures more PR than science? BMJ. 2005 Dec 10;331(7529):1412. 

Doshi P. Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease BMJ 2013; 346:f3037 doi:10.1136/bmj.f3037

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

Tom Jefferson

Tom Jefferson is a Senior Associate Tutor at the University of Oxford, a former researcher at the Nordic Cochrane Centre and a former scientific coordinator for the production of HTA reports on non-pharmaceuticals for Agenas, the Italian National Agency for Regional Healthcare. Here is his website.

Continue Reading

Health

Doctor withholds results of study that fails to show transitioning improves kids’ health

Published on October 25, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

A prominent doctor has been refusing to release the findings of a federally funded “transgender youth” study she began in 2015 because the results did not match the conclusions she hoped for, according to an explosive report in The New York Times.

The Times reported that Johanna Olson-Kennedy, medical director of the Center for Trans Youth Health & Development at Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles, “recruited 95 children from across the country and gave them puberty blockers,” then “followed the children for two years to see if the treatments improved their mental health.” She told the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that she expected to find that the kids would show “decreased symptoms of depression, anxiety, trauma symptoms, self-injury, and suicidality, and increased body esteem and quality of life over time.”

However, the study did not show the children doing better than they started. “Before receiving the drugs, around one-quarter of the group reported depression symptoms and significant anxiety, and one quarter reported ever having thoughts of suicide,” the Times says. “Eight percent reported a past suicide attempt.”

In an interview with the Times, Olson-Kennedy attempted to argue that the children’s starting point actually wasn’t so bad after all, and therefore the lack of change was not concerning: “They’re in really good shape when they come in, and they’re in really good shape after two years.” On follow-up, she claimed her “good shape” comment was referring to data averages, and her conclusion about the full data was still pending.

Regardless, in the nine years since the study commenced, Olson-Kennedy has still yet to publish any of the data for outside observers to analyze for themselves, which she justified by claiming, “I do not want our work to be weaponized. It has to be exactly on point, clear and concise. And that takes time.”

A significant body of evidence shows that “affirming” gender confusion carries serious harms, especially when done with impressionable children who lack the mental development, emotional maturity, and life experience to consider the long-term ramifications of the decisions being pushed on them, or full knowledge about the long-term effects of life-altering, physically transformative, and often-irreversible surgical and chemical procedures.

Studies find that more than 80% of children experiencing gender dysphoria outgrow it on their own by late adolescence, and that even full “reassignment” surgery often fails to resolve gender-confused individuals’ heightened tendency to engage in self-harm and suicide — and may even exacerbate it, including by reinforcing their confusion and neglecting the actual root causes of their mental strife.

Many oft-ignored “detransitioners,” individuals who attempted to live under a different “gender identity” before embracing their sex, attest to the physical and mental harm of reinforcing gender confusion as well as to the bias and negligence of the medical establishment on the subject, many of whom take an activist approach to their profession and begin cases with a predetermined conclusion that “transitioning” is the best solution.

In December, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin considering arguments about the permissibility of state laws prohibiting the gender “transitioning”” of minors.

Continue Reading

Trending

X