Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

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
Daily Caller / 6 hours ago

EXCLUSIVE: GOP Lawmakers Press Biden-Harris Admin Over Alleged Cover-Up Behind Major Fossil Fuel Crackdown

National / 18 hours ago

Disgruntled Liberal MPs reportedly give Trudeau until October 28 to step down

Great Reset / 20 hours ago

Hundreds of thousands of migrants are being held in southern Mexico until US Election Day

Daily Caller

EXCLUSIVE: GOP Lawmakers Press Biden-Harris Admin Over Alleged Cover-Up Behind Major Fossil Fuel Crackdown

Published on October 25, 2024

By

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

 

By Nick Pope

Forty-five GOP lawmakers are demanding answers from the Department of Energy (DOE) after a government watchdog group accused the agency of covering up a key study that would have interfered with one of the Biden-Harris administration’s most aggressive crackdowns on fossil fuels.

The lawmakers wrote to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm on Thursday to address a watchdog’s allegations that her agency conducted or drafted — and then quietly buried — a study on the emissions impacts of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports in 2023 before pausing approvals for certain LNG export terminals in January on the grounds that the agency needed to conduct such a review. Government Accountability and Oversight (GAO), the watchdog making the allegations, is suing the agency under public records law to obtain the thousands of pages DOE concedes may fit GAO’s specific request searching for the 2023 study that the agency allegedly buried because it was producing politically inconvenient conclusions, as first reported by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“The Biden-Harris Administration’s attempt to conceal its findings on liquefied natural gas impacts is troubling. Despite evidence that U.S. LNG benefits both the economy and global energy security, the Department of Energy has imposed an indefinite ban on LNG exports to non-free trade agreement countries without legal justification,” Republican Texas Rep. August Pfluger, one of the letter’s signatories, said in a statement shared with the DCNF. “The lack of transparency from DOE on existing studies, as well as the motivation behind the ongoing study, is unacceptable. The American people deserve accountability on the decision-making process surrounding our energy future.”

DOE Letter re: LNG studies, GAO accusations by Nick Pope on Scribd

If GAO’s allegations are ultimately substantiated, the Biden-Harris administration effectively misled the public in an election year to set up a policy that hurts American geopolitical interests and disincentivizes investment in major energy projects. However, the deep-pocketed environmentalist lobby aligning with Democrats in the 2024 election cycle celebrated the policy.

The lawmakers’ letter specifically asks Granholm to clarify whether the agency conducted any analysis of LNG exports’ emissions impacts before the Jan. 26 announcement of the freeze on approvals for LNG export terminals seeking to ship gas to non-free trade agreement (FTA) countries. The legislators also asked Granholm to detail whether top DOE officials or White House personnel ever received updates about such an analysis, even if preliminary, in the first ten months of 2023, as well as whether the agency still intends to publish its findings in January 2025.

“DOE is in receipt of this letter and is reviewing it,” an agency spokesperson said in a statement shared with the DCNF. “DOE’s process to update the analyses that informs its review of applications to authorize exports of US natural gas to non-free trade agreement countries is well underway. When the updated analyses are ready, we will publish them for the public to review and provide comment.”

The lawmakers gave Granholm until Nov. 8 to respond to their inquiry. Republican Reps. Darrell Issa of California, Dan Crenshaw of Texas, Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, Lance Gooden of Texas and Buddy Carter of Georgia joined Pfluger as signatories, among others.

Notably, the House Oversight and Accountability Committee sent its own letter to Granholm on Wednesday demanding answers about the same exact issue.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Premier Smith hammers Liberal government for ‘slightly’ reducing immigration

Published on October 24, 2024

By

As so often happens these days the headlines from major news outlets all look like they were written by the same people.  All the major news outlets repeated the government talking point that immigration would be reduced significantly.  In his news release, Immigration Minister Marc Miller spoke of “controlled targets” and even “marginal” declines in Canada’s population. Minister Miller made it sound like the feds are pulling way back on the number of immigrants being allowed into the country.

A few hours later, Premier Danielle Smith explained how Alberta sees things.  According to Premier Smith, immigrants will still be pouring into the country at near record levels.  Smith says this new immigration plan will offer almost no relief whatsoever to provinces buckling under the pressure of so many newcomers.

Premier Smith is right.  When you take out all the adjectives and the self back-patting, the 2025 – 2027 Immigration Levels Plan shows the number of new immigrants will still hover near record levels.

From the 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan.

The levels plan includes controlled targets for temporary residents, specifically international students and foreign workers, as well as for permanent residents.

We are:

  • reducing from 500,000 permanent residents to 395,000 in 2025
  • reducing from 500,000 permanent residents to 380,000 in 2026
  • setting a target of 365,000 permanent residents in 2027

Quick facts:

  • Canada’s population has grown in recent years, reaching 41 million in April 2024. Immigration accounted for almost 98% of this growth in 2023, 60% of which can be attributed to temporary residents.
  • Francophone immigration will represent
    • 8.5% in 2025
    • 9.5% in 2026
    • 10% in 2027

The Levels Plan also supports efforts to reduce temporary resident volumes to 5% of Canada’s population by the end of 2026.  Canada’s temporary population will decrease over the next few years as significantly more temporary residents will transition to being permanent residents or leave Canada compared to new ones arriving. Specifically, compared to each previous year, we will see Canada’s temporary population decline by

  • 445,901 in 2025
  • 445,662 in 2026
  • a modest increase of 17,439 in 2027

It’s interesting how the feds explain the situation with “temporary residents”.  This group includes foreign students and temporary workers.  Most Canadians would probably be shocked to know just how many people are “temporarily” here.

Minister Miller says this population will decline by 445,901 people in 2025.  What he leaves out is that this still allows for just over 2,000,000 foreign students and temporary workers! (5% of 41,000,000 Canadians is 2,050,000)

It’s also very interesting that in the explanation for how the feds plan to cut the number of temporary residents down from about 2.6 million to just over 2 million, is by recognizing that many of the temporary residents will transition to being permanent residents.  It’s not clear how that will reduce the number of people in the country.  I guess we’ll have to see how that all turns out.

Meanwhile Alberta Premier Danelle Smith and Minister of Immigration and Multiculturalism Muhammad Yaseen issued this joint statement on today’s federal government immigration announcement:

“Alberta has a long history of welcoming newcomers, and we plan to maintain that reputation.

“However, the federal government’s reckless and irresponsible open-border immigration policies, permitting almost 2 million newcomers to enter Canada last year alone, have led to unsustainable financial pressures on all provinces.

“With the cost of food, energy, housing and everything else in this country increasing, and with tens of thousands of new people moving to Alberta monthly, our hospitals and schools are at or above capacity.

“As a province, we need a reprieve from this explosive population growth so we can catch up with these pressures. So do all provinces.

“The federal government’s plan to cut a mere 105,000 new permanent residents will not solve these pressures when they are bringing in almost 2 million additional people annually.

“We call on the government to cut the number of newcomers to Canada from almost 2 million to well under 500,000 annually until further notice.

“Ottawa’s priority should be on reducing the number of temporary foreign workers, international students and asylum seekers—not on reducing provincially selected economic migrants.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X