The UN ‘sexual orientation and gender expert’ has endorsed gender affirming treatment in extremely young children and made claims that puberty blockers are reversible. Victor Madrigal-Borloz is a Costa Rican-born human rights lawyer who now lives in Boston. Much of his career has focused on LGBT issues. He is a signatory of the
Is it that man in the photo? He looks exactly the sort I'd give a wide berth to on public transport or in the park. Wouldn't listen to a word he said. Dodgy AF.
"What a nut job. If the UN want to safeguard children, why don't they look at the treatment of children forced to work in tin mines in some countries, or girls used as sex slaves. Gender affirmation is a first world self indulgence. God I'm so angry.
Why do all of these people make me feel queasy and give me the creeps? Because their views are inherently wrong and harmful! That others can't or won't see this is bizarre. There is no scientific rigour applied here. Which studies? What evidence? (that's even a lazy legal argument FFS). Where is the control group, where are the peer reviews? That this should be applauded and launched to great fanfare by Harvard is tremendously worrying. By association they give it more credence than it deserves. I used to respect that institution, but not any more. Good grief.
What is it with so called 'Human Rights Aciviists'. ? Recently Filia had to issue a public statement on the misogynistic and sexual abusive language used by protestors holding signs, which clearly indicated that the individuals belonged to Amnesty International. This week Shami Chakrabarti insisted on remaining unhelpfully ambiguous in respect of the housing of natal males within the female prison estate. Since when has defending Human Rights involved such damaging treatment of vulnerable adolescent children, even to the extent that the health of these children may be threatened for the rest of their life?
As many will know, Scotland has a particular problem with such dangerous claptrap. Yesterday's 'Herald' and 'National' both ran pieces on the dodgy wisdom that came from the mouth of a UN 'expert'. It was a different expert though. According to the National, 'Dr Christine Ryan, senior legal adviser to the UN special rapporteur on the freedom of religion or belief, said states should affirm people's sexual orientation and gender diversity'. This half-baked article on a half-baked idea made reference to a Holyrood committee meeting which took place on 7th September 2021, easy to find in full on the web. This meeting was an opportunity for 2 TRAs (one gay male and one female who now calls herself male) to make their pitch in favour of a ban to a small group of MSPs, which included Green MSP Maggie Chapman. Yes, the same Maggie Chapman who was, until recently Secretary of Edinburgh Rape Crisis, the same organisation which decided that non-GRC certified Mr Mridul Wadwha was ideal for CEO. All other MSPs in this back-slapping, cosy gathering prefaced their remarks with disclosure that they had already signed the TRA's petition to ban CT in Scotland. Fair balance and scrutiny? – a million miles away. The problem with the CT issue is that, to anyone who has not really looked in detail at what is being proposed, the ban seems laudable, fair and humane. Who wouldn’t be in favour of banning coercion and the emotional torture of gender-non-conforming persons? My hand would go up first. But scratch beneath the surface, and it's clear that this particular flavour of CT rolls back women's rights, makes lesbians invisible, and is not even helpful to trans people (esp kids) who should take their time to examine all angles before deciding whether to have life-changing, irreversible cross-sex hormones and surgery - and all its associated long-term health issues.
How can anyone be an expert on gender identity? It's no different to being an astrologer or a psychic medium, except that legally both of these usually have to be billed as "entertainment."
And how did the UN end up appointing an "expert" on something so vapid?
>>He recently conducted research into “The incorporation of and backlash against gender and gender identity in international human rights law”. <<
The backlash hasn't really begun yet: it's too soon. But at this point, if it comes to a ballot, I'll support a blanket ban on medical, surgical, and legal transition. They can get their cosmetic drugs and surgeries overseas, and their I.D.s can say "T". The only treatment I'd be willing to see insurance plans pay for is talk therapy and psych meds to treat the mental illness.
Why is it whenever a health professional says anything positive about affirmation they are considered quacks and a danger to children, yet all the people you quote who enforce your views are solid and should be taken seriously?
Not sure why a lawyer should be pontificating on matters medical / scientific.
I have no faith in the UN.
Is it that man in the photo? He looks exactly the sort I'd give a wide berth to on public transport or in the park. Wouldn't listen to a word he said. Dodgy AF.
"What a nut job. If the UN want to safeguard children, why don't they look at the treatment of children forced to work in tin mines in some countries, or girls used as sex slaves. Gender affirmation is a first world self indulgence. God I'm so angry.
Why do all of these people make me feel queasy and give me the creeps? Because their views are inherently wrong and harmful! That others can't or won't see this is bizarre. There is no scientific rigour applied here. Which studies? What evidence? (that's even a lazy legal argument FFS). Where is the control group, where are the peer reviews? That this should be applauded and launched to great fanfare by Harvard is tremendously worrying. By association they give it more credence than it deserves. I used to respect that institution, but not any more. Good grief.
What is it with so called 'Human Rights Aciviists'. ? Recently Filia had to issue a public statement on the misogynistic and sexual abusive language used by protestors holding signs, which clearly indicated that the individuals belonged to Amnesty International. This week Shami Chakrabarti insisted on remaining unhelpfully ambiguous in respect of the housing of natal males within the female prison estate. Since when has defending Human Rights involved such damaging treatment of vulnerable adolescent children, even to the extent that the health of these children may be threatened for the rest of their life?
Why do I get the feeling this "sexual orientation and gender expert" is the type of character who sees nothing wrong with the Pr*stasia Foundation?
Good report.
But how does a parent keep children away from all this?
Is he a homosexual? Cos if not very odd to be lead on sexual orientation but also if he is then another Tachell
As many will know, Scotland has a particular problem with such dangerous claptrap. Yesterday's 'Herald' and 'National' both ran pieces on the dodgy wisdom that came from the mouth of a UN 'expert'. It was a different expert though. According to the National, 'Dr Christine Ryan, senior legal adviser to the UN special rapporteur on the freedom of religion or belief, said states should affirm people's sexual orientation and gender diversity'. This half-baked article on a half-baked idea made reference to a Holyrood committee meeting which took place on 7th September 2021, easy to find in full on the web. This meeting was an opportunity for 2 TRAs (one gay male and one female who now calls herself male) to make their pitch in favour of a ban to a small group of MSPs, which included Green MSP Maggie Chapman. Yes, the same Maggie Chapman who was, until recently Secretary of Edinburgh Rape Crisis, the same organisation which decided that non-GRC certified Mr Mridul Wadwha was ideal for CEO. All other MSPs in this back-slapping, cosy gathering prefaced their remarks with disclosure that they had already signed the TRA's petition to ban CT in Scotland. Fair balance and scrutiny? – a million miles away. The problem with the CT issue is that, to anyone who has not really looked in detail at what is being proposed, the ban seems laudable, fair and humane. Who wouldn’t be in favour of banning coercion and the emotional torture of gender-non-conforming persons? My hand would go up first. But scratch beneath the surface, and it's clear that this particular flavour of CT rolls back women's rights, makes lesbians invisible, and is not even helpful to trans people (esp kids) who should take their time to examine all angles before deciding whether to have life-changing, irreversible cross-sex hormones and surgery - and all its associated long-term health issues.
How can anyone be an expert on gender identity? It's no different to being an astrologer or a psychic medium, except that legally both of these usually have to be billed as "entertainment."
And how did the UN end up appointing an "expert" on something so vapid?
>>He recently conducted research into “The incorporation of and backlash against gender and gender identity in international human rights law”. <<
The backlash hasn't really begun yet: it's too soon. But at this point, if it comes to a ballot, I'll support a blanket ban on medical, surgical, and legal transition. They can get their cosmetic drugs and surgeries overseas, and their I.D.s can say "T". The only treatment I'd be willing to see insurance plans pay for is talk therapy and psych meds to treat the mental illness.
Why is this lawyer dispensing medical advice?
Can somebody take the microphone away from Victor?
He is working ENTIRELY outwith his competence here.
Why is it whenever a health professional says anything positive about affirmation they are considered quacks and a danger to children, yet all the people you quote who enforce your views are solid and should be taken seriously?