(LifeSiteNews) — In July of last year, I reported that the World Health Organization (WHO) was quietly beginning to develop “guidelines” on transgender interventions. According to C-Fam, this was being done “to fight the rapid spread of bans and restrictions on ‘transgender surgeries and drugs, especially for children,” and would be oriented toward “increasing access and utilization of quality and respectful health services by trans and gender diverse people” [sic]. The WHO’s mission would include “health workers education and training” (the indoctrination of medical professionals) as well as the “legal recognition of self-determined gender identity” (implementing transgender premises in law).
C-Fam reported at the time that those involved in the creation of these guidelines were, without exception, “invested in expanding access to multi-billion dollar ‘transgender’ medical protocols, including for minor children,” including Chris McLahlan, a psychologist specializing in “transgender care,” Elma de Vries, co-author with McLahlan of the pro-LGBT World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s (WPATH) guidelines, Cianán Russell of ILGA-Europe, a leading LGBT activist group, and Ayouba El Hamri, a self-described transgender activist. In short, there was never any doubt as to the WHO’s intentions: to create a framework that would assist in the legal implementation of the transgender agenda worldwide.
As always with the World Health Organization, things can get worse. On December 28, Unherd reported that the WHO was planning to announce the new guidelines soon, and that the members of the “guideline development group” (their biographies can be accessed here) was a laundry list of LGBT radicals, including “trans activists employed by the Global Action for Trans Equality network, or GATE; the parent of a trans-identifying child; and at least one member with strong ties to the pharmaceutical industry.” Notably absent are “any critics, concerned clinicians, experts in child and adolescent development, specialists in neurodevelopment, or desisters and detransitioners in the WHO’s guideline development group.”
In fact, some panelists are radical even by the standards of the transgender movement. “Florence” Ashley, an assistant professor at the University of Alberta Faculty of Law who goes by the pronouns “They/Them/That B–tch” and “served as the first openly transfeminine law clerk at the Supreme Court of Canada,” actually argued in a 2019 paper for Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry that “puberty blockers ought to be treated as the default option” for children instead of “letting puberty run its course.” According to Ashley – who, I must remind you, has been tapped to assist in the development of transgender guidelines and shapes impressionable young minds at a major Canadian university:
Puberty blockers structurally place transgender and cisgender hormonal futures in approximate symmetry. Youth who take puberty blockers have their options wide open, their bodies unaltered by either testosterone or oestrogen. Although much remains unknown about the long-term effects of puberty blockers, limited empirical evidence and clinical experience make us more than justified in assuming that whatever risks puberty blockers have do not foreclose future life paths as much as undergoing puberty does.
Full credit to Eliza Mondegreen of Unherd for uncovering that paper – when I wrote about the YouTuber “Zinnia Jones” suggesting that all children whatsoever be placed on puberty blockers in 2020, I noted that Jones was fringe even by transgender movement’s standards. I had no idea that a Canadian academic had made the same case, in a peer-reviewed journal, a year earlier. What’s terrifying is that the idea of putting children, en masse, on demonstrably harmful drugs, was not considered disqualifying even as many European countries pull back from their use. Puberty blockers have an impact on brain development, reduce the density of bones, and stunt growth. They risk barring the user from reaching peak IQ, inhibit sexual function, thicken the blood, raise risk of heart attack by up to five times, create a higher risk of diabetes, blood clots, and cancer, and can result in vaginal atrophy – and that’s just what we know so far.
As for the WHO’s upcoming guidelines, the fix has always been in. According to Unherd, they “opened a brief window for public comment over the Christmas holidays — a window that closes just two days after Epiphany,” secure in the knowledge that virtually nobody would notice this window and that those that did could be safely ignored. The radicals running the show will get their way, and transgender activists will soon be able to claim that the “World Health Organization guidelines” unanimously support every single objective of the transgender movement and that it is our duty to “follow the experts.”