Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

International

UN report calls for ban on sex changes for children, declares transgenderism a threat to women

Published

4 months ago

9 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

The stunning report from the United Nations warns against an international push to erase women and girls.

A United Nations draft report by the special rapporteur on violence against women affirmed what many critics have long warned: that there is a “concerted international push (to) erase” women and girls, and that gender dysphoria is “socially contagious.”

The report, titled “Sex-based violence against women and girls: new frontiers and emerging issues: Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls,” was compiled by Reem Alsalem of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and warns that transgender ideology has become a threat to women.

Alsalem’s report is stunning considering that it comes from a United Nations office. For example, she warns that transgender ideology is resulting in the “erasure” of women:

Recently, there has been a concerted international push to delink the definition of men and women from their biological sex and erase the legal category of “women.” Such efforts have undermined the practical achievement of equality between men and women. Women are therefore being denied their rightful recognition as a distinct category in law and society. It is a form of “coercive inclusion” that relies on the expectation that women will be kind enough to sacrifice their own recognition and protection for the sake of others.

That, in so many words, is precisely what those of us critical of transgender ideology have been saying for years. Indeed, she goes on to condemn the purging of female-specific terms from language, pinpointing the terminology I have been writing about in this space for a decade:

The suppression of women in language and law occurs in several forms: by replacing sex-specific language with neutral language; by reinterpreting sex-specific language to refer to gender identity rather than sex; and by referring to females in dehumanizing, biologically reductive terms such as “birthing persons,” “menstruaters/bleeders” or “vagina havers” with “front holes.” Such a framing is accompanied by describing the distinction between male and female itself as “biological essentialism” and “an intrinsic expression of patriarchal structures,” rather than the material reality onto which oppressive gender norms and stereotypes are imposed.

Consider: That paragraph was not written by a conservative commentator or gender-critical feminist. It was penned by the head of a United Nations office. In fact, Alsalem also uses phrases that indicate an unwillingness to recognize “transgender identities” themselves as valid; she refers, at one point, to the “effort to provide recognition for males who identify as women or girls,” deliberately avoiding the approved ideological language of “transgender women” or “transgender girls.” Several pages later, after condemning governments for not collecting sex-specific data, she also takes a shot at the pornography industry, condemning the “system of pornography, which presents violent and dehumanizing depictions of women.”

Alsalem’s report reads like an outright rejection of the transgender agenda. She states that gender dysphoria is “socially contagious.” She praises the UK Supreme Court’s ruling that the legal definition of woman refers to biological sex,” stating that it “protects women and girls under a distinct category.” She even refers, at one point, to the “harmful consequences of social and medical transitioning of children” in a truly bombshell section that rejects the concept of “gender-affirming care” almost entirely, which I will quote in full:

There is also a significant co-occurrence of what is known as gender dysphoria or incongruence and autism spectrum disorder diagnoses. Research suggests that the odds of being diagnosed with gender or bodily dysphoria are three times higher for children and adolescents with an autism spectrum diagnosis compared with those without, with girls particularly affected. They are particularly vulnerable to the socially contagious stereotyped roles as a coping strategy, placing them at risk of erroneously adopting stereotypes as their core identity while experiencing dissociation from their sexed bodies. The long-lasting and harmful consequences of social and medical transitioning of children, including girls, are being increasingly documented.

They include: persistence or intensification of psychological distress; persistence of body dissatisfaction; infertility, early onset of the menopause and an increase in the risk of osteoporosis; sexual dysfunction; and loss of the ability to breastfeed in cases of breast mastectomy (to mention a few). That has rightly led several countries, such as Brazil, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom to change course and restrict children’s access to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery on sexual and reproductive organs.

Allowing children access to such procedures not only violates their right to safety, security and freedom from violence, but also disregards their human right to the highest standards of health and goes against their best interests. Children are also not able to provide informed consent for such procedures. In situations in which such procedures have been found to have caused grave and lifelong harm, consent would be meaningless for both adults and children.

Consider: Alsalem states, without proviso, that gender-affirming care harms children because it “violates their right to safety, security, and freedom from violence.” She recommends that UN member states ban transgender treatments and social transitioning for anyone under age 18. This is not only a repudiation of transgender ideology but an affirmation of everything that opponents of transgender ideology have been saying for a decade. She also advocates for limiting female-only spaces to females and warns that trans activists have been eroding both freedom of speech and belief in their attacks on women who disagree with them.

This report may prove to be a watershed moment in the international debate over the transgender agenda. It is certainly a rejection of much of what activists at the United Nations have been trying to accomplish over the last 10 years — and it is incredibly encouraging.

Jonathon Van Maren

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture War, Seeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion, Patriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life Movement, Prairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

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
Business / 4 hours ago

Large-scale energy investments remain a pipe dream

Business / 4 hours ago

I Was Hired To Root Out Bias At NIH. The Nation’s Health Research Agency Is Still Sick

Daily Caller / 14 hours ago

Trump Gives Zelenskyy Until Thanksgiving To Agree On Peace Deal, With U.S. Weapons And Intel On The Line

Business

I Was Hired To Root Out Bias At NIH. The Nation’s Health Research Agency Is Still Sick

Published on November 22, 2025

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Joe Duarte

Federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) continue to fund invalid, ideologically driven “scientific” research that subsidizes leftist activists and harms conservatives and the American people at large. There’s currently no plan to stop.

Conversely, NIH does not fund obvious research topics that would help the American people, because of institutional leftist bias.

While serving as a senior advisor at NIH, I discovered many active grants like these:

“Examining Anti-Racist Healing in Nature to Protect Telomeres of Transitional Age BIPOC for Health Equity” — Take minority teens to parks in a bid to reduce telomere erosion (the shortening of repetitive DNA sequences as we age). $3.8 million in five years and no results published – not surprising, given their absurd premise.

“Ecological Momentary Assessment of Racial/Ethnic Microaggressions and Cannabis Use among Black Adults” – This rests on an invalid leftist ideological concept – “microaggressions.” An example of a “microaggression” is a white person denying he’s racist. They can’t be validly measured since they’re simply defined into existence by Orwellian leftist ideology, with no attempt to discover the alleged aggressor’s motives.

“Influence of Social Media, Social Networks, and Misinformation on Vaccine Acceptance Among Black and Latinx Individuals” — from an activist who said the phrase “The coronavirus is genetically engineered” was “misinformation” and also conducted a bizarre, partisan study based entirely on a Trump tweet about recovering from COVID.

The study claimed that people saw COVID as less “serious” after the tweet. I apologize for the flashback to when Democrats demanded everyone feel the exact level of COVID panic and anti-optimism they felt (and share their false beliefs on the efficacy of school closures, masks, and vaccines ). NIH funded this study and gave him another $651,586 in July for his new “misinformation” study, including $200,000 from the Office of the Director.

I’m a social psychologist who has focused on the harms of ideological bias in academic research. Our sensemaking institutions have been gashed by a cult political ideology that treats its conjectures and abstractions as descriptively true, without argument or even explanation, and enforces conformity with inhumane psychologizing and ostracism. This ideology – which dominates academia and NIH – poses an unprecedented threat to our connection to reality, and thus to science, by vaporizing the distinction between descriptive reality and ideological tenets.

In March, I emailed Jay Bhattacharya, Director of NIH, and pitched him on how I could build an objective framework to eliminate ideological bias in NIH-funded research.

Jay seemed to agree with my analysis. We spoke on the phone, and I started in May as a senior advisor to Jay in the Office of the Director (NIH-OD).

I never heard from Jay again beyond a couple of cursory replies.

For four months, I read tons of grants, passed a lengthy federal background check, started to build the pieces, and contacted Jay about once a week with questions, follow-up, and example grants. Dead air – he was ghosting me.

Jay also bizarrely deleted the last two months’ worth of my messages to him but kept the older ones. I’d sent him a two-page framework summary, asked if I should keep working on it, and also asked if I’d done something wrong, given his persistent lack of response. No response.

In September, the contractors working at NIH-OD, me included, were laid off. No explanation was given.

I have no idea what happened here. It’s been the strangest and most unprofessional experience of my career.

The result is that NIH is still funding ideological, scientifically invalid research and will continue to ignore major topics because of leftist bias. We have a precious opportunity for lasting reform, and that opportunity will be lost without a systematic approach to eliminating ideology in science.

What’s happened so far is that DOGE cut some grants earlier this year, after a search for DEI terms. It was a good first step but caught some false positives and missed most of the ideological research, including many grants premised on “microaggressions,” “systemic racism,” “intersectionality,” and other proprietary, question-begging leftist terms. Leftist academics are already adapting by changing their terminology – this meme is popular on Bluesky:

DOGE didn’t have the right search terms, and a systematic, objective anti-bias framework is necessary to do the job. It’s also more legally resilient and persuasive to reachable insiders — there’s no way to reform a huge bureaucracy without getting buy-in from some insiders (yes, you also have to fire some people). This mission requires empowered people at every funding agency who are thoroughly familiar with leftist ideology, can cleanly define “ideology,” and build robust frameworks to remove it from scientific research.

My framework identifies four areas of bias so far:

  1. Ideological research
  2. Rigged research
  3. Ideological denial of science / suppression of data
  4. Missing research – research that would happen if not for leftist bias

The missing research at NIH likely hurts the most — e.g. American men commit suicide at unusually high rates, especially white and American Indian men, yet NIH funds no research on this. But they do fund “Hypertension Self-management in Refugees Living in San Diego.”

Similarly, NIH is AWOL on the health benefits of religious observance and prayer, a promising area of research that Muslim countries are taking the lead on. These two gaping holes suggest that NIH is indifferent to the American people and even culturally and ideologically hostile them.

Joe Duarte grew up in small copper-mining towns in Southern Arizona, earned his PhD in social psychology, and focuses on political bias in media and academic research. You can find his work here, find him on X here, and contact him at gravity at protonmail.com.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Trump Gives Zelenskyy Until Thanksgiving To Agree On Peace Deal, With U.S. Weapons And Intel On The Line

Published on November 22, 2025

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Wallace White

President Donald Trump is turning up the heat on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to accept a peace deal to end his war with Russia, and has set a deadline with potential consequences.

The U.S. is warning that certain weapons shipments and intelligence sharing could be at risk if Zelenskyy does not play ball with Trump’s peace proposal, Reuters reported on Friday. The president set a Thanksgiving deadline for Zelenskyy to sign off on the details. Speaking with Brian Kilmeade on Fox News Radio, Trump confirmed that date, saying that while deadlines can be extended, “Thursday is it.”

Speaking with Brian Kilmeade on Fox News Radio, Trump confirmed that, though deadlines can be extended, “Thursday is it.”

Zelenskyy signaled his willingness to discuss concessions outlined in the proposed peace deal despite objections from other European leaders over the terms, and said in a post on X that his whole government is at work on the individual points. However, the Ukrainian leader also said in a Friday video statement that the U.S. has put Ukraine in a position of “either losing its dignity or the risk of losing a key partner.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, said Friday Trump’s plan could “form the basis” for a final peace agreement.

A U.S. official told the Daily Caller News Foundation they “will not comment on sensitive peace discussions that may or may not have happened.”

“President Trump is working with both sides to end the war as quickly as possible, which has gone on for far too long, with too many senseless deaths,” the official said. “This would have never happened if he was President.”

Zelenskyy most recently has been embroiled in a corruption scandal, as the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine launched a probe into Zelenskyy’s business partner, who allegedly laundered $100 million from Ukraine’s nuclear energy company.

“It was strongly implied to the Ukrainians that the United States expects them to agree to a peace deal,” another U.S. official told the DCNF. “Any changes will be decided upon by the President himself.”

The Ukrainian leader has been working to shore up support in Europe as well, most recently signing a deal with France to obtain 100 Rafale jets for its air force. The deal also included anti-air equipment, drones and other munitions.

The Trump administration has worked to offload direct military support for Ukraine to partners in Europe, with NATO agreeing to purchase U.S. weapons to then ship to Ukraine, instead of the American government delivering directly.

Continue Reading

Trending

X