Dear Friend of the Family,
Please pass this urgent information on to the person in your government handling WHA negotiations in Geneva.
There are serious problems with the document on ending violence against children presently under the silent procedure until 2 pm today!
The proposed draft has dangerous new language in the sex ed para that is code for LGBT education. See our analysis below showing 12 harmful elements for children that still remain in paragraph OP1.6 bis. (NOTE: This paragraph became no. 10)
Of course if the term “sexuality education” is retained, then it will encompass LGBT elements anyway so it is vital that “sexuality education” be replaced with sex education, but better yet that the whole paragraph below be deleted!
Please encourage your diplomat to break the silence and oppose this paragraph with 12 serious harmful elements for children.
Thank you for sending on this urgent communication.
Let’s protect our children from the harmful CSE agenda.
Ending Violence Against Children through Health Systems Strengthening and
Agenda item 23
Below we have provided you with an analysis of the sex education paragraph that contains 12 harmful elements for children.
PLEASE, FOR THE SAKE OF CHILDREN, INSIST ON THE DELETION OF OP1.6 BIS!
OP1.6 bis To provide accessible gender-sensitive, free from gender stereotypes, evidence-based and appropriate to age and evolving capacities sexuality education to children, and with appropriate direction and guidance from parents and legal guardians, with the best interests of the child as their basic concern to empower and enable them to realize their health wellbeing and dignity, build communication, self-protection and risk reduction skills, as a fundamental part of the efforts to prevent, recognize and respond to violence against children;
12 Harmful Elements in OP1.6 bis
OP1.6 bis To provide #1. accessible #2. gender-sensitive, #3. free from gender stereotypes, #4. evidence-based and #5. appropriate to age and #6. evolving capacities #7. sexuality education #8. to children, and #9. with appropriate direction and guidance from parents and legal guardians, #10. with the best interests of the child as their basic concern to empower and enable them to realize their health wellbeing and dignity, build communication, self-protection and #11. risk reduction skills, #12. as a fundamental part of the efforts to prevent, recognize and respond to violence against children;
Providing access, according to UNICEF, means providing CSE without parental consent. For example, UNICEF’s publication Legal Minimum Ages and the Realization of Adolescents’ Rights states, “In accordance with their evolving capacities, children should have access to confidential counseling and advice without parental or legal guardian consent” (p. 32).
The term “gender-sensitive” has a double meaning; (a) sensitive to sex differences between women and men and/or (b) sensitive to multiple transgender gender identities. In other words, “gender sensitive” is code for transgender-inclusive sex ed which is a common element in sex ed programs. An example of “gender-sensitive” sexuality education is the ESA African teachers training module published by UNESCO and UNFPA which teaches on page 82 that “Gender Identity” means “Knowing whether one is male, female, neither, or somewhere in between.” Then there are also courses on “gender-sensitive” language while teaching sex ed like using transgender pronouns. See example here: https://eige.europa.eu/publications/gender-sensitive-communication/practical-tools/solutions-how-use-gender-sensitive-language
The most commonly understood meaning for “gender stereotypes” would be depictions of women as inferior or weaker than men or depicting women in roles that are typically female. However, “gender stereotypes” can also be understood to mean stereotypes that fail to be inclusive of LGBT identities. So if sexuality education is to be “free from gender stereotypes” positive examples of LGBTQ individuals, romantic relationships and families would need to be included. This second meaning is used in this OHCHR guidance:
“General gender stereotypes are directly harmful for LBT youth, as for all girls. However, these stereotypes cause special harm and exclusion to LBT youth, since they imply the inevitability of heterosexual relationships or of a particular gender expression. Indeed, many LBT individuals defy gender stereotypes by their very being…” See at https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CEDAW/WomensRightEducation/IGLHRCContribution.pdf.
In other words, this provision would require sexuality education that would be inclusive of various gender identities to balance sexual discussions about gender identity in accordance with biological sex/heterosexual identities.
While this sounds great as we all want effective sex education, unfortunately UN agencies and publishers of CSE curricula have co-opted this term falsely calling all CSE programs “evidence-based” and all abstinence programs “ineffective.” So by definition, according to the UN and their International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education, only CSE programs would qualify under this definition. This language is also aimed at excluding religiously-based or abstinence-based programs that UN agencies claim are not based on evidence. In fact, the UNESCO Guidance also claims that not only are abstinence programs ineffective, but they are “harmful” for children. This is false as a global study of CSE programs and abstinence programs worldwide shows that an alarming number of CSE programs increased sexual risk taking while abstinence programs had better results. (See at sexedreport.org.) However, the UN does not acknowledge that study and is still claiming only CSE is “evidenced based.”
One of the most deceptive and effective strategies used by CSE advocates to get CSE provisions adopted is to simply modify CSE with the phrase “age-appropriate.” Many governments have fallen for this tactic because they don’t understand that the “age-appropriate” modifier is meaningless. It may serve to make governments feel better about accepting CSE, but it will not and cannot change the harmful content of UN-mandated CSE. In other words, “age-appropriate sexuality education” is an oxymoron because by its very nature, CSE is never appropriate for any age. Just by labeling it so doesn’t make it so. It is kind of like saying age-appropriate p0rnography or age-appropriate LGBT and abortion rights education because that is what CSE is. For example, LGBT activists call materials “that help youth understand gender identity and sexual orientation” to be “age-appropriate” for any age. Add to that the World Health Organization’s Sexuality Education Standards for Europe actually recommend as age-appropriate for ages 0-4 to:
“Give information about enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s body … masturbation” and to teach 9-year-olds “Gender orientation and differences between gender identity and biological sex” and “information about pleasure, masturbation, orgasm.”
In other words, the so-called age-appropriate “qualifier” is deceptive because it does not specify what is “age appropriate” nor who gets to decide what is appropriate, and the UN’s idea of “age-appropriate” is radical beyond belief.
The “evolving capacities” principle is the most deceptive and dangerous of all the fake caveats. It is a loophole for removing parental rights to approve of or give consent for their child to have sexuality education. For example, UNICEF, in their publication Legal Minimum Ages and the Realization of Adolescents’ Rights states: “In accordance with their evolving capacities, children should have access to confidential counseling and advice without parental or legal guardian consent” (p. 32).
Then the World Health Organization in Section 3.2.4 of their publication Sexual Health, Human Rights and the Law requires “states to guarantee adolescents’ rights to privacy and confidentiality by providing sexual and reproductive health services without parental consent on the basis of their evolving capacities.”  Finally, although “the evolving capacity of the child” unfortunately was accepted in the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, that reference was not in the context of sexuality education, thus it should never be accepted in this context. States should NEVER accept that children of minor age can evolve to a point that it negates the rights of their parents to guide them. Such a vague and arbitrary standard as “the evolving capacity of the child” should never be repeated in UN documents as it only serves to limit parental rights.
UN agencies abide by the World Health Organization definition of “sexuality” which “encompasses sex, gender identities and roles, sexual orientation, eroticism, pleasure, intimacy and reproduction” and “thoughts, fantasies, [and] desires…”  Thus, “sexuality education” encompasses education about each of those controversial topics. At the link below, you can find content analyses of over 20 UN-supported or UN-published CSE guidelines, programs or materials, many of which have scored 15 out of 15 for harmful elements, including promoting sexual pleasure, LGBT rights and abortion. https://www.comprehensivesexualityeducation.org/cse-materials-index/.
This breaks dangerous new ground as previous sex ed paragraphs applied to adolescents or young people or youth and not to children in general. This paragraph now includes “children” with no age limit which means it applies to the youngest of children. This should not surprise us however, as it is in line with the WHO standards for sexuality education that recommends teaching “masturbation” to toddlers and “orgasm” and “gender identities” to 9-year-olds, See here at: https://www.comprehensivesexualityeducation.org/cse-materials-index/who-european-standards.
This phrase is intended to subject the parents’ role to what others deem “appropriate” and NOT what the parents think is appropriate. To see if this is true try proposing the deletion of “with appropriate” and watch the Europeans go crazy as they use “with appropriate” to limit the involvement of parents that oppose LGBT/abortion rights/sexualizing CSE programs published by UN agencies.
Unfortunately, “the best interest of the child” standard is often interpreted to mean that if the parents don’t agree with the school or the government that they can act in place of the parents to ensure “the best interest of the child.” In other words, if the parents don’t agree with their children getting CSE when this document dictates that children need CSE to be safe from violence then the school or the government can override the parents and make sure that CSE is “accessible” (i.e., not blocked by the parents) as that is in “the best interest of the child” according to this para. In other words, “the best interest” standard can be used to remove parental rights if the parents do not want their child to receive CSE because it will be claimed that they are not acting in their child’s best interest.
Risk reduction skills education assumes children will be sexually active and focuses on reducing the risk of pregnancy or STDs rather than eliminating the risk. In other words, “risk reduction skills” is a euphemism for condom and contraceptive instruction. Many CSE programs we have analyzed tell children they can engage in mutual masturbation or grinding or even sexting as a risk reduction skill that avoids pregnancy and STDs. Find that unbelievable? See this recent UNICEF/UNFPA/UNAIDS publication for Asia Pacific children wherein it actually states,
“A growing body of research has pointed to the ways in which consensual sexting can potentially fit within the healthy sexual development of older adolescents, by helping young people evaluate their own sexual feelings and actions.176,179 Sexting may be used to seek positive feedback on body image from peers, and therefore help to improve self-esteem and sense of identity.”
“Sexual avoidance” not “risk reduction” should be the approach to sex education because we want children of minor age to completely avoid sexual risk. We don’t tell children to use nicotine-reduced cigarettes or to smoke less potent marijuana or use less powerful drugs, we encourage children of minor age to avoid those risks completely. Even children who are sexually active can be encouraged to return to abstinence until they are older. In fact, a number of older adolescents who became sexually active early have expressed regrets and wish they had waited. Children of minor age should be taught that abstinence is the expected standard, and at a minimum, “sexual risk avoidance” should be added to any paragraph on sex or sexuality education even if “risk reduction” is retained, otherwise, risk avoidance (i.e., abstinence) will not be encouraged at all.
This establishes something that is inherently false. There are no studies that show that CSE contributes to the prevention, recognition, or responses to “violence against children.” There are some limited studies that show that sexual abuse prevention programs might have a limited impact in preventing or identifying sexual abuse, but such programs do not have all the harmful elements of CSE. If governments allow CSE to be considered “fundamental” in UN efforts to prevent violence against children that would be like adding fuel to a fire. This is because research shows 1) CSE programs increase sexual risk-taking behaviors in youth (see sexedreport.org), and 2) sexually active youth are more vulnerable to sexual violence.
PLEASE, FOR THE SAKE OF CHILDREN, INSIST OF THE DELETION ON OP1.6 BIS!
 World Health Organization. (2015). Sexual Health, Human Rights, and the Law. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/175556/9789241564984_eng.pdf?sequence=1
 World Health Organization. (n.d.). Sexual and Reproductive Health. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/sexual_health/sh_definitions/en/. WHO claims their “working definition” for sexuality does not necessarily represent the official position of WHO, yet they use this definition in their publications. It is often cited as authoritative by other entities, and many CSE programs do contain these controversial elements.