UN Report: South African Transgender Sports Resolution
March 26, 2019
Dear Friend of the Family,
Saturday, we reported to you on the outrageous, deceptive tactics and methods used last week both at UN headquarters in New York and at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva.
At the end of our breaking news report, we also promised you a more in-depth analysis of the South African transgender resolution on women and girls in sport adopted by the UN Human Rights Council and the outrageous abuses of the UN system at the 63rd session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW).
Today we will provide you with more details on the HRC resolution. We will also send you our full analysis of the CSW63 scandals and abuses soon..
First of all, thank you to so many of you who responded to our alerts (see here, here and here) by faxing and emailing Member States regarding the HRC transgender resolution.
Due your great efforts and the valiant actions of many like-minded UN Member States, we did score a major victory in pushing back the transgender agenda at the UN!
Yet from all the deceptive media reports (see here, here and here) you would think that all HRC Member States happily adopted by consensus, without any opposition, the deceptive transgender resolution introduced by South Africa.
You would also think from these deceptive media accounts, that the highly controversial transgender resolution only addresses intersex controversies in sports.
With regard to the alleged “consensus,” no less than 16 HRC Member States along with four UN Observer States disassociated themselves from the entire text of the transgender resolution!
This is a very serious step not taken lightly by UN Member States. Yet the media’s silence on this strong pushback against the transgender resolution has been deafening. In fact, the pushback was so strong by Member States that this resolution has been strongly discredited and can never be considered a true consensus document.
The number of States that rejected the transgender resolution represents over one-third of the Member States on the Human Rights Council! (See their joint statement here.)
Moreover, with regard to the substance of the resolution, none of the amendments that we suggested to focus the text narrowly on the intersex condition were accepted by South Africa. This was very telling of their true intentions.
Unfortunately, the text still uses the broad wording “women and girls with “differences of sexual development” rather than the medically correct term for the intersex condition “disorders of sexual development.”
The latter would indicate intersex athletes, the former can encompass any man or boy who wants to compete as a female.
In addition, South Africa rejected requests to replace the expansive term of “gender” in the text (which brings in the transgender definition) with the more specific term “sex.”
So how is the media justifying their deceptive accounts that the resolution achieved “consensus?” By titling the resolution “Eliminating all forms of discrimination against women and girls in sport,” without using any overt transgender terminology, South Africa made it politically toxic for any State to oppose it.
Because if a State were to oppose it, they would be immediately accused by the media of supporting discrimination against women and girls in sports generally.
So to avoid being accused of supporting discrimination against women generally, instead of calling for a vote on the resolution, the many States that strongly opposed it jointly disassociated from it pointing largely to procedural abuses (of which there were plenty) rather than substantive grounds.
The good news in all of this is that because more than one-third of the HRC members disassociated from the entire text, this makes this resolution toxic and contested.
It also certainly ensures that any of the text within the resolution can never be considered to be “agreed” UN consensus language.
To have so many States take the drastic step of disassociating from the transgender resolution is a major victory for the protection of women and girls, what it means to be male and female, and for the protection of the family.
We will keep you apprised as developments occur.
Also look for our much more extensive report on “CSW63: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” that we will send you soon.
Together we can and do make a difference for families worldwide.
Family Watch International
Defend the Family – Donate Today!
Family Watch International is a Section 501 (c)(3) organization under the IRS code, so contributions are tax-deductible for U.S. taxpayers.