Despite the fact that close scrutiny of his social media posts failed to unearth any damning evidence to support this claim, the selection panel did not recommend him for the role. It was Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith who advocated for his appointment.
They need not have worried. The Human Rights Commission (HRC) submission to the Ministry of Health consultation on safety measures for the use of puberty blockers for gender dysphoric young people is a model of obesiance to trans ideology. The submission was publicly released earlier this month on their website.
The submission contains the predictable genuflection to the Treaty, Te Ao Maori values and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child but mostly it echoes the views of gender-affirming organisations such as the Professional Association of Transgender Health Aotearoa, the Endocrine Society, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.
The HRC’s conclusions and reasoning stand in stark contrast to international trends and research. For instance, despite the fact that jurisdictions all around the world are limiting or banning the use of puberty blockers for children, the HRC submission maintains that puberty blockers are safe and reversible. Indeed this is the position on its website on resources.
They acknowledge that there is “limited quality evidence for both the risks and benefits of puberty blockers for children experiencing gender incongruence” but say this is “unlikely to be unique to puberty blockers treatment – for example studies suggest only a minority of outcomes for health care interventions are supported by high quality evidence.”
They are less concerned with the high risks of sterilisation and mutilation inherent in gender-affirming care given that almost all children given puberty blockers will go on to cross-sex hormones and possibly surgery, than they are concerned that ‘the risks of not providing gender affirming care can be significant with life-long consequences.’
The submission raises the widely discounted fear that research shows concerning levels of mental distress for transgender and non-binary people, including high rates of suicidal thoughts and attempts. Recent research contradicts this, with evidence showing that Individuals who underwent gender-affirming surgery had a 12.12-fold higher suicide attempt risk than those who did not.
Even the highly regarded Cass Review which resulted in the immediate restriction of puberty blockers to minors outside of clinical research trials in the UK, is pasted for failing to be peer reviewed.
Throughout the submission the language and concepts of gender ideology are adopted unquestioningly. For instance, individuals are described as cisgender or non-binary and the HRC is in no doubt that transgender children exist. It claims that transgender children are a gender minority, estimated to be around 1% of New Zealand children.
Nowhere in their submission does the HRC raise objections and concerns made by sex realist groups, research or individuals. Nor does it explain that gender ideology is not founded in science. It is a faith-based system of thought relying on the unverifiable concept of a gender identity which gender ideologues argue may differ from an individual's biological sex.
In practice this may mean that a gender non-conforming child is led to believe they are the opposite sex. Recent research shows these gender distressed young people are likely to be autistic or same sex attracted while others may have suffered sexual trauma. Most, if left alone, will cease to identify as transgender as they move through puberty.
Astonishingly, instead of urging caution despite the poor quality evidence and obvious harms of medicalising gender distressed children, the submission states that since the risk of physiological harm is low, puberty blockers can continue to be prescribed, independent of any ongoing research. The HRC actually states that ‘it is essential to recognise the positive effects of puberty blockers on children’s mental health and the potential risks of not providing this care.’
The document was signed by Prudence Walker, the HRC’s disability right’s commissioner. A 2023 Stuff article described her as queer, in other words, a member of the church of gender. She’s got the pink hair to prove it.
Given the unscientific language and questionable findings of the HRC submission, it is not unreasonable to ask whether the body charged with “promoting and protecting human rights, ensuring dignity, equality, and respect for all, through addressing complaints, mediating disputes, and advocating for justice” is, indeed, fit for purpose.
Its submission on the safety of puberty blockers indicates that the HRC endorses the wholly unscientific ideology of gender. How can it then be taken seriously as an authoritative body?
While the new Human Rights Commissioner Stephen Rainbow did not write or sign off the submission, it was submitted following his appointment to the role. Instead of defending his reputation as ‘anti-trans’, he now needs to explain why he leads an organisation that supports these dangerous cultish views.
Yvonne van Dongen is a journalist, travel writer, playwright and non-fiction author. This article was first published HERE
The submission contains the predictable genuflection to the Treaty, Te Ao Maori values and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child but mostly it echoes the views of gender-affirming organisations such as the Professional Association of Transgender Health Aotearoa, the Endocrine Society, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.
The HRC’s conclusions and reasoning stand in stark contrast to international trends and research. For instance, despite the fact that jurisdictions all around the world are limiting or banning the use of puberty blockers for children, the HRC submission maintains that puberty blockers are safe and reversible. Indeed this is the position on its website on resources.
They acknowledge that there is “limited quality evidence for both the risks and benefits of puberty blockers for children experiencing gender incongruence” but say this is “unlikely to be unique to puberty blockers treatment – for example studies suggest only a minority of outcomes for health care interventions are supported by high quality evidence.”
They are less concerned with the high risks of sterilisation and mutilation inherent in gender-affirming care given that almost all children given puberty blockers will go on to cross-sex hormones and possibly surgery, than they are concerned that ‘the risks of not providing gender affirming care can be significant with life-long consequences.’
The submission raises the widely discounted fear that research shows concerning levels of mental distress for transgender and non-binary people, including high rates of suicidal thoughts and attempts. Recent research contradicts this, with evidence showing that Individuals who underwent gender-affirming surgery had a 12.12-fold higher suicide attempt risk than those who did not.
Even the highly regarded Cass Review which resulted in the immediate restriction of puberty blockers to minors outside of clinical research trials in the UK, is pasted for failing to be peer reviewed.
Throughout the submission the language and concepts of gender ideology are adopted unquestioningly. For instance, individuals are described as cisgender or non-binary and the HRC is in no doubt that transgender children exist. It claims that transgender children are a gender minority, estimated to be around 1% of New Zealand children.
Nowhere in their submission does the HRC raise objections and concerns made by sex realist groups, research or individuals. Nor does it explain that gender ideology is not founded in science. It is a faith-based system of thought relying on the unverifiable concept of a gender identity which gender ideologues argue may differ from an individual's biological sex.
In practice this may mean that a gender non-conforming child is led to believe they are the opposite sex. Recent research shows these gender distressed young people are likely to be autistic or same sex attracted while others may have suffered sexual trauma. Most, if left alone, will cease to identify as transgender as they move through puberty.
Astonishingly, instead of urging caution despite the poor quality evidence and obvious harms of medicalising gender distressed children, the submission states that since the risk of physiological harm is low, puberty blockers can continue to be prescribed, independent of any ongoing research. The HRC actually states that ‘it is essential to recognise the positive effects of puberty blockers on children’s mental health and the potential risks of not providing this care.’
The document was signed by Prudence Walker, the HRC’s disability right’s commissioner. A 2023 Stuff article described her as queer, in other words, a member of the church of gender. She’s got the pink hair to prove it.
Given the unscientific language and questionable findings of the HRC submission, it is not unreasonable to ask whether the body charged with “promoting and protecting human rights, ensuring dignity, equality, and respect for all, through addressing complaints, mediating disputes, and advocating for justice” is, indeed, fit for purpose.
Its submission on the safety of puberty blockers indicates that the HRC endorses the wholly unscientific ideology of gender. How can it then be taken seriously as an authoritative body?
While the new Human Rights Commissioner Stephen Rainbow did not write or sign off the submission, it was submitted following his appointment to the role. Instead of defending his reputation as ‘anti-trans’, he now needs to explain why he leads an organisation that supports these dangerous cultish views.
Yvonne van Dongen is a journalist, travel writer, playwright and non-fiction author. This article was first published HERE
10 comments:
I am not cisgender. What an ugly meaningless word. I am heterosexual and proud of it.
As for puberty blockers ... who cares. Time for people to take responsibility for their own decisions on personal matters. If they want to ignore the evidence and go with the trendy then so be it. Thereafter they can be happy and/or lick their own wounds in private. Not my business.
In my opinion energy would be better spent on issues relating to antibiotics abuse which does have very wide implications and giving people freedom over whether to vaccinate is a critical indeed lifelong matter of personal choice that we do not have, in real terms.
While Ms Walker, as a disabled person, may be able to speak from experience on matters affecting the disabled her listed qualifications of 'diplomas in Human Resource Management and Hospitality Management' plus a certificate in Te Reo would hardly seem to equip her to sign off on a report concerning such a complex and controversial issue.
And as for this statement: ' Human rights in Aotearoa New Zealand are grounded on Te Tiriti o Waitangi' ... what rubbish.
Looks as if Goldsmith has stuffed up on this as well!
I passed exams on international law which includes international human rights law. I have a PGDip hanging on the wall hiding a patch of discoloured wall paper to prove it. But I'm just not on the same wavelength as these people.
For a human right to be called a human right, it has to be universal. There can't be such a thing as Anglo-Saxon HR, Dutch HR, Chinese HR, Maori HR, etc. Human rights are rights that automatically come with being human. This was a radical idea in the 18th century but it became one of the foundations of the Enlightenment.
Have a good look around for international human rights instruments that explicitly spell out rights for homosexuals such as same-sex marriage, or for children who have been badgered into thinking they are not the sex they actually are. Good luck - you won't get far.
Also do have a peek at my published paper
Vlaardingerbroek, B. (2015). The shaky legal foundations of the global human rights education project. Journal of International Social Studies, 5(1), 165-171.
I have a copy of this on my desktop computer and would be pleased to send any interested reader a copy. I have published related papers in this journal and in a British one.
My email is bv_54@hotmail.com
We are one race and that is human, therefore human rights are the rights of the human race, period!
Two quick points. One, a race is a biological entity below the subspecies, not the whole species. There is no such thing as 'the human race'. Two, the rights of a race would be collective rights of a group entity rather than the sum of the rights of the individuals making up that group. To speak of racial rights (e.g. rights of the Germanic race) is skating on very thin ice.
I think the question we in the west should be asking ourselves is, are our governments fit for purpose.
I had conted on Stephen Rainbow to be a voice of sanity in this lunacy. Surely he must make a stand.
Anon@11.48 "who cares..." well I'm assuming you're an adult? These puberty blockers are being given by adults to children for goodness sake. Does that not conjure even the slightest element of social responsibility in you? If not, then you deserve contempt for you mirror too many NZrs these days, who turn a blind eye through either ignorance or apathy.
As for the HRC publishing this woke nonsense, as it's leader, Mr Rainbow has some explaining to do. Without a satisfactory response, the HRC is no longer fit for purpose and the money saved should be expended on something useful, like cancer drugs or screening.
I think the point of Anon @11.48 is that we are too controlled in an ad hoc - may be politically correct- way. We are controlled by the 'system' on gender identity, language and vaccines but not puberty blockers. And many people just go with control despite high quality information to the contrary being available. Frankly, if that's your level of personal responsibility then you deserve the consequences. That includes accountability to those you damage.
From my perspective I would not give vaccines or blockers to a child. Yet it is de facto mandatory for one yet I have choice over another. I would prefer to have puberty blockers banned and vaccines informed and personal choice with personal responsibility.
In summary I think anon 11.48 makes an interesting observation on attitudes, control and responsibility.
Post a Comment