The World Health Organization (WHO) has updated its 2011 manual titled Gender Mainstreaming for Health Managers: A Practical Approach, to include new guidance that now claims “sex is not limited to male or female.”
In a press release two weeks ago, the global health agency of the United Nations (UN) said it would now be recognizing “that gender inequality is a cross-cutting determinant of health that operates in conjunction with other forms of discrimination based on factors such as age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity or place of origin and sexual orientation.”
“The manual provides a basis for addressing other forms of health-related discrimination,” the WHO stated.
The agency’s updates appear to be rooted in a radical left framework, one that emphasizes “the concept of intersectionality, which looks at how gender power dynamics interact with other hierarchies of privilege or disadvantage, resulting in inequality and differential health outcomes for different people.”
The WHO says its manual will now be “going beyond binary approaches to gender and health to recognize gender and sexual diversity, or the concepts that gender identity exists on a continuum and that sex is not limited to male or female.”
“The review and update of the manual is being carried out in partnership with the United Nations University International Institute for Global Health,” WHO states.
Jane Orient, M.D., executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), says the updates are “simply preposterous.”
“Sex is indeed limited to male and female, and to insist otherwise is simply preposterous,” Orient told The Star News Network. “Females make eggs, and males make sperm. There are no intermediate or different kinds of gametes, and certainly no continuum. If you do not have a female gamete and a male gamete coming together, there will not be offspring.”
Orient explained that “binary” is “a feature of both nature and technology.”
“A switch is on or off, a battery terminal is positive or negative, a magnetic pole is north or south, an electrical or plumbing connector is an ‘outie’ or an ‘innie,’” she said. “That’s just how things are.”
The physician speculated on where a declaration that “sex is not limited to male of female” will lead:
If the number of genders is not two, there is no limit. If three, why not 50, or 100? If “gender” is defined as how one perceives one’s self or how one wants to present one’s self to the world, why force people into one of 50 or more boxes? Why not treat each person as a unique and precious human being? Don’t call me by my pronouns, call me by my name!
Orient added the WHO’s new framework also limits the concept of humanity to “sexuality – or hierarchies of privilege or disadvantage”:
Personality is not a matrix of age, ethnicity, race, class, religion, sexual orientation, etc. How does one begin to calculate “equity”? Does it have units of dollars, social credits, ration tickets, or what? Who decides whether to take something from person A to give to person B to make things equitable? Does this not disadvantage person A and privilege person B?
The Catholic League President Bill Donohue commented Thursday as well in a blog post that the WHO’s concept of “beyond non-binary” is beyond credibility:
There is not a credible person in the entire world who can persuasively tell us what “beyond non-binary” means. From the beginning of time, the only humans who have ever walked the face of the earth have been males and females. Similarly, contrary to what WHO says, sex is in fact limited to male and female.
Donohue condemned the hypocrisy of the WHO’s “purported commitment to human rights” as “particularly galling”:
We checked the latest U.S. State Department “Country Reports on Human Rights Violations” and found that only 6 of the 33 members come from nations where there are no serious human rights violations (Canada, Denmark, Slovenia, United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, Micronesia and Japan). Torture is ongoing in 15 of the nations, and genocide is being waged in China.
“Which raises the question: On what moral authority does the WHO executive board rest?” Donohue asked. “To put it a little more straightforward – what gives these misogynists and human rights offenders the right to lecture anyone?”
The WHO, an agency numerous members of Congress say is dominated by the Chinese Communist Party, is the arm of the U.N. to which the Biden administration quietly attempted, but failed, to hand over the United States’ decision-making power over its healthcare policies.
Joe Biden’s administration was dealt a stunning blow in May at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in its attempt to push through 13 amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) that would forfeit U.S. decision-making power regarding healthcare policies to the WHO.
At the WHA in Geneva, Switzerland, Biden’s proposed amendments – which it sent, with little media attention, to the WHO in January – received hearty support from nations such as the United Kingdom and Australia, as well as from the European Union (EU) – all of which urged nation member-states of the WHO to surrender their healthcare sovereignty to the U.N.’s health agency.
None of the 13 amendments were adopted, however, during the WHA meeting.
Other nations, including Africa, Brazil, Brunei, Namibia, Bangladesh, Russia, Malaysia, India, China, and Iran, all expressed concerns about Biden’s proposed amendments, with Brazil especially asserting it would choose to exit the WHO entirely rather than allow its people to be made subservient to the global agency.
– – –
Susan Berry, PhD, is national education editor at The Star News Network. Email tips to [email protected].
