UNFPA’s U-Turn on Youth & Family and the HHS Report on Sex-Rejecting Surgeries
UNFPA Reframes Youth Views on Family Formation
Almost exactly one year ago, UNFPA released a video where young people talked about their doubts about having children. We criticized the video because, in our view, it fits into a larger UN trend of promoting individualism over family life and supporting third-wave feminist ideas that downplay motherhood. We felt the video pushed a narrative that reflects the perspective of the UN bureaucracy more than how most young people actually feel. The choice of Washington Square Park, a well-known progressive spot in New York City, as an interview location highlights the bias.
When UNFPA widened its data collection for a recent report on youth perspectives on family formation, the result was that, by and large, young people actually have a positive view of family formation. Here are some findings from the report:
“More than two thirds of respondents want to marry or live with a partner.”
“Two children is the most commonly reported ideal family size in five out of seven regional groupings”
“Two thirds feel somewhat or very positive about the future despite worries about conflict, economic insecurity and inequality.”
Financial security is the top consideration for entering a partnership (81%) and parenthood (88%).
Accompanying the report, UNFPA has created a video now showcasing an optimistic tone about family formation among youth.
In the video, a young girl from Uzbekistan who works for UNFPA in New York admitted, “I live in a certain bubble of my friends who still are not ready to have a family, and this report showed me that I was wrong, and I should just look wider, and people still want that, specifically young people”
This comment perfectly depicts the state of affairs when it comes to ideological bias at the United Nations. We have talked about this problem of the UN being closed off to different views, always portraying young people as if they all think the same, ignoring opinions that don’t fit the widely accepted consensus in progressive advocacy, and carefully choosing event speakers and even attendees so as avoid having to defend their controversial policy stances in front of people who disagree.
The UN bureaucracy tries to justify leaving out differing voices, frames them as weird outliers, and then acts surprised after a study shows those voices are the actual majority.
Our Thoughts on the Recent HHS Report: Wolves in White Coats & UN Complacency
The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a report entitled “Wolves in White Coats,” documenting the involvement of hospitals in the provision of controversial gender-affirming treatments for minors. The study breaks down the financial incentives that come with running “gender-affirming treatment” programs in hospitals and other medical establishments, the potential fraud involved in obtaining insurance reimbursements for such services, and the ideological bias that drove most of these institutions to push gender-affirming treatments for minors despite a lack of proper scientific backing. The report also estimates that over “5,500 sex-rejecting surgeries” have been performed on minors in the US. This figure is staggering. We argue the UN bureaucracy has not only stayed silent but has also promoted this ideology.
When interviewed about the report, Adm. Brian Christine, who serves as the Assistant Secretary for Health at the HHS, explained what they mean by “wolves”: the “over 225 clinics for gender care in minors that were established throughout the country [...], the practitioners, the nurses, and the doctors who [...] led [these children] down this pathway of sex rejecting procedures.”
Among other things, Adm. Christine shed light on the financial incentives that come with introducing minors to gender-affirming procedures and how that effectively turns them into “captive patients” for life.
The report spoke of $120 million as the total spending on sex-rejecting procedures in the United States beginning with 2019. It estimated the following costs (not taking into account out-of-pocket costs) for the following treatments:
Cross-sex hormones (Female to Male / Male to Female): $500–700+ per year per patient.
Puberty blockers: Up to $12,000–14,000+ per year.
Overall Market: Over $120 million spent between 2019 and 2023 on minor procedures.
When discussing the testimonial section of the report, Adm. Christine mentioned that many patients and parents testified that they did not know about the long-term implications of these invasive procedures, information they were entitled to. Many others spoke of a sense of abandonment when seeking to detransition. “When these children decided, 'I made a mistake, I want to detransition,' they were virtually abandoned by the same wolves in white coats who led them down this pathway," Adm. Christine continued.
This report is one of the many resources documenting the harmful nature of gender affirming procedures for minors. It shows what common sense drove many to think from the onset of this push for “gender-affirming care”:
These procedures are running against biology: they are not treating a disease or correcting the course for the body to function as intended but causing a disease by hampering the natural course of development;
These procedures are highly experimental, and kids’ lives are valuable and should not be experimented upon;
Minors should not be expected to be able to consent to such life-altering treatments.
This is a human rights issue and concerns the protection of children. Where has the UN been in this discussion? Which UN agency or expert has spoken out about this serious harm to children? Where was UNICEF? Where was the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Children? Where was the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)?
Quite the contrary to condemning such treatments, some of these offices promoted language hinting that such services ought to be provided to minors! Here are some examples:
UN Independent Expert on SOGI & Joint Special Procedures: In 2017, they released a joint statement: “We also call on States to provide equal access to health care and access to gender affirming treatment to those who seek it.” The Statement was about “children and adolescents. ”
The UN Free & Equal Campaign and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health consistently frame gender-affirming care as a human right.
THE WHO: “The WHO reclassified ‘gender incongruence’ out of mental health disorders and into sexual health conditions, establishing that gender diversity is a natural variation rather than a psychological disorder.”
Last year, several NGOs held an event at the UN warning against these services and condemning the UN for contributing to this harmful ideology.
More recently, C-Fam reported that the United States “has proposed language in a UN document that warns of ‘sex-rejecting procedures’ on children.”
“The U.S. amendments, proposed in a resolution about mental health and psychosocial support, warn against the ‘increasing numbers of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria’ and the ‘increased use of pharmacological and surgical interventions as treatments for pediatric gender dysphoria,’ Stefano Gennarini says.
C-Fam feels the amendments would have received wide support. However, Mexico, the penholder of the resolution, withdrew the entire text rather than let the General Assembly vote on the US amendment. We hope there will be future opportunities to provide good language in UN resolutions that will protect children from these harmful practices.
News 🗞
Carolyn Rodrigues Birkett of Guyana moved into first place among the eight candidates seeking to become the next United Nations secretary-general after the Security Council held its second secret straw poll on Friday, August 21. Michelle Bachelet, the outspoken feminist and progressive favorite, fell surprisingly to seventh place, receiving only two “encourage” votes. READ in PassBlue and C-Fam
US Takes Lead in Global Pro-Life Coalition, READ.
Surrogate mother faces $100,000 lawsuit from biological parents for refusing to abort baby READ
Amnesty International Apologizes for Anti-Rights Report READ
Resources 💡
“Abortion saves lives? Not really.” Pro-Life Europe uses Malta’s low maternal and infant mortality rates to show that strong pro-life laws do not compromise women’s healthcare outcomes - READ
1 Pro Choice Woman vs 20 Pro Life Women | The Bridge - WATCH
