UN Global Gay Frontier Human Rights Universal Decriminalization Homosexuality

A World Wide Global Revolution Is Underway To Obtain What UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon And Barack Obama Call The Final Frontier In Human Rights. To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before UN Agenda 2030 The Universal Decriminalization Of Homosexuality And Pedophile's And Full Term Abortion.

Show more

After years of long diplomatic struggle, several world leaders have declared themselves in favor of the universal decriminalization of homosexuality. But victory won’t come easily. The countries that still punish homosexuality refuse to give in to international pressure. Global acceptance and equality will take time to achieve. the universal decriminalization of homosexuality. Remarks by President Obama and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon April 11, 2013 After Meeting Oval Office.

Homosexuality is forbidden in almost half of the world. Out of 196 UN member states, there are 7 where it is punishable by death. In 84 others, it can merit prison and physical punishment. But today, momentum is building and the debate on gay rights is omnipresent - whether it be regarding legalization in the Middle-East and Africa or the focus of gay marriage laws in the West.

After years of long diplomatic struggle, several world leaders have declared themselves in favor of the universal decriminalization of homosexuality. But victory won’t come easily. The countries that still punish homosexuality refuse to give in to international pressure. Global acceptance and equality will take time to achieve.

‘Global Gay’ follows this battle for decriminalization through the lives and work of some of its fearless pioneers, providing a vibrant chronicle of the growing global social movement. In the words of Ban Ki Moon, “The time has come”. Filmed in Russia, Cuba, Cameroon, Nepal and South Africa.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, it is wonderful to have the opportunity to welcome my good friend, Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, to the Oval Office. He and I consult quite frequently and in various multilateral settings, but this has been a useful opportunity for us to talk more specifically about how the United States and the United Nations can work together.

Let me first of all say that I think I speak for world leaders in a wide variety of countries when I say that the Secretary General has shown outstanding leadership during what has been one of the most challenging and turbulent times in international affairs. I think he’s fair-minded. I think he has shown a willingness to tackle tough issues and to speak hard truths, and I very much appreciate personally the work that he’s done.

Sometimes people ask why the United States is so devoted to the United Nations, and, obviously, beyond the fact that we helped set up the United Nations, what was true 60, 70 years ago is still true today. And that is that without a forum for discussion, negotiation, and diplomacy, the world is a worse place, and it is very much in the United States’ interests to ensure that international norms, rules of the road, and humanitarian norms are observed. And the United Nations gives us a critical opportunity to try to prevent conflict, create peace, maintain stability -- all of which ultimately is good for America’s security and America’s prosperity.

We discussed a wide range of issues during this meeting. We started with Syria, where obviously the humanitarian crisis has gotten worse. And Secretary General Ban and I shared the view that we are at a critical juncture; that it is important for us to bring about an effective political transition that would respect the rights of all Syrians; and that, in the interim, it’s important for us to try to eliminate some of the carnage that’s been taking place directed at civilians and non-combatants.

And so we’ll be strategizing about how the United Nations -- or the United States -- which is the largest donor to the humanitarian assistance in Syria, and is also a strong supporter of the more moderate elements of the Syrian Opposition -- can work together with the United Nations to bring about if not a full resolution to the crisis, at least an improvement for the people of Syria and lay the foundation for a kind of political transition that is necessary.

We had an opportunity to discuss North Korea, where the Secretary General obviously has an important political interest but also a personal interest as a native of the Republic of Korea. And we both agree that now is the time for North Korea to end the kind of belligerent approach that they’ve been taking, and to try to lower temperatures -- nobody wants to see a conflict on the Korean Peninsula. But it’s important for North Korea, like every other country in the world, to observe the basic rules and norms that are set forth, including a wide variety of U.N. resolutions that have passed. And we will continue to try to work to resolve some of those issues diplomatically, even as I indicated to the Secretary General that the United States will take all necessary steps to protect its people and to meet our obligations under our alliances in the region.

We talked about Middle East peace, where there is at least a window of opportunity for both Israelis and Palestinians to get back to the peace table. And we explored how the United States, as a strong friend of Israel and a supporter of a Palestinian state, can work with the United Nations and other multilateral bodies to try to move that process forward.

And we also had an opportunity to talk more broadly about an issue that affects every country, and that is climate change. And I appreciate very much the Secretary General’s leadership on that front.

The last point I’d make is that the Secretary General has actually shown significant progress in U.N. reform -- making the institution more efficient, more effective. I think the Secretary General would be the first to acknowledge that there is more work to do on that front, but he is making an earnest effort in making progress. And we very much appreciate that and encourage that to continue, because we think we need a strong, healthy United Nations, but at a time when all the member countries are under severe fiscal constraints, we want to make sure, obviously, that the United Nations is operating as efficiently as possible.

So, overall, I found it to be a very useful conversation, and I want to thank, once again, the Secretary General for his leadership. The Secretary General has been quoted as saying that there is no opt-out clause to the great challenges that we face around the world, and I assured him that the United States of America, as the largest economy and the most powerful military in the world, has no intention of opting out any time soon.

We have a deep interest in making sure that the United Nations and the various international institutions that we have are functioning effectively, because when they do, the United States does well and all its partner countries do well. And so I’m looking forward to continuing to support his efforts in any way that I can.

Thank you very much.

SECRETARY GENERAL BAN: Thank you, thank you very much, Mr. President. I really appreciate President Obama for inviting me to the Oval Office, and I really appreciate your global leadership to make this world more peaceful, more prosperous, and where all human rights are protected and respected.

The United Nations and the United States share common goals in peace and security, human rights and development. In that regard, I really appreciate such a strong leadership and cooperation and support of the U.S. government and President Obama. You and the American people care about the world of justice, freedom, and opportunity for all. I am very confident that the partnership between the United Nations and the United States is now making very solid foundation and strong and stronger, and I count on your continuing support on that.

As President Obama has just explained in detailed manner, I do not have much to add to all the subjects, but if I may just say a few words from my own perspective as the Secretary General. On Syria, this is the most troubling situation, where all the leaders of the world should really take much more strengthened leadership on. I have asked President Obama to demonstrate and exercise his stronger leadership in working together with the key partners of the Security Council.

As the Secretary General, I have been working very closely with Joint Special Representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, and I will continue to do that. Unfortunately, this crisis, having entered a third year, in the absence of a political solution, we have seen well over 70,000 people be killed, and more than 50 percent of schools, hospitals, and all infrastructures have been destroyed. More than 6 million people have been internally displaced, and we have 1.3 million refugees around the neighboring countries of Syria. This continuing military struggle as well as intensifying this sectarian war -- make us really worried that unless we stop this violence, this whole Syrian society may be destroyed. We have been mobilizing all possible humanitarian assistance, and I really appreciate President Obama and his government’s very generous support on this humanitarian assistance.

On chemical weapons investigation, it’s regrettable that the Syrian government has rejected my offer to engage in an investigation. This is my authority in accordance with the General Assembly and Security Council resolutions. I sincerely hope that the Syrian government will allow so that this investigation team will be able to conduct investigation, as requested by them. And I have received requests from other member states. That’s why I have already assembled very experienced experts as a team. They are now ready. They can be deployed any time soon. So this is my original plan.

On the situation in and around the Korean Peninsula, I am deeply concerned, and we share such a grave concern together on these continuing tensions on the Korean Peninsula. I urge the DPRK authorities to refrain from making any further provocative (inaudible) and rhetoric. This is not helpful. And I really highly commended President Obama’s firm, principled, but measured response in close consultation with the Republic of Korea government and with strong engagement with neighboring countries like China.

We hope that more of the countries, including China, who may have influence over North Korea, can exercise their leadership and influence so that this situation will be resolved peacefully. First and foremost, tension levels must come down. North Korea should not confront the international community as they are now doing. I hope that concerned parties, including the United States, China, the Republic of Korea, and Russia, and Japan will continue to work together on this matter.

On Middle East, I really appreciate President Obama’s initiative to visit the region. We need to do more of our efforts to fully utilize the generated momentum by President Obama’s visit so that a two-state solution can be successfully implemented as soon as possible.

On climate change, I intend to work very closely with the member states so that the legally binding global treaty can be achieved by the end of 2015. And for that possible -- to facilitate this process, I intend to convene a leaders meeting sometime next year. I have invited President Obama. I invited him to play a very important leadership role for humanity.

As far as the United Nations reform is concerned, we will continue to make this organization more effective, efficient, accountable, and more trustworthy. I thank you for your leadership.

Why Same-Sex Marriage Wins and Abortion Keeps Losing President Joe Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act, which codifies federal protection of same-sex and interracial marriages and requires every state to extend “full faith and credit” to such licenses granted by other states. The bill passed with bipartisan support: 39 Republican representatives and 12 Republican senators joined all the Democrats to vote yea. A USA Today op-ed by Evan Wolfson, leader of the Freedom to Marry campaign, called the Respect for Marriage Act “a triumph for families [and] freedom.”
The impetus for the Respect for Marriage Act was Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion supporting the majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. Unsatisfied with trashing the 50-year-old right to abortion, Thomas urged the Supreme Court to revisit — presumably to overturn — “all” the precedents of Roe establishing constitutional protections of personal, intimate decisions. Among these are the rights of married people to use contraception and of same-sex couples to have consensual sex and marry.

Enough lawmakers were alarmed by the potential obliteration of long-established freedoms to rescue at least one. But they could not manage to restore what Dobbs actually obliterated: pregnant people’s human right to bodily autonomy.

A year and a half earlier, just weeks after Texas banned almost all abortions and a national ban loomed, the Women’s Health Protection Act, “to protect a person’s ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy and to protect a health care provider’s ability to provide abortion services,” was rushed out of committee. The bill had 215 co-sponsors, all Democrats, and zero Republican support. It passed the House in September 2021 and faltered in the Senate when three Ds and three Rs ducked out and West Virginia Democrat-in-name-only Joe Manchin voted against the motion to proceed. When the Republican Party takes control of the House in January, the Women’s Health Protection Act will be dormant for the duration.

Why did same-sex marriage sail through Congress with barely a headwind, while reproductive liberty continues to meet typhoons of opposition — or at best, lose momentum and go nowhere?

The reason: While same-sex marriage upholds the family, abortion’s principal job — its superpower — is to free women, and the sex they have, from it. This is an uncomfortable fact for some reproductive rights activists, who try to shoehorn abortion into the conservative arguments that support marriage.

NO UNION IS more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.” That is not the first line of a sermon delivered in a Southern Baptist megachurch. It is the first finding of the Respect for Marriage Act.

It could also have been the intro to the legislation the RMA repeals, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, whose purpose was to define marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman,” deny federal benefits to marital partners of the same sex, and allow states to refuse to recognize their marriages legalized elsewhere.

Pro-choice propaganda, amicus briefs, and Supreme Court opinions always point out that reproductive self-determination is good for families — that, while most abortion-seekers are young and unmarried, the majority already have children. These pregnancy-terminators, in other words, are family members.

But that argument only goes so far. Evan Wolfson has had it wrong all along: Families and freedom are at odds, and the freedoms that family abridges are almost always women’s and children’s. No wonder marriage is extolled by every patriarchal religion and authoritarian regime. The slogan of Georgia Meloni’s fascist “Brothers of Italy” party, for instance, is “God, Family, Fatherland.”

“Love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.” The missing word is sex — and marriage equality proponents do their best to keep it so. When the Vermont legislature held hearings about civil unions — the state’s rehearsal for full-on marriage — lesbian and gay witnesses described their coupled lives: raising kids, playing with the dogs, paying taxes. “Do you want to know what Christopher and I do in bed?” one man asked. “We sleep.” Just like you dried-up old married heterosexuals.

Unlike marriage, abortion cannot divorce itself from sex. After all, a marriage can be sexless, but an unplanned pregnancy cannot. Sex could not give a fuck about the marital virtues on the list. If marriage is (putatively) about devotion to another person, abortion protects other devotions: to art, work, friendship, solitude. If marriage is about sacrifice, abortion repudiates the sacrifice of uterus-bearing people to their reproductive capacity. Love of a child or a partner may come into the decision to end a pregnancy, but in the end, the love enacted in abortion is self-love.

Abortion, moreover, abets personal ambition, which is irrelevant and even antagonistic to happy marriage. Abortion, says the Women’s Health Protection Act, is “central to people’s ability to participate equally in the economic and social life of the United States.” The language echoes Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the majority in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey. O’Connor stressed that control over reproduction is also critical to women’s ability to plan families. But in this, perhaps her most-quoted sentence, she was suggesting that would-be mothers have bigger fish to fry. Abortion emancipates them to do it.

THE REPEALED Defense of Marriage Act protected the institution of marriage. The Respect for Marriage Act aims to “ensure respect for the State regulation of marriage.” But despite opposing intentions, the laws unanimously endorse marriage as an essential, benevolently regulating institution: the sine qua non of social stability and sexual order.

While not articulating it, they also both stand by marriage as a handmaiden of capitalism. As Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote, the family produces workers and reproduces labor value for capitalist exploitation. Socialist feminists add that the family (meaning women) performs the unpaid care work that should be the state’s responsibility to support. You don’t have to be a Marxist to sense that the Respect for Marriage Act is a conservative piece of legislation.

By contrast, the Women’s Health Protection Act reads like a feminist manifesto. Restrictions on abortion are “a tool of gender oppression,” paternalistic,” and “rooted in misogyny,” it says. They “perpetuate systems of oppression … white supremacy, and anti-Black racism.” The act promotes reproductive justice: the right not just to end a pregnancy, but also to continue one in health and dignity, and raise children in safe, nourishing, violence-free environments. The WHPA implies that abortion is a tool of liberation, a tool to dismantle the master’s misogynist, white supremacist, racist house.

The Women’s Health Protection Act is not the only radical gender-equality bill that’s been exiled to oblivion. The House passed the federal Equality Act, prohibiting “discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity,” in 2020 and 2021. Nobody bothered to bring it up in 2022, while Republicans campaigned against the very idea of gender identity.

The Equality Act is the child of the Equal Rights Amendment: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Introduced in 1972 and approved by Congress in 1978, the Equal Rights Amendment fell three states’ ratification short of the 38 required for adoption. Each year it is reintroduced and floats into a black hole.

The trans theorist and activist Paisley Currah argues that the function of the sex/gender system has always been to keep women from getting stuff. But as gender differentiation weakens in work, civic life, families, fashion, sex — and bodies themselves — the categories man, woman, male, and female are losing their salience. Abortion, like legal recognition of trans people, vitiates the power hierarchies seated in biology.

What if potential gestators (as feminist theorist Sophie Lewis calls the carriers of fetuses, regardless of their nominal gender) had the freedom to deploy and enjoy their bodies as they wished? Would they muster Amazon armies and storm the patriarchy? Would they abandon domestic and reproductive labor and retire to their bedrooms with vibrators in hand? Would they never marry again? And if the law gives bodily autonomy to pregnant people, who else will demand it?

Legal Position of Pedophiles Annotation
A discussion of the nature of pedophilia and arguments against strict legal sanctions in pedophilia cases are presented in a paper for the 1977 Psychiatric Juridical Society meeting in Amsterdam.

Abstract
A differentiation is made between adults who prefer sexual relationships with children under 16 years old from individuals who have engaged in relations with youths only because no other adults were available. The confusion of these different types of individuals is responsible for the negative image of the psychopathic child molester, even in scientific literature. Very little is actually known about causes or types of pedophilia, although the condition appears most frequently to involve the inclination of men for young boys 12 to 15 years old. Such friendships between older men and boys are viewed as a means of introducing youths to meaningful, emotionally and intellectually fulfilling relationships. From the author's perspective, laws against such relationships are based on taboos which hinder positive development of human emotions. Surveys of students estimate the frequency of relationships between younger and older men or women at as high as 35 percent of the population. Survey respondents consider the friendships everyday events and seldom report negative aftereffects. A number of studies indicate that juveniles are more likely to be traumatically affected by reactions of police and parents than by the sexual contact itself. In fact, upon the recommendation of a number of social service organizations the number of prosecutions for pedophilia in Holland since 1967 has dropped considerably. The author points out that suppression of sexuality in juveniles is correlated to criminality and violence. It might therefore be possible to reduce violence through physical pleasure in a meaningful human context. Children should have the right to control their own sexual lives and follow their own natural sexual inclinations. Protective laws should only come into play when violence or abuse is used with children. A bibliography (of ca. 60 entries) is furnished.

Common Characteristics Of A Pedophile Pedophiles don’t have signs on their backs or neon arrows pointing over their heads. It’s easier to believe that the “dirty old man in the park” rather than the clean-cut bus driver down the street is a pedophile.

Pedophiles aren’t confined to our Catholic churches. They are in Protestant churches, synagogues, and mosques. Some of them are teachers, counselors, scout leaders, truck drivers, factory workers, and youth ministers.

In fact, they are wherever children can be found, irrespective of age, race, education, occupation, class, social standing, or income.

Celibacy isn’t the reason priests prey on children. Sexual attraction to children, and sexual gratification from children, are the reasons.

Characteristics of a Pedophile
There is no hard and fast profile of a pedophile.

Here are some general characteristics:

Popular with both children and adults.
Appears to be trustworthy and respectable. Has good standing in the community.

Prefers the company of children. Feels more comfortable with children than adults. Is mainly attracted to prepubescent boys and girls. Can be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.

“Grooms” children with quality time, video games, parties, candy, toys, gifts, money.
Singles out children who seem troubled and in need of attention or affection.

Often dates or marries women with children that are the age of his preferred victims.
Rarely forces or coerces a child into sexual contact. Usually through trust and friendship. Physical contact is gradual, from touching, to picking up, to holding on lap, to kissing, etc.

Derives gratification in a number of ways. For some, looking is enough. For others, taking pictures or watching children undress is enough. Still others require more contact.

Finds different ways and places to be alone with children.

Are primarily (but not always) male, masculine, better-educated, more religious than average, in their thirties, and choose jobs allowing them greater access to children.

Are usually family men, have no criminal record, and deny that they abuse children, even after caught, convicted, incarcerated, and court-ordered into a sex offender program. The marriage is often troubled by sexual dysfunction, and serves as a smokescreen for the pedophile’s true preferences and practices.

Are often, but not always, themselves victims of some form of childhood sexual abuse.

Even if the pedophile has no children, his home is usually child-friendly, with toys, books, video games, computers, bikes, swing sets, skateboards, rec room, pool, snacks – things to attract children to his home and keep them coming back. Usually the items reflect the preferred age of his victims.

A female pedophile usually abuses a child when partnered with an adult male pedophile, and is often herself a victim of chronic sexual abuse.

A pedophile can act independently, or be involved in an organized ring, including the Internet, NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association), and other pro-pedophilia groups. Some pedophiles recognize that their behavior is criminal, immoral, and unacceptable by society, and operate in secrecy. Some are quite open and militant about their practices and advocate the normalization of pedophilia under the guise of freedom of speech and press, and uses innocuous language like “intergenerational intimacy.”
Pedo means “child” in Greek. Phile is a derivative of Greek, Latin, and French, meaning “love.”

The Exclusive type of pedophile is attracted to children only. The Non-Exclusive is attracted to both children and adults.

Abuse Patterns & Treatment
A pedophile will not stop on his own, and will not turn himself in, because he does not take responsibility for his behavior and denies that he’s doing anything harmful. He will abuse until he’s caught.

A child does not always recognize when he or she is being abused, manipulated, or groomed by a pedophile. Unless the pedophile is a sexual sadist, he does not have to threaten a child into silence. The trust, gifts, secrecy, and “relationship” are enough.

In some cases, the abuser will coerce the child into silence by saying that if anyone finds out, he would go to jail, or the child would, and maybe the child’s parents. In other cases, threats to harm the child, pets, and family are used.

Pedophiles can be “treated” but never cured, because their sexual preference has always been, and always will be, children. Their urges will always be present. Therefore, treatment focuses on changing, curbing, or re-directing the acting-out behaviors of pedophiles.

Summary
Knowing the profile of a pedophile, does this mean that the little league coach who has a great rapport with kids and treats them to pizza at his house is suspect? Or that the teacher who throws pool parties is? Of course not.

The majority of people who like and work with children are not pedophiles. It does mean that we should be observant of all the adults in our children’s lives, whether they wear a white collar, a blue collar, or a clerical collar.

If a child tells us he or she has been sexually abused by someone, be it family, friend, or trusted adult, we are obligated by law to report it to a child abuse hotline, police, or local children’s services agency.

Questions and Answers on Late-Term Abortion What is a Late-Term Abortion?

“Late-term” abortion is an imprecise term, but under any “formal” definition offered or as accepted by the public at large late-term abortions refer to abortions at least in the 2nd trimester of pregnancy, when an unborn child can feel pain.

Authorities have disagreed on how the phrase should be defined, with some including any abortion performed after the 20th week of gestation and others limiting the term to the third trimester (approximately 27 weeks of gestation to delivery). Use of the term is also sometimes rooted in the concept of viability, or that stage of pregnancy where, on average, an unborn child can survive on his or her own outside the womb, albeit with medical support. Besides being specific to an individual baby’s overall physical condition, “viability” itself is a term whose application varies over time, occurring earlier in pregnancy as active treatment resources increase and medical technology and skills improve.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s abortion surveillance system categorizes abortions occurring from 21 weeks onward as its highest gestational age category, and the system does not distinguish abortions by week beyond 21 weeks.

How Many Late-Term Abortions Are Performed in the United States Each Year?

Data from both the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute on total abortions and late-term abortions suggests that approximately 1.1 to 1.3% of abortions are carried out at 21 weeks of gestation and later.

The true percentage may be even higher, as the CDC estimate does not include multiple states where late-term abortions take place (including California and Maryland). The most recent national abortion total from the Guttmacher Institute and its direct surveys of abortion facilities found that there were an estimated 862,320 abortions in the United States in 2017, and CDC and state reports indicate that abortions have increased since then.

Even using these low estimates, that translates into approximately 10,000 late-term abortions every year. In 2019, for example, late-term abortions constituted as much as 12% of all abortions in New Mexico.

Each year, over 50,000 abortions are performed after 15 weeks of gestation, when unborn babies can feel pain.

Are the Vast Majority of Late-Term Abortions Performed in Cases of Threat to the Mother’s Life/Fetal Abnormality?

Defenders of late-term abortion frequently make the assertion that late-term abortions are “almost always” carried out in cases of severe fetal abnormality or danger to the mother’s life. In reality, the concept of “medical necessity” in the context of late-term abortion is misleading, and many late-term abortions are elective, frequently complicated by coercion, indecision and partner abandonment.

In reporting on the results of a study of late-term abortions in 2013 (Foster, Kimport) in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, a publication of the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, the authors acknowledge that “data suggests that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.”

Using interviews and questionnaires, the authors compared 272 women who obtained abortions at or after 20 weeks with 169 women who had abortions prior to 20 weeks and found that the rationales cited by the two groups were essentially the same – stressful circumstances of unprepared pregnancy, single-motherhood, financial pressure, and relationship discord.

The Foster-Kimport study excluded for comparison an unidentified number of women who had abortions for reasons of life endangerment or fetal anomaly, a significant limitation. In an April 2018 report for the Congressional Research Service, however, Dr. Foster is cited as believing “that abortions for fetal anomaly ‘make up a small minority of later abortion’ and that those for life endangerment are even harder to characterize.”

Late-term abortion specialist Dr. Warren Hern has published research indicating that abortions on babies with abnormalities made up just 30% of the 1,251 abortions his center performed between 2007 and 2012, although he did not share the percentage of specifically late-term abortions that were performed on healthy babies. However, another paper by Hern reviewed 1,040 late-term abortions performed at 18 to 38 weeks of gestation between 1999 and 2004.

Of these late-term abortions, just over a fifth were performed because of a poor prenatal diagnosis. Dr. Hern’s research also shows that of second- and third-trimester abortions performed because the baby had an abnormality, abortions because the baby had Down Syndrome composed the largest group.

Why is the Data on Late-Term Abortion Inadequate and How Can It Be Improved?

Few states report the reasons why women choose abortion, and even fewer report those reasons by gestational age. Only Florida and Utah report the reasons given for abortions at different gestational ages, including late-term abortions. State abortion reporting is inconsistent, and some states (California, Maryland, and New Hampshire, two of them home to especially late-term abortion facilities) collect no abortion data at all.

To improve available data on late-term abortions, states that already collect information on reasons for abortion and the gestational ages at which abortions are performed could cross-tabulate these data. Additionally, states that do not collect this information from abortion providers could add gestational age and reasons for abortion to their state abortion reporting forms.

Compounding the problem, the CDC does not request this information from the states, and the standard U.S. Report of Induced Termination of Pregnancy, which many states use as a model, does not collect reasons for abortion. Some pro-choice policy groups consider government tracking of these data to be “intrusive” and “unnecessary” – while acknowledging that information on women’s reasons for abortion is critical to an understanding of abortion trends, public policy, and public opinion.

How Are Late-Term Abortions Performed?

In the past certain methods of abortion created legal jeopardy and personal quandaries for abortionists and patients – what one physician called “the dreaded complication” – a child born alive despite the effort to kill him or her in utero. These methods of abortion included instillation of saline solution or prostaglandins, that induce contractions and vaginal delivery of the child.

A number of victims of these procedures are alive today and testify to their experiences. To avoid these outcomes, abortion practitioners resorted to partial-birth abortion, which involved delivering the child into the birth canal up to his shoulders and killing him through vacuuming out his brain and crushing his skull. This method was banned by Congress in 2003. The ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007.

Currently, a day or two before the abortion is performed, the abortionist prepares the cervix with osmotic and/or pharmacologic dilators (e.g., laminaria) to open the cervix. About the same time, he usually administers a maternal transabdominal injection of potassium chloride or digoxin into the heart or head of the unborn child, to ensure that he or she is dead upon delivery.

On the day of the procedure, if further cervical dilation is needed, this is performed with mechanical dilators just prior to the procedure. Uterine evacuation is then performed. For younger babies this can be primarily accomplished using suction to remove as much tissue and soft body parts as possible, followed by forceps for removal of larger and harder body parts. For older and larger babies, dismemberment using forceps is used (grasping and pulling off limbs for removal).

The brain is usually then removed by suction and the skull crushed for removal. In partial-birth abortion (now illegal), the baby’s legs are grasped and pulled through the cervix, as in a breech delivery. The body can be delivered this way, but the skull will be too large to deliver through the partially dilated cervix. The abortionist will then introduce an instrument such as scissors into the base of the child’s skull creating an opening.

The brain is suctioned out, and the skull then crushed with clamps and extracted. Misoprostol may also be given to the mother to induce uterine contractions, especially to help expel all the body parts and placenta.

What Do Obstetricians and Perinatologists Say about Late-Term Abortion?

“Most late term abortions are done for the same social reasons that earlier abortions are done. Late-term abortions are much more dangerous for the mother than giving birth. Late-term abortions involve much higher risk of death from the abortion procedure itself, as well as higher risk of perforating the womb, massive bleeding, and damage to the womb. Late-term abortions are only safe for the abortionist, not for the mother, or her child. If a baby has died in the womb, the procedure is not an abortion. The purpose of an abortion is to kill the unborn child to ensure that the child is born dead.”

– Dr. Donna Harrison, M.D., CEO, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG)

“Women carrying children with life-limiting conditions need to be cared for in a way that not only maximizes maternal health, but also honors the life of their child. Delivering a child intact and then administering the appropriate medical care for that child – whether that be palliative care or active treatment – is the medically appropriate and ethical thing to do.

This scenario is one that every OB/GYN faces. Given that 85% of OB/GYNs do not perform abortions, third-trimester abortions do not need to be legal in order to optimally care for women and their children, no matter what the circumstances.”

– Dr. Christina Francis, M.D., Chair of the Board, AAPLOG

“There is never a reason to take the life of an unborn child since there is no maternal condition that requires the death of the fetus to save her life. The infant may need to be delivered prematurely and die as a result of that, but it is not necessary to take the infant’s life. Further, if a fetus has an adverse prenatal diagnosis all patients should be offered perinatal hospice care since this is far better for maternal health than any elective abortion. Perinatal hospice allows the parents to be parents and provide all the love they can for their child.”

– Dr. Byron Calhoun, M.D., perinatologist

https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/a-history-of-criminalisation/

Did Anyone Call the Orisa? Reflections on Orlando, LGBTQ Communities & Inclusion As pride month comes to a close, I have been reflecting on my spiritual journey as a priestess in a tradition that supposedly does not welcome LGBTQ people. I was initiated into the Yoruba-Ifa religion 10 years ago. My introduction to this path began when I met Babalawo (a male Ifa priest) Olaoluwa 15 years ago. During one of our early spiritual consultations I noticed he began to intentionally use gender neutral language when referring to the person I may one day choose as a life partner. I knew the time had finally come to find out what his views were about sexual orientation and decide if Ifa was a religion and spiritual path I would continue to explore.

After the spiritual consultation was completed, I asked if Ifa condemned same-sex relationships. He said, “No, Ifa is not like other traditions.” While this was a relief, I needed more confirmation and asked if he and his wife personally disapproved of people in same gender loving relationships. He laughed and replied, “No. What we care about is your character.” He and his wife accepted me as a bisexual woman. When I eventually found my life partner and introduced her to them, she was embraced with open arms. It was this foundation of love that opened up the space for my spiritual mentors to become another part of my extended family.

It is life sustaining and enhancing to be loved unconditionally by one’s family (biological or of one’s choosing). I imagine there were some people who attended the PULSE nightclub in Orlando who had come to feel like it was a safe place where they could connect with family. “Family” is a common term used by some LGBTQ people to acknowledge that another person is a part of the community. I am not related or personally connected to anyone who was killed or injured on June 12th but I felt like I lost 49 members of my family.

Immediately, I started receiving announcements of Interfaith vigils and prayer services throughout New York City. On Monday, June 13th, my wife and I joined members from our Interfaith-Interspiritual community at The Church of the Village in Manhattan, NY. It was comforting to see familiar faces and be with people I love. Towards the end of the service, a minister read the names of those who were murdered while the pastor rang a bell for each person. As I listened to the bell toll, I wondered, “Who among them worshipped Orisa? Is anyone pouring libations and calling the names of these new ancestors?”

After the vigil, we marched from the church to Stonewall Inn singing, “We are all Orlando. And we are singing, singing for our lives”. Thousands of people of all races, sexual orientations, religious beliefs and backgrounds came to mourn, grieve and show solidarity to end gun violence and homophobia. It was uplifting to feel this connection. Wanting more, I decided to look up well-known Orisa religious groups in New York City as thousands of practitioners live here. “Orisa religion” is an umbrella term, occasionally used to include all of the African diasporic religious traditions that originated from the Yoruba people of Southwest Nigeria (Ifa is included in this grouping). I went to websites and social media pages of local and national Orisa affiliated organizations hoping to find news of a vigil or simple prayers of comfort. While I did not find any vigils, there was one on-line Facebook post that gave me hope.

Alafia Stewart was one of several people featured in the 2014 PBS documentary, Sacred Journeys: Osun-Osogbo, during her initiation into Ifa. The June 13th message she displayed after the horrific events in Orlando has been viewed over 32,000 times in a post entitled: FACT CHECK: Homosexuality in Orisa Worship. Alafia’s passionate words not only supported the LGBTQ community in our time of grief; she offered an affirmative healing balm to many Orisa religious practitioners who believe in equality and LGBTQ inclusion. Hearing Alafia speak about the intersectionality of her own marginalization as a black woman who practices an indigenous African religion in the United States, reminded me of Audre Lorde’s sage words in her powerful essay, There is No Hierarchy of Oppression. Lorde states, “Freedom from intolerance does not belong to one group… when they appear to destroy me, it will not be long before they appear to destroy you.”

Homophobia is no more condoned by God than racism or sexism. It has been long overdue for practitioners and initiates in the spectrum of Orisa religion to stop discriminating against LGBTQ sisters and brothers. As a religious minority in the United States whose practitioners are overwhelmingly people of color, we should know better. We know what it is like to have religious text used to justify oppression and say we are inferior based on our race and gender. I do not understand why some of our heterosexual identified sisters and brothers would repeat such hateful and fear based behavior. Could it be that the problem of excluding others is a fear based expression of internalized inferiority?

Historically people of the African diaspora were fed lies about our bodies and sexuality. Instead of doing independent research and becoming empowered through education, some of us buy into religious based sexuality myths and go overboard trying to prove that we do not reflect the racist stereotypes that oppressors and colonizers projected unto us. While I can have compassion for people who are misinformed and afraid, I refuse to remain silent and simply hope for the best when it impedes on my ability and divine right to live freely.

In an effort to build a spiritual foundation of love and disrupt the ignorance that produces hate, I encourage sisters and brothers in Orisa communities to show your fellow LGBTQ family that you love them. While it is wonderful to be embraced behind closed doors in small communities like I was, it means more to publically take a stand and let us know that you see and value us – especially in times like these. Go beyond toleration. Accept and include us on all levels. Ask yourselves if any LGBTQ practitioners are making themselves small just to fit into your ile’ (community)? Reach out and ask if we feel excluded and how you can show support. After all, aren’t spiritual and religious communities places where people are supposed to be able to find comfort, heal and grow?

I may never know for certain if any of the 49 killed in Orlando called on the Orisas, believed these deities or engaged in practices to connect with their ancestors. So in a small act of solidarity I offer this written libation in English (a Yoruba prayer traditionally done with water), to honor the lives of those beautiful brown and black bodies who should still be singing, dancing and celebrating life with us.

Fresh water, fresh water, fresh water. To freshen the path, to freshen the house, to freshen the ancestors, to freshen the godhead, to freshen the soul, to freshen the world.

May evil be no more. May obstructions be no more. May worries and trouble be no more. Let us not see death and hardship anymore.

I pay homage to God who is beyond all creation, the creator and owner of superlative power who comes into the world as all the Orisa. I pay homage to the Orisas. I pay homage to the guiding ancestors.

I pay homage to all whose lives were taken at the PULSE night club in Orlando, Florida on June 12, 2016. Ase’, Ase’, Ase’ (and so it is).

Thank you for writing us.

See All The Real People's From U.S.A. Who Are Raped, Drugs Out And Sex Slave, Killing Etc. Today ! YouTube 1.8k Video's Over 1 Billons Views See At (Soft White Underbelly) interviews from people who are still alive today and portraits of the human very sad condition in America from peoples all walks of live by photographer, Mark Laita. p.s. tens of thousands of other people are dead now who did not make it today.

Wide Wide World True Pedophile's A President Creepy Joe Biden Sniffs Children's Hair Again And Other Top Secret's Pedophile's Blood Line's Creepy Joe strikes again again again President Biden is slammed for singling out elementary school-aged 8 year old girl during speech and saying she looks like she's 19 years old woman.

COVID-19 Blood and Non Vaccines Blood and Secret Pedophile's Blood Bank U.S.A. - https://rumble.com/v2dye2c-covid-19-blood-and-non-vaccines-blood-and-secret-pedophiles-blood-bank-u.s..html

Sniffing children, inappropriate touching and strange whispering have all come up multiple times throughout his presidency but the mainstream media seem to sweep the concerning behavior under the rug.

Disney Pedophile's Branson Necker Island 40 Miles To Epstein Orgy Island Global Elite - https://rumble.com/v2dim5k-disney-pedophiles-branson-necker-island-40-miles-to-epstein-orgy-island-glo.html

Pedophile and A Pizza Secret Human Trafficking and Child Sex Ring Evidence - https://rumble.com/v2bbfv2-pedophile-and-a-pizza-secret-human-trafficking-and-child-sex-ring-evidence-.html

Blood Feasting Pedophiles, Parasitic Monsters Literally and Predatory Feeding Off the 9.6 Million Children Gone Missing Each Year Around the World… Secret “Pedophile” has reverberated throughout America. Tens Of Thousand People's Are Now Dead In 2021.

Male to Female Sex Reassignment Surgery Live ** Very Graphic ** Think Twice Guys ?

https://rumble.com/v2hpw3e-male-to-female-sex-reassignment-surgery-live-very-graphic-think-twice-guys-.html

Feel The Joy of Discovering a New You and How to Become a Woman In Real Life With Sex Reassignment Surgery. Yes Male to Female Transition You To Can Become A NCAA Women’s Swimming Star Like Riley Gaines and A Swimming Championships For You Too. What You Need To Know About An Sex Transition.

Gender Identity - Gender identity is one’s internal sense of being male, female, some combination, or another gender. Gender identity may or may not align with sex or gender assigned at birth.

Transgender - Somebody who is transgender has a gender identity different from that traditionally associated with sex assigned at birth.

WoW This Looks Fun Lady's Keyhole Top Surgery For Female to Male Transgender

https://rumble.com/v2zsoao-wow-this-looks-fun-ladys-keyhole-top-surgery-for-female-to-male-transgender.html

A Teen who claims to be "gender neutral" is to have her 30D breasts removed to eradicate her female features. Opi Baron, 19, has planned drastic surgery to have her breast tissue removed and become completely flat-chested. She said: "You are brought up and taught from a young age that there is only 'boy' and 'girl' and just two boxes that you can fit into but that's not the case. "Instead of it being black or white, male or female, it's like there are a whole range of shades in the middle which is where I am.

We recognize that there are different approaches, visions, models and tools available to each country, in accordance with its national circumstances and priorities, to achieve sustainable development; and we reaffirm that planet Earth and its ecosystems are our common home and that ‘Mother Earth’ is a common expression in a number of countries and regions.

Sustainable Development Goals
Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development
* Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.

https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

2016 Report on the World Social Situation

Humankind has achieved unprecedented social progress over the past several decades. Poverty has declined dramatically around the world and people are healthier, more educated and better connected than ever before. However, this progress has been uneven. Social and economic inequalities persist and, in many cases, have worsened. Virtually everywhere, some individuals and groups confront barriers that prevent them from fully participating in economic, social and political life.

Against this backdrop, inclusiveness and shared prosperity have emerged as core aspirations of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A central pledge contained in the 2030 Agenda is to ensure that no one will be left behind and to see all goals and targets met for all nations, peoples and for all parts of society, endeavouring to reach the furthest behind first.

The focus of the 2030 Agenda on inclusiveness underscores the need to identify who is being left behind and in what ways. This is what the Report on the World Social Situation 2016 sets out to do. Specifically, the report contains an examination of the patterns of social exclusion and consideration of whether development processes have been inclusive, with particular attention paid to the links between exclusion, poverty and employment trends. Key challenges to social inclusion are highlighted along with policy imperatives to promote it. It is recognized in the report that promoting inclusion will take time and political determination. Raising awareness about the consequences of leaving some people behind and recommending actions that Governments can take to avoid doing so can help generate political will.

Download Full Report (PDF) https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/2016/full-report.pdf

Key Findings
Executive Summary
Introduction
Chapter I: Identifying social inclusion and exclusion
Chapter II: Poverty, inequality and decent work: key dimensions of exclusion
Chapter III: Who is being left behind? Patterns of social exclusion
Chapter IV: Prejudice and discrimination: barriers to social inclusion
Chapter V: Policy imperatives for leaving no one behind - Bibliography

https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/2016/key-findings.pdf

https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/2016/executive-summary.pdf

https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/2016/introduction.pdf

https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/2016/chapter1.pdf

https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/2016/chapter2.pdf

https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/2016/chapter3.pdf

https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/2016/chapter4.pdf

https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/2016/chapter5.pdf

https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/2016/bibliography.pdf

UN Report Calls For Decriminalization Of Sex Between Adults/Children Age 8+Up

https://rumble.com/v2qo62c-un-report-calls-for-decriminalization-of-sex-between-adultschildren-age-8-u.html

UN New Legal Principles Launched On International Women’s and Trans Women Day to advance decriminalization efforts In March 2023, UNAIDS and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), along with the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) published a group of "new legal principles" that would advance "decriminalization efforts" globally. Principle 16, titled "consensual sexual conduct," stated that sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual. The principles were the product of a 2018 workshop between the three organizations and developed over the next five years based on feedback and reviews from a range of experts and stakeholders. The principles did not call for the abolishment of any minimum age of consent, but rather that criminal laws should not be biased in favor of any sex/gender, or age of consent to marriage. Most US states set the age of consent at 16, with Arizona, North Dakota, Oregon, and Virginia setting theirs at 15, so adults in most US states are already legally allowed to have sex with children/adolescents, as per UN definition.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230416234047/https://icj2.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/8-MARCH-Principles-FINAL-printer-version-1-MARCH-2023.pdf

The International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) along with UNAIDS and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) officially launched a new set of expert jurist legal principles to guide the application of international human rights law to criminal law.

THE 8 MARCH PRINCIPLES FOR A HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO CRIMINAL LAW PROSCRIBING CONDUCT ASSOCIATED WITH SEX, REPRODUCTION, DRUG USE, HIV, HOMELESSNESS AND POVERTY

Special PART III Application to the Criminalization of Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty
The principles set out below result from, reflect and have been elaborated by applying the general principles and legal standards in General Part I and Part II, above, to the criminalization of conduct associated with: a) sexual and reproductive health and rights, including abortion; b) consensual sexual activities, including in such contexts as sex outside marriage, same-sex sexual relations, adolescent sexual activity and sex work; c) gender identity and gender expression; d) HIV non-disclosure, exposure or transmission; e) drug use and the possession of drugs for personal use; and f) homelessness and poverty.

PRINCIPLE 14 – SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND RIGHTS No one may be held criminally liable for exercising their rights to sexual and reproductive health, such as requesting, accessing or using sexual and reproductive health facilities, services and goods, including information. Criminal law may not in any way impair the right to: a) make and act on decisions about one’s own body, sexuality and reproduction – such as about pregnancy; contraception, including emergency contraception; comprehensive abortion care; prophylaxis for sexually transmitted infections; gender-affirming care/therapy; and/or b) access health facilities, services and goods, including information. No one may be held criminally liable on the basis that their conduct is alleged to be harmful to their own pregnancy, such as alcohol or drug consumption or contracting HIV or transmitting it to the foetus while pregnant, or for their own pregnancy loss. Where the person’s conduct might also constitute an independent criminal offence, unrelated to their pregnancy, there must be no additional criminal consequences arising from any alleged harm to their pregnancy. Health providers may not be held criminally liable for conduct, such as providing contraception, abortion services or accurate, evidence-based, non-biased information, that enables others to freely exercise their rights to sexual and reproductive health, unless they engage in coercion, force, fraud, medical negligence or otherwise violate the right to free and informed decision-making. No one may be held criminally liable for providing assistance to another to enable them to exercise their rights to sexual and reproductive health, unless there is coercion, force, or lack of free and informed decision-making in relation to the exercise of such rights. Parents, guardians, careers, or other persons who enable or assist children or people in their care, including persons with disabilities, to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights, including by procuring sexual and reproductive health services, goods or information, may not be held criminally liable, unless they have engaged in coercion, force, fraud, or there was a lack of free and informed decision-making on the part of the child or person for whom they were caring.

PRINCIPLE 15 – ABORTION No one may be held criminally liable for their pregnancy loss, including a pregnancy loss resulting from an obstetric emergency, such as a miscarriage or stillbirth, or for attempting or undergoing an abortion or for other decisions they make around their pregnancy or childbirth. Criminal law may not proscribe abortion. Abortion must be taken entirely out of the purview of the criminal law, including for having, aiding, assisting with, or providing an abortion, or abortion-related medication or services, or providing evidence based abortion-related information. No other criminal offence, such as murder, manslaughter or any other form of unlawful homicide, may proscribe or be applied to having, aiding, assisting with, or providing an abortion, or abortion-related medication or services, or providing evidence-based abortion-related information.

PRINCIPLE 16 – CONSENSUAL SEXUAL CONDUCT Consensual sexual conduct, irrespective of the type of sexual activity, the sex/ gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of the people involved or their marital status, may not be criminalized in any circumstances. Consensual same-sex, as well as consensual different-sex sexual relations, or consensual sexual relations with or between trans, non-binary and other gender diverse people, or outside marriage – whether pre-marital or extramarital – may, therefore, never be criminalized. With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage. Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them. Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees.

PRINCIPLE 17 – SEX WORK The exchange of sexual services between consenting adults for money, goods or services and communication with another about, advertising an offer for, or sharing premises with another for the purpose of exchanging sexual services between consenting adults for money, goods or services, whether in a public or private place, may not be criminalized, absent coercion, force, abuse of authority or fraud. Criminal law may not proscribe the conduct of third parties who, directly or indirectly, for receipt of a financial or material benefit, under fair conditions – without coercion, force, abuse of authority or fraud – facilitate, manage, organize, communicate with another, advertise, provide information about, provide or rent premises for the purpose of the exchange of sexual services between consenting adults for money, goods or services.

PRINCIPLE 18 – SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY AND GENDER EXPRESSION No one may be held criminally liable for conduct or status based on their gender identity or gender expression. This includes gender identities and forms of gender expression that are perceived not to conform to societal expectations or norms relating to gender roles, the sex assigned to a person at birth or a male-female binary, among others. No one may be held criminally liable for consensual practices aiming to assist others with the exploration, free development and/or affirmation of sexual orientation or gender identity, unless there was force, coercion, fraud or medical negligence, or a lack of free and informed decision-making on the part of the person concerned. Practices aiming to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression carried out without the concerned person’s free and informed consent and decision-making, including through force, coercion or abuse of authority, may be addressed through other provisions in the criminal law.

Remember not to apply labels to individuals. Understand that identities are fluid and contextual - just because someone shares part of their identity with you doesn't mean they're comfortable with you sharing this with others.

https://www.sexualdiversity.org/edu/901.php

Glossary of Sex and Sexuality Words Main Document.

https://www.sexualdiversity.org/edu/13.php

https://www.joshuakennon.com/the-six-common-biological-sexes-in-humans/

https://www.healthline.com/health/different-genders

Comparing Athletic Performances: The Best Elite Women in the World to Boys and Men Athletic and Other Athletic Trans-She-He-Them-They-Why-Etc.

https://law.duke.edu/sites/default/files/centers/sportslaw/comparingathleticperformances.pdf

https://web.law.duke.edu/sites/default/files/centers/sportslaw/Experts_T_Statement_2019.pdf

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4851&context=lcp

A woman is a person who can give birth to a baby boy or girl vaginal delivery or caesarean sections only that it and that all its about and no more talking about it today.
https://rumble.com/v4jcaab-aoc-said-jesus-is-a-woman-so-what-is-a-real-woman-question-matt-walsh.html ? ? ? ? Etc.

Show less