Victor Madrigal-Borloz works as a special rapporteur for the United Nations. He acts as an independent expert and his post is unpaid. He has however taken $100,000 from the Arcus Foundation in his official capacity.
Update 27/APR/2023> Thanks to a diligent reader I have also been alerted to this funding to Victor Madrigal-Borloz via Harvard University which also came from Arcus Foundation. Another $200,000. Thanks are due to the below. twitter account:
In part one I have a look at Victor and the United Nations.
For part two I want to cover a discussion he had with queer theorists on the law. I have watched a few of his YouTubes but I wondered if he would be more open in a discussion with fellow travellers. This was the title of the talk.
I looked at a few of his public pronouncements but I anticipated he may be more open when talking to self proclaimed “queer” activists. He appeared in this youtube with an Australian called Diane Otto. Here is her biography if you want to follow her up. I only focus on the contributions of Madrigal-Borloz but she was clearly in alignment with his perspective.
Madrigal-Borloz sets the context of the discussion by talking about the controversy surrounding his original appointment, as the UN rapporteur for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and why he thinks this conversation is important. Notice ho central “Gender Identity” is to his role and, it would seem, his thinking.
I wonder if Victor knows, at a subconscious level, that he is engaged in dismantling the protections for the female sex? He does allude to the many legal instruments which were created based on a binary understanding of sex and how this legislation protected women and girls. At the same time he wants to look beyond the binary understanding of sex and claims he wants to find a path to do this without it having a negative impact on human rights. This looks to me like an admission that he may be involved in a project that is stripping away the human rights of women.
Here he absolves himself of any responsibility for unintended (?) consequences by claiming he is inviting the creation of “formulas” that don’t end up creating conditions which are contrary to human rights. Er, like the destruction of the rights of half of humanity, the female half?
He begins by explaining that he had over 600 submissions, to a call for evidence, and because of the huge volume of responses he decided his report to the United Nations should be in two parts. It should in fact be a binary process, ironically. The first part was what he called an “inclusionary” approach.
He labelled the alternative viewpoint as “exclusionary” which frames the rights of women to include only their own sex, in the definition of “woman” and all that follows, in a negative light. The creation of laws to protect “gender identity” is fiercely opposed by those women (and men) who object to compelled recognition of people, male and female, who claim to be the sex which they are not.This issue extends beyond the rights of the female sex, though we are in the frontline in terms of consequences, it is also a free speech issue and also challenges religious belief and the protected characteristic of sexual orientation.
It should come as no surprise that Victor favours the first approach and he accuses the exclusionary agenda of being ideologically motivated and designed to create a moral panic.
This language is not an accident I did a series on documents which claim fighting for sex based rights and biological reality are designed to create a moral panic. This is the equivalent of calling women “pearl clutchers” but has generated a number of reports claiming “gender critical” women are somehow aligned with, the Pope, Victor Orban / Christian Evangelicals in the United States and anti-abortionists. These reports also suggest that women are somehow bankrolled by shadowy funders. You can read that series here:
I have waded through hundreds of pages of these claims and the only clip based on reality was this one which admitted they had been unable to establish any direct links between these disparate groups. What they have actually discovered is that different groups, with very different aims, believe that biological sex is real and that in some contexts this matters.
Madrigal-Borloz also accuses the opponents of this ideology of dreaming up a sinister agenda and even claims that inserting gender /gender identity into law is primarily aimed at protecting women and girls implying protecting “gender diverse” persons is an afterthought.
Madrigal-Borloz fiercely defends the “inclusionary” path which he justifies because of the fact it is replicated across the whole human rights field.He explains that, for him, it is the role of Human Rights law to redress injustices even those that previous generations didn’t know existed. They didn’t know, he explains, because the history was deliberately hidden. This is a neat explanation for the rise of “trans rights” which were barely on the radar 50 years ago but have been relentlessly propagandised over the last decade. This is part of the same process which scours history for anyone who you can plausibly, or more often implausibily, claim was “transgender”. ((Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth and even Jesus have all been retrospectively labelled “trans” by the historical revisionists among trans-activists.)
This is how he characterises those who follow an “exclusionary” path. This is a fancy way of saying wanting to exclude men from women’s spaces is akin to favouring apartheid. This is akin to the Martin (e) Rothblatt version of history. If you have not heard of Martine Rothblatt you must learn about him. He is a key player in normalising all this.
His belief system becomes quite testerical at this point and of course he blames the opposition for stoking violence. This is quite dangerous rhetoric and othering of women who are fighting to retain legal protections enshrined in existing law! I wonder if he has been paying attention to the ramping up of threats and actual violence committed by trans-activists and hasreflected on his role in creating this climate? Especially after New Zealand and the heightened threats and actual assault ts we are seeing against men and now, twice, against gay men.
Here 👇he seems to acknowledge that this radical social engineering is creating bewilderment, especially the dismantling of “binary structures”. His language is more obfuscating than illuminating but for “binary structures” I immediately substitute female only spaces and sports which are actually being dismantled as we speak.
In this next clip Victor claims that it isthe strategy of his opponents to argue that the aim of the trans-activist side is to eradicate sex and replace it with gender. He says this as if it is a ludicrous conspiracy theory even though,its abviously true. In the U.K., for example, the group Fairplay forWomen had to take out a legal challenge to force the Office For National Statistics (ONS) to stop them issuing guidance that would have made the sex question based on your self-identity.
Yet, later on he says the work for the next generation is to stop conflating “gender” with women. It does, however, appear that Victor is getting pushback at the U.N. Some (probably fascists😳) are asking for legislation to making it clear the legislation needs to substitute “gender” with “equality between the sexes”.Sounds eminently sensible, to me.
The interview is very revealing, perhaps unintentionally. There are questions at the and about being explicit that his work is built on queer theory. He complains that opponents have some catchy slogans, like “Sex Matters” and “Leave Kids alone” that on the surface cannot be disagreed with but, he infers, both conceal more dangerous intent. Unbelievably he then states that his side doesn’t have slogans just evidenced based research. Quite some chutzpah for the “Trans Women are Women” brigade.
Why does he need to emphasise he has a “clear conscience”?
Diane Otto compliments Victor on how he has described his agenda and he thanks her and claims, in response that he has a clear conscience which seems to me, a revealing reply which perhaps betrays that he is uneasy that he maybe operating against the human rights of women and girls.
You can watch it here: Queer Jurisprudence
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. Please only give if you can afford.