Victor Madrigal-Borloz and the United Nations

Why is he being bankrolled by Arcus Foundation?

Victor Madrigal-Borloz is the United Nations rapporteur for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. He was appointed in 2017 and recently had his term renewed for three years. The United Nations have been lobbied on LGBT+ issues for well over a decade and the appointment of Madrigal-Borloz is the culmination of their achievements.

I had a look at Victor Madrigal-Borloz after discovering he had taken $100,000 from the Arcus Foundation. (UN Rapporteurs are unpaid).

If you have followed my work, and that of Jennifer Bikek, you will know that Arcus Foundation crop up a lot. They have funnelled a lot of money to Lobby the United Nations. You can read my piece on Victor below which also links to more on the Arcus Foundation.

Let’s talk about Victor

What I want to talk about today is a discussion that Victor had on queering international justice, as part of this series. 👇

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.

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 buying 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.

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 that 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”.

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:

Moral Panic

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.

Moral Panic!

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?

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.

The resistance?

Yet, later on he says the work for the next generation is to stop conflating “gender” with women. It does, however, appear tat 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 slogan, like “Sex Matters” and “Leave Kids alone” that on the surface cannot be disagreed with but, he infers, they 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