Advertisement
by United Massachusetts » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:55 am
by Kenmoria » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:00 am
by United Massachusetts » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:01 am
by Araraukar » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:38 am
1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation.
(2) Acts of genocide include, but are not limited to: killing or inflicting serious harm upon members of the group, creating living conditions for the group which tend to bring about its physical destruction, forcibly removing children from the group, or taking measures to prevent births within the group.
2. Member nations are prohibited from perpetrating acts of genocide, and must take action against non-state groups undertaking such activities whithin their borders.
*snip*
4. Genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempting to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide shall be punishable acts in all member states.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Kenmoria » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:38 am
United Massachusetts wrote:"There appears to be some disagreement here on the issue of gender. Certainly, people here know where my inclinations lie--I certainly want some protections for transgendered individuals from these sorts of practices. Having said that, I'm not acquainted at all with the particular nuances of gender identity, nor with medical practice regarding it. Thus, I'm not sure if my blanket ban does the issue justice. Personally, I'm inclined to remove gender identity from here with the hopes that someone with more knowledge than I takes up the issue as a potential part of a second gender omnibus package. If this is less complex than I imagine, and/or my present wording works, please tell me. If not, do you agree that gender identity should be removed to be handled later by someone more knowledgable than yours truly?"
OOC: Is the issue as simple as it is with sexual orientation?
by Araraukar » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:44 am
Kenmoria wrote:"I believe that a blanket blan on gender-changing therapy is all that is needed; anything less would be a disservice to transgender individuals."
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Kenmoria » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:48 am
Araraukar wrote:Kenmoria wrote:"I believe that a blanket blan on gender-changing therapy is all that is needed; anything less would be a disservice to transgender individuals."
OOC: That sounds uncomfortably a lot like being banned from having the diagnose of transgender that in RL is often required for hormone therapy and surgeries.
But at the very least GA #91, A Convention on Gender says "4) No intersex, transgender or intergender person shall be forced to choose to fit in any gender", I think a ban on "conversion therapy" of the kind the proposal means, already exists.
by United Massachusetts » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:29 pm
Dmitry II wrote:OOC: Have you heard any response from Liberlitatia ever since you telegrammed him or her about their original proposal?
by Sciongrad » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:32 pm
Current research suggests that gender dysphoric children should be encouraged to accept their biological sex where possible, given that the majority of prepubescent gender dysphoric children eventually "grow out" of their gender dysphoria. This proposal would therefore effectively prohibit good medical practice.
by United Massachusetts » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:38 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Auralia wrote:((OOC: Neither of those links demonstrate that it is per se impossible that sexual orientation can safely be changed.))
OOC: You know that is an impossible standard to prove. No study can demonstrate that conversion therapy is impossible. What we can do is assess whether it works, and in almost any study conducted by credible researchers, the conclusion has been that it does not. You know full well no one will be able to pull up a study whose conclusion is that sex conversion therapy is never possible, because there is no way to prove that.
by Christian Democrats » Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:43 pm
United Massachusetts wrote:"So, should it stay in the proposal or no?"
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Auralia » Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:16 pm
Sciongrad wrote:OOC: That is an irresponsible conclusion to draw from the study you cited. First, the methodology of that study is deeply troubling. 30% of the subjects did not offer a response. Of those that did respond, 43% identified with their sex at birth — not a majority, but a plurality. This might seem significant until you look at the second issue: the sample size of the study is extremely small. There were only 45 respondents in total. That is not wide enough of a sample size to draw any useful conclusions, especially when one considers that 1/3 of the participants failed to respond to the follow-up!
Sciongrad wrote:You know that is an impossible standard to prove. No study can demonstrate that conversion therapy is impossible.
by Auralia » Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:18 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:...Resolution 91 prohibits gender reassignment for minors.
6) No intersex, transgender or intergender persons of any age shall have GAPs until they are mature enough to make an informed decision regarding their own future;
by United Massachusetts » Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:25 pm
Auralia wrote:This does seem to be UM's position, though I'd like to see some discussion of this underlying moral claim. To me it seems that it would be in principle desirable to change one's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, for the same reason that it would be in principle desirable to rid oneself of any kind of inclination towards sin.
by Christian Democrats » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:15 pm
Auralia wrote:This research is not without its critics, though a great deal of it seems to be politically motivated.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Kenmoria » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:40 pm
United Massachusetts wrote:"So, should it stay in the proposal or no?"
by Tinfect » Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:48 am
Auralia wrote:In any event, there is certainly more than one study that supports my conclusion. Dr. James Cantor stated in 2016 that there are three large-scale follow-up studies and several smaller studies examining desistance, all of which indicate that a majority of gender dysphoric or gender non-conforming children desist by the time they reach adulthood.
This research is not without its critics, [...].
Auralia wrote:Certainly I think it's quite clear that it is not appropriate for the World Assembly to simply ban any kind of medical treatment that encourages children to embrace their biological sex.
Auralia wrote:I think you are overstating what I am asking for. If we understood the genesis of sexual orientation, I think it would be much clearer whether it could in principle be changed.
Auralia wrote:I know very little about the existing purported means for changing sexual orientation, besides the fact that the scientific consensus is that they are harmful and ineffective.
Auralia wrote:It is not, however, an argument to ban any attempt whatsoever to change a person's sexual orientation. To do so suggests that changing a person's sexual orientation is somehow intrinsically evil; that even if a safe and effective means existed to change a person's sexual orientation, it would be wrong to use it.
Auralia wrote:To me it seems that it would be in principle desirable to change one's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, for the same reason that it would be in principle desirable to rid oneself of any kind of inclination towards sin.
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Sciongrad » Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:42 am
Christian Democrats wrote:United Massachusetts wrote:"So, should it stay in the proposal or no?"
No, psychotherapy is the standard treatment for pediatric gender dysphoria, and Resolution 91 prohibits gender reassignment for minors. If psychotherapy were banned, gender dysphoric children would be left on their own. Moreover, research shows that more than 75% of children who suffer from gender dysphoria, or gender identity disorder, reidentify with their biological sex by the time they reach adulthood (so-called "desisters"). Helping these children cope with their dysphoria and adjust to their biological sex is legitimate medical treatment.
by Ransium » Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:25 am
by Desmosthenes and Burke » Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:36 am
by Kenmoria » Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:40 am
Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:I would drop gender identity from this proposal. In the alternative, a more careful definition of conversion therapy would be desirable. Beating, shocking, drugging, etc. a child is inappropriate. Suggesting that Timmy really is a boy and needs to integrate liking show-tunes and cooking into his concept of being a boy may well be the appropriate course of action (of course, it may not be the best course, but at some point we have to trust the actual treatment provider to make individualized patient decisions).
by Christian Democrats » Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:14 pm
Sciongrad wrote:But second, the literature suggesting that minors that identity as transgender overwhelmingly (or even usually) identify with their sex at birth after puberty is spotty at best — there is generally selection bias or alternative explanations, such as strong familial pressure to "conform," not to mention a flagrant political agenda at work. But even if it were true, we have not established that suppressing childhood experimentation with gender is normatively desirable. In other words, it is not enough to simply say that most children "change their minds." You must prove that letting children identify with a gender other than the one assigned at birth (without procedures that change one's anatomy, which are prohibited by GAR#91 for minors) is detrimental to the child.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Sciongrad » Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:22 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Sciongrad wrote:But second, the literature suggesting that minors that identity as transgender overwhelmingly (or even usually) identify with their sex at birth after puberty is spotty at best — there is generally selection bias or alternative explanations, such as strong familial pressure to "conform," not to mention a flagrant political agenda at work. But even if it were true, we have not established that suppressing childhood experimentation with gender is normatively desirable. In other words, it is not enough to simply say that most children "change their minds." You must prove that letting children identify with a gender other than the one assigned at birth (without procedures that change one's anatomy, which are prohibited by GAR#91 for minors) is detrimental to the child.
Gender identity disorder, or gender dysphoria, is detrimental to children by definition. It is a source of significant distress, and two-fifths of patients attempt suicide. The idea that parents and psychiatrists should just allow "childhood experimentation" and make no attempts to help children adjust is preposterous. There is no evidence that psychotherapy for gender identity disorder in children (GIDC) is harmful. The burden of proof is on the nations that want to prohibit such treatments.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement