[PASSED] Ban on Conversion Therapy

[Christian Democrats]

The text in red is incorrect. This proposal would prohibit "psychological, physical, or coercive spiritual intervention." Since the word "coercive" is not applied to "psychological," this proposal would prohibit voluntary psychological intervention as well.

Even so, it still stands that this proposal only prohibits "any attempt to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of an individual," so my points still stand. Therapists cannot make any attempt to change the gender identity of a dysphoric individual based on this proposal- nor would they ever want nor need to in a realistic scenario. Therapists are supposed to consul their clients and the symptoms of the affliction they're facing and suggest treatments to cope. I don't believe any therapist would urge their client to reclassify their gender if their client had not already wanted to originally.

But even if the patient "wanted to," the psychiatrist would be prohibited from treating him until he reaches adulthood.

[Zone 71]

Even so, it still stands that this proposal only prohibits "any attempt to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of an individual," so my points still stand. Therapists cannot make any attempt to change the gender identity of a dysphoric individual based on this proposal- nor would they ever want nor need to in a realistic scenario. Therapists are supposed to consul their clients and the symptoms of the affliction they're facing and suggest treatments to cope. I don't believe any therapist would urge their client to reclassify their gender if their client had not already wanted to originally.

But even if the patient "wanted to," the psychiatrist would be prohibited from treating him until he reaches adulthood.

And that is relevant to this proposal because...

[Christian Democrats]

But even if the patient "wanted to," the psychiatrist would be prohibited from treating him until he reaches adulthood.

And that is relevant to this proposal because...

That is what this proposal proposes.

[Zone 71]

And that is relevant to this proposal because...

That is what this proposal proposes.

My apologies, I misread your comment. Excuse my rudeness. But I disagree with your previous statement. This proposal would not prevent gender dysphoric youth from getting the therapy they need as I have said time and time again. If the minor wants to change their gender then they, under this legislation, have every legal right to. This proposal only prevents therapists from making that decision for them.

[Prydania]

Individuals who provide counseling and psychiatric care "nudge" people all the time -- e.g., by dissuading patients from engaging in self-harm.

"A councillor dissuading a patient from engaging in self-harm is not the same as a 'councillor' attempting to change a minor's sexual orientation. Your delegation's attempt to create that parallel is the ultimate bad-faith argument as far as this topic is concerned."

[Christian Democrats]

Individuals who provide counseling and psychiatric care "nudge" people all the time -- e.g., by dissuading patients from engaging in self-harm.

"A councillor dissuading a patient from engaging in self-harm is not the same as a 'councillor' attempting to change a minor's sexual orientation. Your delegation's attempt to create that parallel is the ultimate bad-faith argument as far as this topic is concerned."

As far as this topic is concerned, this comment is the ultimate straw man since our delegation hasn't been challenging the wisdom of the proposed ban on sexual orientation conversion therapy.

[Prydania]

"A councillor dissuading a patient from engaging in self-harm is not the same as a 'councillor' attempting to change a minor's sexual orientation. Your delegation's attempt to create that parallel is the ultimate bad-faith argument as far as this topic is concerned."

As far as this topic is concerned, this comment is the ultimate straw man since our delegation hasn't been challenging the wisdom of the proposed ban on sexual orientation conversion therapy.

"No, it's merely used bad faith interpretation of part of the resolution in an attempt to undermine the whole. Simply put, your motives are transparent."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Wrong choice of words, Ambassador. Like any other peaceable person, a minor has the right not to be coerced into a cultural straitjacket.

As I just said, this proposal would prohibit voluntary care, including care sought by the minor patient himself.

"I don't see how responding positively to a request from a patient counts as 'intervention.' I believe that is the ordinary course of therapy."

A psychologist's support role for a gender-unsure person is to help them identify their identity, as actively or passively as that person is comfortable with. If that winds up ultimately being the same as the biological sex, fine - but nudging them in either direction is malpractice any way you slice it. All this proposal does is acknowledge that fact. It doesn't dismiss psychologists who help their patients in responsible, restrained fashion."

"Nudging" a patient, as you put it, should not be a crime. It should not send a child psychiatrist to prison. Individuals who provide counseling and psychiatric care "nudge" people all the time -- e.g., by dissuading patients from engaging in self-harm.

"Dissuading a patient from self-harm is not 'nudging' them in the direction of assuming a particular gender identity. If you're going to use straw men of that caliber, ambassador, I'm done here."

[Christian Democrats]

As far as this topic is concerned, this comment is the ultimate straw man since our delegation hasn't been challenging the wisdom of the proposed ban on sexual orientation conversion therapy.

"No, it's merely used bad faith interpretation of part of the resolution in an attempt to undermine the whole. Simply put, your motives are transparent."

If our motives are transparent, what are they?

As I just said, this proposal would prohibit voluntary care, including care sought by the minor patient himself.

"I don't see how responding positively to a request from a patient counts as 'intervention.' I believe that is the ordinary course of therapy."

The OED defines intervention, which this proposal would ban, as "action taken to improve a situation, especially a medical disorder."

"Nudging" a patient, as you put it, should not be a crime. It should not send a child psychiatrist to prison. Individuals who provide counseling and psychiatric care "nudge" people all the time -- e.g., by dissuading patients from engaging in self-harm.

"Dissuading a patient from self-harm is not 'nudging' them in the direction of assuming a particular gender identity. If you're going to use straw men of that caliber, ambassador, I'm done here."

One-half of gender dysphoric youth attempt suicide. It's a perfectly relevant comparison.

[United Sacredotia]

My apologies, I misread your comment. Excuse my rudeness. But I disagree with your previous statement. This proposal would not prevent gender dysphoric youth from getting the therapy they need as I have said time and time again. If the minor wants to change their gender then they, under this legislation, have every legal right to. This proposal only prevents therapists from making that decision for them.

Actually, no, you construe this resolution as doing less than it actually does. Only voluntary spiritual help is excluded from "conversion therapy" definition. And then in articles 2 & 3 it disallows as follows:

2. Prohibits any person or organisation in a World Assembly member-state from performing conversion therapy on minors,
3.Prohibits any public or governmental body in a World Assembly member-state from recommending or performing conversion therapy on any individual,

Viz, the therapy would be disallowed from being performed on minors, regardless of whether they would want it or not. Also, there is no definition of a "minor" given.
Also, the resolution disallows the therapy from being performed by public body. Period. Meaning, that if someone, even if an adult, wants to undergo a therapy, they have to do so in a private clinic. That infringes on that person's freedom of choice, as they could not get it as part of the public healthcare, that is already funded from their taxes.

And if you think that what is prohibited here is unscientific practice, therefore should be banned from being used in publicly funded medical institutions, then why the need for such specificity? Resolution could be written that outlaws unscientific practice from public healthcare, and according to you, it would do the same thing. In fact, it would do more. General Assembly passed similar resolution in the past (Traditional Medicine), so why not follow in that trend? Again, why the specificity?

[Kenmoria]

Viz, the therapy would be disallowed from being performed on minors, regardless of whether they would want it or not. Also, there is no definition of a "minor" given.

(OOC: Given how many different species, with wildly different lifespans and ages of maturity, exist in the multiversal organisation that is the WA, it would be futile to try and create an agreed definition of “minor”. Also, children are far more easily pressured into choices by their peers and society, so it is just they have to wait until adulthood to voluntarily undergo conversion therapy.)

[United Sacredotia]

(OOC: Given how many different species, with wildly different lifespans and ages of maturity, exist in the multiversal organisation that is the WA, it would be futile to try and create an agreed definition of “minor”. Also, children are far more easily pressured into choices by their peers and society, so it is just they have to wait until adulthood to voluntarily undergo conversion therapy.)

[OOC: "Minor" needs not to be defined as an arbitrary age. It could simply be a "person whose mental development limits the capacity of making, independently from other people, conscious decisions." This is just from the top of my head. You could argue that it is vague, but it is still more concrete that leaving "minor" undefined. By your logic, hormone therapies should also be available only to the adults.]

[The Great Imperator Jeffrey]

Don't convert the LGBTs, execute them!

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Given how many different species, with wildly different lifespans and ages of maturity, exist in the multiversal organisation that is the WA, it would be futile to try and create an agreed definition of “minor”. Also, children are far more easily pressured into choices by their peers and society, so it is just they have to wait until adulthood to voluntarily undergo conversion therapy.)

[OOC: "Minor" needs not to be defined as an arbitrary age. It could simply be a "person whose mental development limits the capacity of making, independently from other people, conscious decisions." This is just from the top of my head. You could argue that it is vague, but it is still more concrete that leaving "minor" undefined. By your logic, hormone therapies should also be available only to the adults.]

(OOC: That definition would include the mentally disabled and would mean there would be a variable age upon which someone would be classed as an adult, due to the differing stages someone attains mental development. Also, society generally pressures someone not to do hormone therapy, at least in the real world, rather than the inverse.)

[United Sacredotia]

(OOC: That definition would include the mentally disabled and would mean there would be a variable age upon which someone would be classed as an adult, due to the differing stages someone attains mental development. Also, society generally pressures someone not to do hormone therapy, at least in the real world, rather than the inverse.)

[OOC: Yes, it would. And? Why it would be harmful? If we disallow this for persons that are underage, on the basis that they are incapable of making independent, mentally sound decisions, then disabled people should also be protected in such a way. At least, that would be my stance, if I conceded that we should protect "minors" in that way. And if your counterargument is that guardian of a disabled person is capable of making such decision for their benefit, then why do you deny this capability for a parent? Mental disability can lessen in severity and state of a disabled person can improve, if permanency of the state is the factor on which you differentiate the two.
And, to retort your second point, even if something is less common (which I do not concede), it does not mean that it does not happen.]

[Greater vakolicci haven]

(OOC: That definition would include the mentally disabled and would mean there would be a variable age upon which someone would be classed as an adult, due to the differing stages someone attains mental development. Also, society generally pressures someone not to do hormone therapy, at least in the real world, rather than the inverse.)

[OOC: Yes, it would. And? Why it would be harmful? If we disallow this for persons that are underage, on the basis that they are incapable of making independent, mentally sound decisions, then disabled people should also be protected in such a way. At least, that would be my stance, if I conceded that we should protect "minors" in that way. And if your counterargument is that guardian of a disabled person is capable of making such decision for their benefit, then why do you deny this capability for a parent? Mental disability can lessen in severity and state of a disabled person can improve, if permanency of the state is the factor on which you differentiate the two.
And, to retort your second point, even if something is less common (which I do not concede), it does not mean that it does not happen.]

((OOC: We don't treat disabled people like children because they are not children. Who are you to decide when somebody's mind is his/her own? Who are you to decide what level somebody's disability affects them?))

[United Sacredotia]

((OOC: We don't treat disabled people like children because they are not children. Who are you to decide when somebody's mind is his/her own? Who are you to decide what level somebody's disability affects them?))

From what I understand, you are against passing this resolution ambassador? After all, who are we to judge whether a child is capable of making independent decisions? Who are we to decide what age is appropriate for a person to be considered an "adult"? Children are people, so they should be treated like all other people too. Do you agree with those points?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

((OOC: We don't treat disabled people like children because they are not children. Who are you to decide when somebody's mind is his/her own? Who are you to decide what level somebody's disability affects them?))

From what I understand, you are against passing this resolution ambassador? After all, who are we to judge whether a child is capable of making independent decisions? Who are we to decide what age is appropriate for a person to be considered an "adult"? Children are people, so they should be treated like all other people too. Do you agree with those points?

((OOC: That was OOC GVH's view on disability rights, however IC GVH agrees, though OOC GVH doesn't agree with the following.))

IC:
"Quite so. The Havenic position is that decision-making power is linked to intellect, not age. The Haven for example believes a well-informed and intelligent 15 year old may very well be a better judge of right and wrong than an idiotic 21 year old."

[New Min]

"The United Socialist States of New Min is in complete support of this proposal, and looking at the current status of the voting within The Communist Bloc, Comrade WA Delegate of TCB will vote in favor too."

[Sciongrad]

One-half of gender dysphoric youth attempt suicide. It's a perfectly relevant comparison.

OOC: That's correct, but you conveniently neglect to mention why it is exactly that "gender dysphoric" youths suffer mental health complications. Gender dysphoria is a socially constructed mental health problem, and some of the negative symptoms you list — depression, suicidal ideation, etc — are not symptoms inherent to gender dysphoria. You argue that "gender dysphoria" is the source of mental health complications and "nudging" transgender youths away from their gender identity will eliminate those problems. It is this "nudging," though — not only in the form of therapy, but in the form of widespread stigma and a gender paradigm that marginalizes transgender individuals — that accounts for the mental health complications in the first place. But we all know you know that. No one is taking this argument seriously anymore because we all know you've lost on the merits. You're arguing in bad faith because you're prioritizing ideology over facts.

[Lamoni]

Don't convert the LGBTs, execute them!

*** Official warning for advocating death/trolling ***

[Christian Democrats]

One-half of gender dysphoric youth attempt suicide. It's a perfectly relevant comparison.

OOC: That's correct, but you conveniently neglect to mention why it is exactly that "gender dysphoric" youths suffer mental health complications. Gender dysphoria is a socially constructed mental health problem, and some of the negative symptoms you list — depression, suicidal ideation, etc — are not symptoms inherent to gender dysphoria. You argue that "gender dysphoria" is the source of mental health complications and "nudging" transgender youths away from their gender identity will eliminate those problems. It is this "nudging," though — not only in the form of therapy, but in the form of widespread stigma and a gender paradigm that marginalizes transgender individuals — that accounts for the mental health complications in the first place. But we all know you know that. No one is taking this argument seriously anymore because we all know you've lost on the merits. You're arguing in bad faith because you're prioritizing ideology over facts.

You're prioritizing ideology (e.g., "socially constructed mental health problem," "gender paradigm," etc.) over facts. One-half of GIDC patients are suicidal, and a majority of them will eventually reidentify with their biological sex. If a child psychiatrist sought, in an appropriate case, to hasten that reidentification, at the same time eliminating the GIDC patient's suicidal thoughts, that would be a perfectly appropriate treatment. The child psychiatrist shouldn't be arrested and imprisoned.

A blanket ban is a step too far. There is no scientific evidence favoring such a ban. What if a GIDC patient, under something like a mature minor doctrine, wants psychotherapy to help him adjust to his biological sex? What would be the problem?

[Podrovny]

Zladny: "We are surprised to see the same prudish religious nation attempting to pass this proposal, which from the title seems surprisingly sane. However, once again, this does not do enough to protect people. 'Gender conversion therapy' is a scam that must not be legal where there is the power to prevent it. Still, as this does not prevent future legislation on the subject banning private use of this scam, we will vote for, despite our disappointment at the lack of sufficient protection."

[Prydania]

"No, it's merely used bad faith interpretation of part of the resolution in an attempt to undermine the whole. Simply put, your motives are transparent."

If our motives are transparent, what are they?

"The disdain your delegation has shown towards LGBT peoples is well documented. It's not surprising to anyone that you seek to undermine a resolution aimed at protecting LGBT peoples with a bad-faith interpretation of part of it."

[Teretstein]

Opposed as written due to Article 3, which does not permit adults that desire Conversion Therapy to obtain it. As other ambassadors have noted, it prohibits these individuals from seeking the therapy of their own accord. It saddens us that this was not addressed prior to the draft being submitted to a general vote.