NationStates

Kranostav wrote:I tend to agree with most of this statement, while I have my own opinions on conversion therapy and the lot, I believe that one should have the ability to willingly subject themselves to it if they really want to. Of course they should not be misled into this choice but rather shown relevant data to help them make the decision that is best for them. However under no circumstances should people be forced to endure this conversion therapy.

(OOC: That is currently a provision in the draft, though it's not very clear. The only thing that is banned on consenting adults is public or governmental institutions doing it, private hospitals are fine.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Kranostav wrote:

I tend to agree with most of this statement, while I have my own opinions on conversion therapy and the lot, I believe that one should have the ability to willingly subject themselves to it if they really want to. Of course they should not be misled into this choice but rather shown relevant data to help them make the decision that is best for them. However under no circumstances should people be forced to endure this conversion therapy

(OOC: That is currently a provision in the draft, though it's not very clear. The only thing that is banned on consenting adults is public or governmental institutions doing it, private hospitals are fine.)

I gathered something to that note from a cursory glance although it might be warranted to state for countries with nationalized heathcare systems or broadly government controlled hospitals and medical providers.

Kranostav wrote:

Kenmoria wrote: (OOC: That is currently a provision in the draft, though it's not very clear. The only thing that is banned on consenting adults is public or governmental institutions doing it, private hospitals are fine.)

I gathered something to that note from a cursory glance although it might be warranted to state for countries with nationalized heathcare systems or broadly government controlled hospitals and medical providers.

(OOC: I don't think many countries would have conversion therapy done at the national health facilities of that nation, but in smaller buildings, even when nationalisation of all other forms of medical practices has been achieved. However, I would say it is right for a standardised health service to not offer conversion "therapy", since it is fundamentally ineffective. If people want to most likely damage themselves, that's fine by me, but not if the government is facilitating it.)

We would recommend altering the text of Clause 3 to include a prohibition on all government/publicly employed individuals, as well as bodies, from recommending or performing coversion therapy.

We also strongly urge the inclusion of a clause to prohibit any legally recognised medical or health professional from recommending or performing conversion therapy, including private individuals and providers.

We strongly urge the inclusion of a clause to absolutely prohibit the allocation of public funds to individuals, businesses, or organisations that advocate, recommend, or perform conversion therapy.

Lastly, we would ideally like to see a blanket ban of conversion therapy altogether, without any allowances for consenting adults, but as that may generate too much resistance we would support the resolution if some or all of our other recommendations are considered and incorporated.

"I have addressed the concerns regarding Clause 2 by merely removing the ban on recommending. If conversion therapy isn't happening in the first place, "recommendation" does nothing."

United Massachusetts wrote:"I have addressed the concerns regarding Clause 2 by merely removing the ban on recommending. If conversion therapy isn't happening in the first place, "recommendation" does nothing."

Could you clarify what counts as "spiritual intervention"? If a street preacher goes to a gay pride parade and calls on attendants to repent, is he going to be arrested and imprisoned for trying to "convert" them?

"Thoughts on removing "spiritual intervention" from the definition of conversion therapy?"

United Massachusetts wrote:"Thoughts on removing "spiritual intervention" from the definition of conversion therapy?"

"I would say no, on the basis that subjecting a minor to being forced to pray to be heterosexual, or having the entire congregation do this biweekly, should be classed as prohibited under this proposal."

Kenmoria wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:"Thoughts on removing "spiritual intervention" from the definition of conversion therapy?"

"I would say no, on the basis that subjecting a minor to being forced to pray to be heterosexual, or having the entire congregation do this biweekly, should be classed as prohibited under this proposal."

"The key is coercion with regards to spiritual intervention, then, no?"

United Massachusetts wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:"I would say no, on the basis that subjecting a minor to being forced to pray to be heterosexual, or having the entire congregation do this biweekly, should be classed as prohibited under this proposal."

"The key is coercion with regards to spiritual intervention, then, no?"

"Definetly, without coercion, spiritual intervention is not that bad, albeit still misguided."

"And so it hath been amended."

New text:

Defines, for the sake of this resolution, "conversion therapy" as any attempt to change the sexual orientation of an individual through psychological, physical, or coercive spiritual intervention,

Auralia wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:Noting that countless analyses, studies, and evidenced-based tests have conclusively shown what already makes intuitive sense, that sexual orientation is not a choice, thus rendering conversion therapy useless,

That sexual orientation is not a choice, or that existing methods that purport to change sexual orientation are harmful and ineffective, does not mean that sexual orientation cannot in principle be changed or that any attempt to do so should be categorically forbidden.

Sciongrad would like to caution the ambassador from United Massachusetts from taking into consideration opinions like the one advanced by the ambassador from Auralia, which is both radical and non-scientific. This is not an issue on which compromise is desirable. While Sciongrad has argued many times before that there is a need for nuance in crafting policy and that most issues cannot be boiled down to competing absolutes, this is not one of those issues. Sciongrad would only support a resolution that actively proscribes conversion therapy of any kind for minors and that actively discouraged conversion therapy in general, even among consenting adults.

United Massachusetts wrote:Defines, for the sake of this resolution, "conversion therapy" as any attempt to change the sexual orientation of an individual through psychological, physical, or coercive spiritual intervention,

A couple issues. First, your preamble mentions the term "LGBT," yet you make no mention of gender identity in your definition of conversion therapy. As written, this does not prohibit conversion therapy of transgender individuals. Second, it is unclear what you mean by "coercive spiritual intervention." Would you mind elaborating?

Sciongrad wrote:

Auralia wrote:That sexual orientation is not a choice, or that existing methods that purport to change sexual orientation are harmful and ineffective, does not mean that sexual orientation cannot in principle be changed or that any attempt to do so should be categorically forbidden.

Sciongrad would like to caution the ambassador from United Massachusetts from taking into consideration opinions like the one advanced by the ambassador from Auralia, which is both radical and non-scientific. This is not an issue on which compromise is desirable. While Sciongrad has argued many times before that there is a need for nuance in crafting policy and that most issues cannot be boiled down to competing absolutes, this is not one of those issues. Sciongrad would only support a resolution that actively proscribes conversion therapy of any kind for minors and that actively discouraged conversion therapy in general, even among consenting adults.

United Massachusetts wrote:Defines, for the sake of this resolution, "conversion therapy" as any attempt to change the sexual orientation of an individual through psychological, physical, or coercive spiritual intervention,

A couple issues. First, your preamble mentions the term "LGBT," yet you make no mention of gender identity in your definition of conversion therapy. As written, this does not prohibit conversion therapy of transgender individuals. Second, it is unclear what you mean by "coercive spiritual intervention." Would you mind elaborating?

"I shall, at the risk of angering the Catholic Club, add gender identity. As for spiritual intervention, I would imagine it to be a priest or pastor forcing a gay person to pray for their conversion."

United Massachusetts wrote:

Sciongrad wrote:Sciongrad would like to caution the ambassador from United Massachusetts from taking into consideration opinions like the one advanced by the ambassador from Auralia, which is both radical and non-scientific. This is not an issue on which compromise is desirable. While Sciongrad has argued many times before that there is a need for nuance in crafting policy and that most issues cannot be boiled down to competing absolutes, this is not one of those issues. Sciongrad would only support a resolution that actively proscribes conversion therapy of any kind for minors and that actively discouraged conversion therapy in general, even among consenting adults.


A couple issues. First, your preamble mentions the term "LGBT," yet you make no mention of gender identity in your definition of conversion therapy. As written, this does not prohibit conversion therapy of transgender individuals. Second, it is unclear what you mean by "coercive spiritual intervention." Would you mind elaborating?

"I shall, at the risk of angering the Catholic Club, add gender identity. As for spiritual intervention, I would imagine it to be a priest or pastor forcing a gay person to pray for their conversion."

"In light of adding transgenderism to the definition of conversion therapy, gender identity should most likely be added to the first preamble clause as well."

"Done."

Wait, so would this proposal prohibit treatments for gender identity disorder, or gender dysphoria?

United Massachusetts wrote:

Sciongrad wrote:Sciongrad would like to caution the ambassador from United Massachusetts from taking into consideration opinions like the one advanced by the ambassador from Auralia, which is both radical and non-scientific. This is not an issue on which compromise is desirable. While Sciongrad has argued many times before that there is a need for nuance in crafting policy and that most issues cannot be boiled down to competing absolutes, this is not one of those issues. Sciongrad would only support a resolution that actively proscribes conversion therapy of any kind for minors and that actively discouraged conversion therapy in general, even among consenting adults.


A couple issues. First, your preamble mentions the term "LGBT," yet you make no mention of gender identity in your definition of conversion therapy. As written, this does not prohibit conversion therapy of transgender individuals. Second, it is unclear what you mean by "coercive spiritual intervention." Would you mind elaborating?

"I shall, at the risk of angering the Catholic Club, add gender identity. As for spiritual intervention, I would imagine it to be a priest or pastor forcing a gay person to pray for their conversion."

"Sciongrad welcomes this change and offers its support for this proposal. We will continue to monitor its progress."

"In the concerned clause, you have used the word 'ought', which expresses obligation, where I believe 'because' would be a better fit."

Would you consider something like "3a. strongly urges the relevant public and governmental bodies in World Assembly nations to actively discourage conversion therapy and to publish and promote information on its dangers and ineffectiveness"?

"The second preamble clause's first line mentions only sexual orientation, not gender identity."

Sciongrad wrote:Sciongrad would like to caution the ambassador from United Massachusetts from taking into consideration opinions like the one advanced by the ambassador from Auralia, which is both radical and non-scientific.

Excuse me? In what sense is an openness to the possibility that sexual orientation can safely be changed "radical" or "non-scientific"? To the contrary, there is no evidence for the claim that it is impossible that sexual orientation can safely be changed.

Sciongrad wrote:This is not an issue on which compromise is desirable. While Sciongrad has argued many times before that there is a need for nuance in crafting policy and that most issues cannot be boiled down to competing absolutes, this is not one of those issues.

Why not?

United Massachusetts wrote:I shall, at the risk of angering the Catholic Club, add gender identity.

We are strenuously opposed to this change, which actually is radical and non-scientific in its attempt to equate attempts to change sexual orientation with attempts to reconcile gender identity with biological sex. They are not remotely comparable.

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.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Auralia wrote:

Sciongrad wrote:Sciongrad would like to caution the ambassador from United Massachusetts from taking into consideration opinions like the one advanced by the ambassador from Auralia, which is both radical and non-scientific.

Excuse me? In what sense is an openness to the possibility that sexual orientation can safely be changed "radical" or "non-scientific"? To the contrary, there is no evidence for the claim that it is impossible that sexual orientation can safely be changed.

(OOC: I disagree: link, link 2.)

Sciongrad wrote:Second, it is unclear what you mean by "coercive spiritual intervention." Would you mind elaborating?

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY: Perhaps it is literal divine intervention.

"In the concerned clause, I think that 'tendencies' is too weak a word for what is more akin to hate or prejudice."

Kenmoria wrote:

Auralia wrote:Excuse me? In what sense is an openness to the possibility that sexual orientation can safely be changed "radical" or "non-scientific"? To the contrary, there is no evidence for the claim that it is impossible that sexual orientation can safely be changed.

(OOC: I disagree: link, link 2.)

((OOC: Neither of those links demonstrate that it is per se impossible that sexual orientation can safely be changed.))