NationStates

---

Ban on Conversion Therapy
Category: Social Justice | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: United Massachusetts

---

Noting that countless analyses, studies, and evidenced-based tests have conclusively shown what already makes intuitive sense, that sexual orientation and gender identity are not choices, thus rendering conversion therapy useless,

Concerned by the alarming effects of conversion therapy and other attempts to forcibly alter sexual orientation because of homophobic prejudices, including:

1. depression and suicidal tendencies in LGBT+ youth, born from the feeling of rejection conversion therapy techniques plant in them,
2. emotional and physical trauma from the often severe intimidation and painful physical "treatments" employed by conversion therapists,
3. what can only properly be described as the physical and emotional abuse of non-conforming individuals,

Asserting that forcing the most vulnerable and impressionable among us, young people, down a fraudulent and harmful path of self-hatred is inherently cruel,

The General Assembly, therefore:

1. Defines, for the sake of this resolution, "conversion therapy" as any attempt to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of an individual through psychological, physical, or coercive spiritual intervention,
   
   
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,
   
   
4. Urges member-states to take steps to help the survivors of conversion therapy recover from its effects through counseling, social assistance, or other means.

Based on a proposal I saw submitted today. I have contacted the author, and am awaiting reply.

OOC: This is well written for a first draft, but it appears too similar to the recently submitted proposal, "Ban on Converstion Therapy," by Liberlitatia. At the risk of sounding rude and overly presumptuous, this draft seems to be written in direct response to Liberlitatia's work, and purely written for a badge and prestige within the WA.

Dmitry II wrote:OOC: This is well written for a first draft, but it appears too similar to the recently submitted proposal, "Ban on Converstion Therapy," by Liberlitatia. At the risk of sounding rude and overly presumptuous, this draft seems to be written in direct response to Liberlitatia's work, and purely written for a badge and prestige within the WA.

I have consulted with Liberlitatia, and if they would like me to withdraw, I have given them that option.

It is true that I first came upon it stumbling upon Liberlitatia's proposal. I was drawn in, and found the topic workable. So, I decided to draft my own. I'd urge Liberlitatia to take some ideas I had then resubmit if they so please.

Let's be clear, though--this is not a badge hunt, and assuming so is somewhat presumptuous. I've taken contraversial opinions before, and submitted doomed resolutions before. I am no badge hunter.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Dmitry II wrote:OOC: This is well written for a first draft, but it appears too similar to the recently submitted proposal, "Ban on Converstion Therapy," by Liberlitatia. At the risk of sounding rude and overly presumptuous, this draft seems to be written in direct response to Liberlitatia's work, and purely written for a badge and prestige within the WA.

I have consulted with Liberlitatia, and if they would like me to withdraw, I have given them that option.

It is true that I first came upon it stumbling upon Liberlitatia's proposal. I was drawn in, and found the topic workable. So, I decided to draft my own. I'd urge Liberlitatia to take some ideas I had then resubmit if they so please.

Let's be clear, though--this is not a badge hunt, and assuming so is somewhat presumptuous. I've taken contraversial opinions before, and submitted doomed resolutions before. I am no badge hunter (plus, I already have one )

Sounds respectable, but you have a tendency to draw in inspiration from other failed or abandoned drafts on topics such as Auralia's commendation, craft a number of proposals in a very short period of time, and then abandon these ideas after a long period of inactivity or disinterest from the WA community. Your sincerity is very questionable.
Again, however, this is a well-written first draft, and I will support it if some edits are made, and if you are willing to follow through on it.

Dmitry II wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:I have consulted with Liberlitatia, and if they would like me to withdraw, I have given them that option.

It is true that I first came upon it stumbling upon Liberlitatia's proposal. I was drawn in, and found the topic workable. So, I decided to draft my own. I'd urge Liberlitatia to take some ideas I had then resubmit if they so please.

Let's be clear, though--this is not a badge hunt, and assuming so is somewhat presumptuous. I've taken contraversial opinions before, and submitted doomed resolutions before. I am no badge hunter (plus, I already have one )

Sounds respectable, but you have a tendency to draw in inspiration from other failed or abandoned drafts on topics such as Auralia's commendation, craft a number of proposals in a very short period of time, and then abandon these ideas after a long period of inactivity or disinterest from the WA community. Your sincerity is very questionable.
Again, however, this is a well-written first draft, and I will support it if some edits are made, and if you are willing to follow through on it.

Auralia's been a friend of mine for a long time on NS. My desire to commend them arises in spite of past proposals, not because of them. I understand you are concerned about my activity, but I tend to get around to them at some point. Freedom of Religion is an old draft. I intend to submit Commend Auralia after Commend Knootoss passes. It is true that my work style amounts to somewhat random energy bursts, but I don't think you can use that to question my sincerity.

I'd be happy to follow through. What edits would you like made?

United Massachusetts wrote:Prohibits any social worker, counselor, or medical professional in a World Assembly member-state from recommending conversion therapy to minors or performing it on minors,

Prohibits any public or governmental body in a World Assembly member-state from recommending or performing conversion therapy on any individual,

I get if you want to keep it this way, but you could probably combine these two clauses as they basically say the same thing. You could simply say, "Prohibits recommending or preforming conversion therapy on any individual in a World Assembly member-state."

Masurbia wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:Prohibits any social worker, counselor, or medical professional in a World Assembly member-state from recommending conversion therapy to minors or performing it on minors,

Prohibits any public or governmental body in a World Assembly member-state from recommending or performing conversion therapy on any individual,

I get if you want to keep it this way, but you could probably combine these two clauses as they basically say the same thing. You could simply say, "Prohibits recommending or preforming conversion therapy on any individual in a World Assembly member-state."

The two are different.

One says the government can't engage in conversion therapy on anyone; the latter says that private groups cannot do so on minors. I'm inclined to keep them separate.

"In clause 3, what if the individual wants to have conversion therapy performed upon them and is a consenting adult? Though rare, there have been cases in Kenmoria in which devout Catholics have willingly had this performed on them."

Attrocious writing along with a similar issue already is submitted (with lack of approval). The title also doesn't match the action, and I'm personally opposed. This is doomed if submitted.

Kenmoria wrote:"In clause 3, what if the individual wants to have conversion therapy performed upon them and is a consenting adult? Though rare, there have been cases in Kenmoria in which devout Catholics have willingly had this performed on them."

"Very well for said individual, I suppose. The government merely cannot be involved in such a course of treatment. Consenting adults would be free to pursue conversion therapy on their own, though I'd hope they wouldn't."

Ankura wrote:Attrocious writing along with a similar issue already is submitted (with lack of approval). The title also doesn't match the action, and I'm personally opposed. This is doomed if submitted.

A couple points here:

• Please explain which areas of the text you believe have "atrocious writing"
• I've received permission from the author to continue with this draft, so I don't see how there is a probelm
• I'll consider a potential title change. It's a place-filler.

What will be the effects on voluntary conversion therapy?

I get why you think it's bad, but... International law? There are countries that kill people for being gay and you're trying to get the GA to tackle something like suggesting conversion therapy?

Hatterleigh wrote:I get why you think it's bad, but... International law? There are countries that kill people for being gay and you're trying to get the GA to tackle something like suggesting conversion therapy?

Killing people for being gay is already illegal under GA law, per Crime and Punishment. I'm pretty certain that there is extant legislation legalising homosexuality. This is a relatively logical continuation of that train of thought.

Van Riebeeck Land wrote:What will be the effects on voluntary conversion therapy?

Of consenting adults? The resolution would permit it to be obtained, but not officially sanctioned by the government.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Hatterleigh wrote:I get why you think it's bad, but... International law? There are countries that kill people for being gay and you're trying to get the GA to tackle something like suggesting conversion therapy?

Killing people for being gay is already illegal under GA law, per Crime and Punishment. I'm pretty certain that there is extant legislation legalising homosexuality. This is a relatively logical continuation of that train of thought.

Yeah, but as long as no government is enforcing conversion therapy, is it really such a big scary global problem? Also, what if some time in the future scientists do find a form of Conversion Therapy that works? What happens then?

United Massachusetts wrote:

Van Riebeeck Land wrote:What will be the effects on voluntary conversion therapy?

Of consenting adults? The resolution would permit it to be obtained, but not officially sanctioned by the government.

Why? they have the right to do whatever they want with their lives

Hatterleigh wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:Killing people for being gay is already illegal under GA law, per Crime and Punishment. I'm pretty certain that there is extant legislation legalising homosexuality. This is a relatively logical continuation of that train of thought.

Yeah, but as long as no government is enforcing conversion therapy, is it really such a big scary global problem? Also, what if some time in the future scientists do find a form of Conversion Therapy that works? What happens then?

"I don't think conversion therapy should be supported even if it did work."

Hatterleigh wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:
Of consenting adults? The resolution would permit it to be obtained, but not officially sanctioned by the government.

Why? they have the right to do whatever they want with their lives

"Of course consenting adults do. This resolution doesn't take away that right. It merely says that the government should officially fund, provide, or support conversion therapy. In other words, these consenting adults would have to obtain it privately. "

Dmitry II wrote:OOC: This is well written for a first draft, but it appears too similar to the recently submitted proposal, "Ban on Converstion Therapy," by Liberlitatia. At the risk of sounding rude and overly presumptuous, this draft seems to be written in direct response to Liberlitatia's work, and purely written for a badge and prestige within the WA.

This author doesn't do badge hunts. Already possessing a badge should be a prima facie reason that one is not badge hunting.

Ankura wrote:Attrocious writing along with a similar issue already is submitted (with lack of approval). The title also doesn't match the action, and I'm personally opposed. This is doomed if submitted.

One should probably have more experience taking the pulse of Assembly before pronouncing it dead simply because you don't know how to find a vessel.

Van Riebeeck Land wrote:What will be the effects on voluntary conversion therapy?

He explained it earlier: viewtopic.php?p=34095884#p34095884

Hatterleigh wrote:Yeah, but as long as no government is enforcing conversion therapy, is it really such a big scary global problem? Also, what if some time in the future scientists do find a form of Conversion Therapy that works? What happens then?

I don't see any of these problems having nearly as much weight as you think they have. The first concern's justification isn't derived from a positive one, is derives from a normative one. The latter isn't relevant insofar as people should have the right to self-determine.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Hatterleigh wrote:Yeah, but as long as no government is enforcing conversion therapy, is it really such a big scary global problem? Also, what if some time in the future scientists do find a form of Conversion Therapy that works? What happens then?

"I don't think conversion therapy should be supported even if it did work."

Why? There are very clear benefits to being straight. A much larger dating pool, ability to produce children with someone you love, and of course some feel it'd be a religious goal. If anything, it may help lower gay suicide rates

United Massachusetts wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:Prohibits any social worker, counselor, or medical professional in a World Assembly member-state from recommending conversion therapy to minors or performing it on minors,

Prohibits any public or governmental body in a World Assembly member-state from recommending or performing conversion therapy on any individual,

The two are different.

One says the government can't engage in conversion therapy on anyone; the latter says that private groups cannot do so on minors. I'm inclined to keep them separate.

"The separation is fine, ambassador, but the protections are still inadequate, I'm afraid. Limiting the private prohibition to apparent mental health professionals leaves open the door for whack-a-doodle cult preachers and mainline churches both to keep on keepin' on. We'd be a lot more comfortable if social worker, counselor, or medical professional were changed to person or organization."

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:The two are different.

One says the government can't engage in conversion therapy on anyone; the latter says that private groups cannot do so on minors. I'm inclined to keep them separate.

"The separation is fine, ambassador, but the protections are still inadequate, I'm afraid. Limiting the private prohibition to apparent mental health professionals leaves open the door for whack-a-doodle cult preachers and mainline churches both to keep on keepin' on. We'd be a lot more comfortable if social worker, counselor, or medical professional were changed to person or organization."

"Fair enough. Edits made.

Ankura wrote:Attrocious writing along with a similar issue already is submitted (with lack of approval).

Read the thread. It's obvious you either don't get it, or you simply skimmed through a lot of content.

Ankura wrote:The title also doesn't match the action, and I'm personally opposed. This is doomed if submitted.

I won't question your beliefs, but the proposal very well states that it bans conversion therapy. Again, did you actually read and/or understand this?

"You consistently mention sexual orientation and conversion therapy pretty much exclusively changes that, but the T in LGBT is nothing to do with that. I would therefore recommend changing it to LGB where it appears."

Kenmoria wrote:"You consistently mention sexual orientation and conversion therapy pretty much exclusively changes that, but the T in LGBT is nothing to do with that. I would therefore recommend changing it to LGB where it appears."

"I wouldn't. The folks who practice this abomination don't discriminate between types of 'deviant' and will happily prescribe it for gender dysphoria as soon as for college kids experimenting with a same-sex kiss. Leave it in and even add the plus sign ["LGBTQ+"] just so we're all quite clear."

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:"You consistently mention sexual orientation and conversion therapy pretty much exclusively changes that, but the T in LGBT is nothing to do with that. I would therefore recommend changing it to LGB where it appears."

"I wouldn't. The folks who practice this abomination don't discriminate between types of 'deviant' and will happily prescribe it for gender dysphoria as soon as for college kids experimenting with a same-sex kiss. Leave it in and even add the plus sign ["LGBTQ+"] just so we're all quite clear."

Given that the target resolution explicitly defines conversion therapy solely in terms of sexual orientation, it does not seem to address in any way appropriate therapeutic intervention for the disordered state of transgenderism. While I do not care about the acronym used, Kenmoria is quite correct to point out that this resolution has nothing to do with the T or the majority of the +s that keep popping up (aside, I will concede, from asexuality, if one considers that to be a sexual orientation).

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
"I wouldn't. The folks who practice this abomination don't discriminate between types of 'deviant' and will happily prescribe it for gender dysphoria as soon as for college kids experimenting with a same-sex kiss. Leave it in and even add the plus sign ["LGBTQ+"] just so we're all quite clear."

Given that the target resolution explicitly defines conversion therapy solely in terms of sexual orientation, it does not seem to address in any way appropriate therapeutic intervention for the disordered state of transgenderism. While I do not care about the acronym used, Kenmoria is quite correct to point out that this resolution has nothing to do with the T or the majority of the +s that keep popping up (aside, I will concede, from asexuality, if one considers that to be a sexual orientation).

"Then the proposal should be changed to include gender identity as a listed motive for the torture it seeks to prevent. Certainly nobody who makes a living at it is going to suddenly stop because the wrong kind of sexual 'deviance' is in play. Everyone potentially subjected to these assaults should be protected, not just the ones mainstream society is less nasty about lately."