[PASSED] Defending Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities

[Wallenburg]

Mikael steps into the drafting room at the last minute and takes a look at the proposal put to the queue. "Reluctantly, I must oppose this resolution. Had you not included the blatantly unscientific and absurdist requirements of clause four, I would have voted in favor."

[Maowi]

Mikael steps into the drafting room at the last minute and takes a look at the proposal put to the queue. "Reluctantly, I must oppose this resolution. Had you not included the blatantly unscientific and absurdist requirements of clause four, I would have voted in favor."

"If it helps, clause four dictates that member states must allow its citizens to choose their own gender; the assignment of their biological sex can be subjected to each individual nation's own rules, as far as this proposal goes. Therefore, I do not see what is scientifically wrong with clause four. It is generally accepted that one's gender is to do with the mind and the intellect, and one's sex is the biological features one is born with."

[Wallenburg]

Mikael steps into the drafting room at the last minute and takes a look at the proposal put to the queue. "Reluctantly, I must oppose this resolution. Had you not included the blatantly unscientific and absurdist requirements of clause four, I would have voted in favor."

"If it helps, clause four dictates that member states must allow its citizens to choose their own gender; the assignment of their biological sex can be subjected to each individual nation's own rules, as far as this proposal goes. Therefore, I do not see what is scientifically wrong with clause four. It is generally accepted that one's gender is to do with the mind and the intellect, and one's sex is the biological features one is born with."

Mikael stares at his colleague in confusion. "Ambassador, you're saying the same thing and giving it different definitions. I don't understand."

His translator leans down and passes a whisper to him. Mikael now looks to his translator, even more confused. "W--why? There's not even a word for that. There's no such thing."

[Kranostav]

I'm curious as to why you excluded Theocracies and religious governments and associations. Did you not want to offend them?

[Kenmoria]

If citizens had the right to choose their gender, Couldn't that make cataloging files and the like very difficult? It would no longer be a male or a female, the concept I agree with, but choice of any gender? That would muck things up quite a lot.

(OOC: I think a good-faith interpretation of clause 4 wouldn’t include things such as identifying as anything inanimate, as is parodied in internet memes, but just male, female and some kind of epicene/agender/neutral.)

[Wittebosland]

Although i'm usually all for the more liberal approach to my nation's politics, i'm going to have to pass on this one. It feels like quite an overlap from GAR #35, just as everyone else said, but with even more points that would frustrate a lot of the more "eccentric" WA members. In addition, I feel that it skirts dangerously close to a "game mechanics" contradiction, as marriage and sexuality are usually Issue-based matters first and foremost.

[Maowi]

"If it helps, clause four dictates that member states must allow its citizens to choose their own gender; the assignment of their biological sex can be subjected to each individual nation's own rules, as far as this proposal goes. Therefore, I do not see what is scientifically wrong with clause four. It is generally accepted that one's gender is to do with the mind and the intellect, and one's sex is the biological features one is born with."

Mikael stares at his colleague in confusion. "Ambassador, you're saying the same thing and giving it different definitions. I don't understand."

His translator leans down and passes a whisper to him. Mikael now looks to his translator, even more confused. "W--why? There's not even a word for that. There's no such thing."

"I would like to draw your attention to GAR #91, A Convention on Gender. It does not contain a definition of gender (although it does define majoritarian genders) but it distinguishes between intersex and intergender people: ' “Intersex persons”: Due to genetic variations, cannot be assigned to any MG by evidence of genetic and/or anatomical features;' ' “Intergender persons”: Self-identify as belonging to more than one MG at once, or not belonging to any MG at all; may express combinations of MG attributes, or none at all; also may have any MG features;'
Majoritarian genders are defined 'not only by genetic and/or anatomical features, but also by cultural roles each culture usually ascribes them.' The genetic and anatomical features are included in the definition for convenience, I believe, as the author then goes on to make the difference between intersex and intergender clear. An intersex person cannot be considered an 'MG' because of their biology; an intergender person can, but chooses not to because of the social attributes assigned to MGs. There is, I believe, precedent enough here for choice of gender to be taken to mean something different from choice of sex. Besides, if your Government does not want to allow people choice of sex, there is nothing stopping you from only allowing choice of gender (as I take it to mean)."

I'm curious as to why you excluded Theocracies and religious governments and associations. Did you not want to offend them?

"As a believer in freedom of religion, I do not think it is morally right to force a religious institution to carry out a practise that is considered sinful or wrong by their religion. If being for example homosexual is seen as wrong in a religion or one of its denominations, I do not see why a homosexual person would continue to believe in the truth and goodness of that particular religion, and if they did follow that denomination ardently enough to keep believing in it, they probably would not want to marry someone of the same gender as them. I can speak only for myself, and that is my view; others are welcome to differ."

Although i'm usually all for the more liberal approach to my nation's politics, i'm going to have to pass on this one. It feels like quite an overlap from GAR #35, just as everyone else said, but with even more points that would frustrate a lot of the more "eccentric" WA members. In addition, I feel that it skirts dangerously close to a "game mechanics" contradiction, as marriage and sexuality are usually Issue-based matters first and foremost.

"If by "eccentric" WA members you mean those who do discriminate against sexual or gender minorities, isn't the whole point of proposals like this to try and protect the rights of these people?"

OOC: I am not an expert on this, but I would've thought that seeing as WA resolutions do not affect how you answer issues, only game stats, this wouldn't fall under violation of the Game Mechanics rule? I thought that was more for things like trying to force all non-complying member nations to be banned from the WA for example?

[Kenmoria]

OOC: I am not an expert on this, but I would've thought that seeing as WA resolutions do not affect how you answer issues, only game stats, this wouldn't fall under violation of the Game Mechanics rule? I thought that was more for things like trying to force all non-complying member nations to be banned from the WA for example?

(OOC: You are correct in that the statement by Wittebosland doesn’t quite portray how the game mechanics rule actually works. Issues have no correlation with being in the GA, apart from the issues titled World Assembly Woes, so there is no issue if a member state selects or receives an option that contravenes legislation. Your proposal is definitely not illegal for game mechanics.)

[Wallenburg]

I'm curious as to why you excluded Theocracies and religious governments and associations. Did you not want to offend them?

I'm not sure you can interpret this as granting theocracies a free pass.

[Maowi]

I'm curious as to why you excluded Theocracies and religious governments and associations. Did you not want to offend them?

I'm not sure you can interpret this as granting theocracies a free pass.

Exactly, if there is a theocracy that legally recognises marriages for people of a certain gender, and the marriage is formalised as a civil contract, it will have to legally recognise civil marriages between people of any gender.

[Barichvaria]

"MANDATES that all member nations must allow each of their citizens to choose or change their own gender, and that member nations must officially recognise and accept the individual's chosen gender."

Are we serious? Official recognition of changed gender is forced?

You didn't even spell recognize correctly.

Against 100 times over. This law infringes on my national sovereignty so much.

[Sackelshorth]

The Kingdom of Sackelshorth does agree with the main objective of this resolution. We do pose two questions. How expansive is this resolution? Does this require member states to protect the rights of polygamist groups?

The Kingdom of Sackelshorth agrees that all genders and sexuality should be protected, but we have our limits.

[Otaku Stratus]

Jiminy. If it didn't break the entire functionality of the site, this would be the straw that got me to resign from WA.

[Araraukar]

(OOC: I think a good-faith interpretation of clause 4 wouldn’t include things such as identifying as anything inanimate, as is parodied in internet memes, but just male, female and some kind of epicene/agender/neutral.)

OOC: "Trans" catches most things that fall between male and female. I know it means "across" and technically refers to "opposite from birth gender", but if you were born a girl and identify as male, you identify as "male", not "trans". Like I personally identify as 75% male, 25% not-female (and my official gender diagnosis reflects that) so as I'm not "fully male" (though I prefer male pronouns), I identify as "mostly male transgender". (Being only attracted to males make me trans and gay just to make things extra awkward. )

Jiminy. If it didn't break the entire functionality of the site, this would be the straw that got me to resign from WA.

OOC still: It's mostly just plugging a loophole in existing resolutions, not something that introduces a lot of new things. You're already required to let people identify as whatever gender they are, as well as give alternative sexualities full civil rights.

[A Cornstar]

I'm not sure you can interpret this as granting theocracies a free pass.

Exactly, if there is a theocracy that legally recognises marriages for people of a certain gender, and the marriage is formalised as a civil contract, it will have to legally recognise civil marriages between people of any gender.

Not if step 1 is getting the state religion's endorsement.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I think a good-faith interpretation of clause 4 wouldn’t include things such as identifying as anything inanimate, as is parodied in internet memes, but just male, female and some kind of epicene/agender/neutral.)

OOC: "Trans" catches most things that fall between male and female. I know it means "across" and technically refers to "opposite from birth gender", but if you were born a girl and identify as male, you identify as "male", not "trans". Like I personally identify as 75% male, 25% not-female (and my official gender diagnosis reflects that) so as I'm not "fully male" (though I prefer male pronouns), I identify as "mostly male transgender". (Being only attracted to males make me trans and gay just to make things extra awkward. )

(OOC: While I do understand that gender can be a bit more complex than the thre I reduced it to earlier, indeed there’s a gender wikia that has over a hundred pages, I don’t think that is what is required by member states to comply with this piece of legislation.

‘Gender’ is defined as being ‘either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female’, on the google dictionary, which makes it clear that, in primary usage, most people are thinking of male and female when they use the term. Although this has now been contradicted by the LGBTI+ community, the proposal itself doesn’t fall one way or another on the existence of genders other than male or female.

"MANDATES that all member nations must allow each of their citizens to choose or change their own gender, and that member nations must officially recognise and accept the individual's chosen gender."

Are we serious? Official recognition of changed gender is forced?

You didn't even spell recognize correctly.

Against 100 times over. This law infringes on my national sovereignty so much.

Official recognition of gender change was already forced by prior legislation. Also, that is how recognise is spelt in Britain.)

[Kokoku]

The proposal states the following:

"MANDATES that all member nations must allow each of their citizens to choose or change their own gender, and that member nations must officially recognise and accept the individual's chosen gender."

This removes safeguards for public safety and mental health. There are reasons why anyone wanting sex reassignment surgery require a psychological evaluation. The consequences of SRS is extreme and permanent, and some who do go through it find themselves regretting it, which lead to terrible consequences for that individual. This change can't be considered lightly and certainly not for social reasons or pressure.

Furthermore, the proposal puts minors at risk for serious harm and abuse. Under this resolution, any individual can declare their own gender, including minors. That doesn't take into account the pressure and manipulation from parents. As a result, this can lead to serious mental damage for a minor, and the possibility for serious harm.

This bill also puts people in serious danger in general. Under this proposal, a sexual deviant, with no intention to become a gender other than their biological sex, can simply change genders to gain entry to public places that are segregated by genders. For example, any man can declare themselves a woman to enter the women's restroom or locker room for malicious purposes, and the state cannot take preventative action to keep the public safe.

With these in mind, I am strongly AGAINST this resolution and urge all members to vote in opposition as well.

[Araraukar]

‘Gender’ is defined as being ‘either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female’, on the google dictionary

OOC: And Wiktionary defines it as "Identification as a man, a woman or something else, and association with a (social) role or set of behavioral and cultural traits, clothing, etc; a category to which a person belongs on this basis." My point was simply that in addition to "male" and "female", you only really need "trans" to account for the nonbinaries, and "a" for those who don't identify as any. It's really not that difficult. The already existing resolution (GA #91) already makes things more difficult than they need be.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
I actually don't like this resolution because of the 'religious organization' exemption, but you know what, fuck it, I'm voting for just by seeing the reactions of all these bigoted pricks who're flipping out over being expected to acknowledge Trans and GNC people.

Y'all, science is not on your side, and people don't just decide to be trans to get into restrooms. Do some goddamned research if basic human empathy isn't convincing you.

[ICCT]

In our country, the law on the legality of same-sex relations and their marriage has long been passed.
We are trying in every way to eradicate all possible discrimination regarding sexual preferences.

But we do not quite agree in particular with paragraph 4. And here we want to partially support and refer to the statement of our friends with you - Kokoku

The proposal states the following:

"MANDATES that all member nations must allow each of their citizens to choose or change their own gender, and that member nations must officially recognise and accept the individual's chosen gender."

This removes safeguards for public safety and mental health. There are reasons why anyone wanting sex reassignment surgery require a psychological evaluation. The consequences of SRS is extreme and permanent, and some who do go through it find themselves regretting it, which lead to terrible consequences for that individual. This change can't be considered lightly and certainly not for social reasons or pressure.

Furthermore, the proposal puts minors at risk for serious harm and abuse. Under this resolution, any individual can declare their own gender, including minors. That doesn't take into account the pressure and manipulation from parents. As a result, this can lead to serious mental damage for a minor, and the possibility for serious harm.

This bill also puts people in serious danger in general. Under this proposal, a sexual deviant, with no intention to become a gender other than their biological sex, can simply change genders to gain entry to public places that are segregated by genders. For example, any man can declare themselves a woman to enter the women's restroom or locker room for malicious purposes, and the state cannot take preventative action to keep the public safe.

With these in mind, I am strongly AGAINST this resolution and urge all members to vote in opposition as well.

In general, we do not strongly encourage sex change. But in our country, as long as a person is alive and aware of himself, he has the right to do with himself what he pleases.
But, there are several few clarifications that we would like to offer and see them in the future.
1. If a person is aware of himself as a different sex, he must undergo psychological testing and evaluation, and then receive all necessary assistance from the state in carrying out sex change operations.
2. It is necessary not to allow one to define oneself as the opposite sex without any visual, physical or other changes.
An exception may be cases when a citizen has the intention to perform an operation, but still in the process of definition and self-consciousness. In this case, he may be presented with a temporary official definition, of him, as a representative of the other sex. It has a sort of, all the same loophole for sexual crimes imposed by Kokoku . In this case, it is necessary to interpret any illegal actions of a sexual nature, during this "temporary period of determination" - as a serious crime.
3. And also to maximize the limitation of cases when after a change of gender a person regrets what he has done, it is necessary to limit the age of a citizen, when he can make such a decision and make such a choice.
Our recommendation is 25 years, but in any case, this value should not be less than 21.
At the age of 25, a person already, in principle, realizes what he wants from life, and leaves as much as possible from impulse solutions.
While people age 21 and less prone to hasty and impulsive decisions.

[Tinfect]

Mikael steps into the drafting room at the last minute and takes a look at the proposal put to the queue. "Reluctantly, I must oppose this resolution. Had you not included the blatantly unscientific and absurdist requirements of clause four, I would have voted in favor."

OOC:
I sincerely hope that this is just an IC thing, wally.

This removes safeguards for public safety and mental health. There are reasons why anyone wanting sex reassignment surgery require a psychological evaluation. The consequences of SRS is extreme and permanent, and some who do go through it find themselves regretting it, which lead to terrible consequences for that individual. This change can't be considered lightly and certainly not for social reasons or pressure.

There's more to transition than SRS; many people choose not to have it for a variety of reasons, including simply not wanting it. This does not make them not their gender. People seeking such surgery, are, and I promise you, very well aware of the permanence of it and its consequences; one doesn't get to place down unjust barriers to access simply because they might regret their decision.

Furthermore, the proposal puts minors at risk for serious harm and abuse. Under this resolution, any individual can declare their own gender, including minors. That doesn't take into account the pressure and manipulation from parents. As a result, this can lead to serious mental damage for a minor, and the possibility for serious harm.

That just isn't a thing that happens very much. When it does happen, it's a matter of Child Abuse, which is entirely separate from gender recognition. Gender Self Identification is incredibly important, especially for Minors. It's been proven a great many times that allowing children to explore their gender is extremely helpful not only for the reduction of problems later in life, but in helping cis people figure out that they're cis, not convincing cis people that they're trans.

This bill also puts people in serious danger in general. Under this proposal, a sexual deviant, with no intention to become a gender other than their biological sex, can simply change genders to gain entry to public places that are segregated by genders. For example, any man can declare themselves a woman to enter the women's restroom or locker room for malicious purposes, and the state cannot take preventative action to keep the public safe.

Hey, guess what! This does not, and hast not happened. If it does happen, that's a matter of sexual assault, not Gender Recognition. And in any case, it can happen regardless of trans rights. This entire argument is predicated on the idea that Transwomen are little more than Men in dresses, and are identifiable as such, thus, any man wearing a dress can't be stopped from going into the women's restroom. Not only is this extremely transphobic, it's also literally just wrong.

In general, we do not strongly encourage sex change. But in our country, as long as a person is alive and aware of himself, he has the right to do with himself what he pleases.

There's more to transition than SRS; many people choose not to have it for a variety of reasons, including simply not wanting it. This does not make them not their gender.

1. If a person is aware of himself as a different sex, he must undergo psychological testing and evaluation, and then receive all necessary assistance from the state in carrying out sex change operations.

You do not get to decide who is and isn't trans based on arbitrary tests. You do not get to decide whether or not people get SRS or other surgeries.

It is necessary not to allow one to define oneself as the opposite sex without any visual, physical or other changes.

There are people who can't, or simply don't want, to undergo an extensive transition. Especially non-binary or otherwise GNC people who don't fit neatly into the boxes of Male and Female. This does not make them not their gender.

An exception may be cases when a citizen has the intention to perform an operation, but still in the process of definition and self-consciousness. In this case, he may be presented with a temporary official definition, of him, as a representative of the other sex.

Forcing trans people to get SRS is absolutely disgusting and I'm fairly certain, illegal, in the WA.

And also to maximize the limitation of cases when after a change of gender a person regrets what he has done, it is necessary to limit the age of a citizen, when he can make such a decision and make such a choice.
Our recommendation is 25 years, but in any case, this value should not be less than 21.
At the age of 25, a person already, in principle, realizes what he wants from life, and leaves as much as possible from impulse solutions.
While people age 21 and less prone to hasty and impulsive decisions.

First of all fuck you. If I hadn't been allowed to transition for three fucking years, or god fucking forbid seven, I'd be fucking dead. "Impulse" doesn't fucking play into it. People don't just spontaneously decide to be another gender. Restricting access to gender recognition based on fucking age is absolutely the most absurd thing I have ever heard, and does absolutely nothing but harm people.

[Falcania]

OOC: oof it's getting legit transphobic in here so uhhh maybe time to, at the very least, make the IC/OOC barriers suuuuuper clear

[Wallenburg]

Mikael steps into the drafting room at the last minute and takes a look at the proposal put to the queue. "Reluctantly, I must oppose this resolution. Had you not included the blatantly unscientific and absurdist requirements of clause four, I would have voted in favor."

OOC:
I sincerely hope that this is just an IC thing, wally.

OOC: It is. I've intentionally built Wallenburg as a combination of things I strongly agree with and things I strongly disagree with. It's a similar thing with Wallenburg's support of the death penalty, which I personally oppose. I should have made that more obvious from the start, especially for people unfamiliar with that disagreement between my RP views and my RL views.

[Audioslavia]

First of all fuck you. If I hadn't been allowed to transition for three fucking years, or god fucking forbid seven, I'd be fucking dead. "Impulse" doesn't fucking play into it. People don't just spontaneously decide to be another gender. Restricting access to gender recognition based on fucking age is absolutely the most absurd thing I have ever heard, and does absolutely nothing but harm people.

Emphasis mine.

Hi Tinfect.

I appreciate you're angry, but hurling abuse at other users on these forums is not okay. *** This is a warning for flaming ***. Attack the argument, not the user.

[Malsti]

While the Malstian delegation is displeased to see that once again religious organisations seem to get a free pass when it comes to ingrained hierarchies and discrimination, we cast our vote in favour of the resolution. Quite apart from anything else, voting against this would put us in very unpleasant company.