[PASSED] Defending Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities

[Samaster]

Of course they don't have to be right, but intersex exists. Thus invalidating your point about 2 sexes, thus invalidating your point about 2 genders.

Conservative OWNED using FACTS and LOGIC
but in all seriousness, i need to do more research

OWNING conservatives: "Fun for everyone!"
To be honest, that's the problem with an ideology. No ideology humans can provide is perfect and in edge cases ideology conflicts with the truth. This doesn't make the ideology worse usually. Most liberals have the same problems in other areas where they are just wrong and demonstrably so. It seems hard for others to accept truth if it contradicts their beliefs.

[Bears Armed]

ive pretty much gone against everything in the WA that i considered rubbish and im still here

OOC
Oh no you're not!

(If you can roleplay blatant noncompliance, we can roleplay that you've been expelled...)

[Maowi]

This proposal grievously infringes upon the rights of sovereign nations. The World Assembly is to improve the conditions of people in the member nations but not by taking over and ruling the sovereign nations. I oppose this proposal and regretfully promise that if it passes, I will attempt an immediate repeal and if that fails I will resign from the World Assembly.

If we have to 'infringe upon the rights of sovereign nations' in order to make sure that everybody is treated fairly and equally, so be it.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

"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.

OwO I didn't know you were on the GA Forum.

Yeah, the recognize misspelling is kind of irking.

[Maowi]

"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.

OwO I didn't know you were on the GA Forum.

Yeah, the recognize misspelling is kind of irking.

It is not a misspelling.
American English: recognize
UK English: recognise

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

OwO I didn't know you were on the GA Forum.

Yeah, the recognize misspelling is kind of irking.

It is not a misspelling.
American English: recognize
UK English: recognise

I am Indian, and I use recognize.

But I do live in a town founded by American Missionaries, so it may be because of that.

This proposal grievously infringes upon the rights of sovereign nations. The World Assembly is to improve the conditions of people in the member nations but not by taking over and ruling the sovereign nations. I oppose this proposal and regretfully promise that if it passes, I will attempt an immediate repeal and if that fails I will resign from the World Assembly.

If we have to 'infringe upon the rights of sovereign nations' in order to make sure that everybody is treated fairly and equally, so be it.

The problem is: it doesn't. There are loopholes in this too. Who is to say that I can't deport those who choose to switch gender under the provisions of this law? It doesn't say I can't. Who is to say I can't make gender change a sin under a church that membership of is mandatory for the full nation but separated from the government a way to punish it, even if it is legal under this laws provision?

I think it will just make life worse for those in countries wishing to loophole it.

[Maowi]

The problem is: it doesn't. There are loopholes in this too. Who is to say that I can't deport those who choose to switch gender under the provisions of this law? It doesn't say I can't. Who is to say I can't make gender change a sin under a church that membership of is mandatory for the full nation but separated from the government a way to punish it, even if it is legal under this laws provision?

I think it will just make life worse for those in countries wishing to loophole it.

This makes it illegal for you to make membership of a church mandatory.
Deporting someone because they choose to switch gender I would think does not constitute 'recognising and accepting' that gender change.

Also, just to make it quite clear:
Recognise is a valid spelling in the UK. Even American dictionaries recognise that.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

The problem is: it doesn't. There are loopholes in this too. Who is to say that I can't deport those who choose to switch gender under the provisions of this law? It doesn't say I can't. Who is to say I can't make gender change a sin under a church that membership of is mandatory for the full nation but separated from the government a way to punish it, even if it is legal under this laws provision?

I think it will just make life worse for those in countries wishing to loophole it.

This makes it illegal for you to make membership of a church mandatory.

Okay, you got me on that one.

Deporting someone because they choose to switch gender I would think does not constitute 'recognising and accepting' that gender change.

You can recognize and accept it as much as you want - you can still deport them. Deport them recognized under the gender they chose, and you are good to go.

Also, just to make it quite clear:
Recognise is a valid spelling in the UK. Even American dictionaries recognise that.

[/quote]
Yeah, I wasn't contesting it after you corrected me the first time.

[Maowi]

You can recognize and accept it as much as you want - you can still deport them. Deport them recognized under the gender they chose, and you are good to go.

Ok, but if you deport transgender males/females for being trans, and agender people for being agender, etc., you are giving more rights to cis people than you are to them - which would be illegal under this proposal.

[Mundiferrum]

This makes it illegal for you to make membership of a church mandatory.

Okay, you got me on that one.

Deporting someone because they choose to switch gender I would think does not constitute 'recognising and accepting' that gender change.

You can recognize and accept it as much as you want - you can still deport them. Deport them recognized under the gender they chose, and you are good to go.

Wouldn't deporting someone for their sex or gender go against CoCR? Or the Convention on Gender?

I mean a lot of folks' issues on this seems to be that they don't agree with how this resolution defines gender and sexuality, when 'Convention on Gender' has yet to be stricken out. Totally the wrong target here.

[Kenmoria]

You can recognize and accept it as much as you want - you can still deport them. Deport them recognized under the gender they chose, and you are good to go.

Ok, but if you deport transgender males/females for being trans, and agender people for being agender, etc., you are giving more rights to cis people than you are to them - which would be illegal under this proposal.

(OOC: Also, Reducing Statelessness exists, which makes deportation illegal unless the citizen has citizenship elsewhere.)

[Araraukar]

This proposal grievously infringes upon the rights of sovereign nations.

OOC: All WA resolutions do. That's what the WA does.

False.

are you serious?

She should be since it is scientifically proven that there are more than 2 genders.

OOC: *puts up a hand* I'm a RL exhibit A.

[GeneralStalin]

This proposal grievously infringes upon the rights of sovereign nations.

OOC: All WA resolutions do. That's what the WA does.
:

It seems to have gotten rapidly worse in the last 6 months or so.
The legistlation doesn't seem to focus on theocratic states at all either.

[Marxist Germany]

This couldve been less extreme and removed the loopholes, a repeal is coming soon, WA ambassador of Marxist Germany.

[Hatzisland]

Look, I was about to vote for this plan, until I read Provision 4. This plan has to clarify what constitutes "changing gender". The nation of Hatzisland thinks that gender-altering surgery should be the bar to be recognized as transgender, but others might disagree. Also, how can a baby choose its gender at birth? I know it may be a little late to change the plan, but it should be voted down as is.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: All WA resolutions do. That's what the WA does.
:

It seems to have gotten rapidly worse in the last 6 months or so.
The legistlation doesn't seem to focus on theocratic states at all either.

(OOC: I disagree; On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms became law years ago, but are to me the resolutions that cause the most threats of noncompliance due to national sovereignty. I do however agree that this doesn’t focus at all on theocratic states - this was intentional by the author to avoid contradicting religious rights. It will take another piece of legislation to close that area.)

[Rastafarianastan]

Glad I'm Not In The World Assembly.

[Maowi]

Look, I was about to vote for this plan, until I read Provision 4. This plan has to clarify what constitutes "changing gender". The nation of Hatzisland thinks that gender-altering surgery should be the bar to be recognized as transgender, but others might disagree. Also, how can a baby choose its gender at birth? I know it may be a little late to change the plan, but it should be voted down as is.

There are precedents in the convention on gender to show that there is a difference between gender and sex (gender based on how you feel you fit in with society's constructs on different gender identifies and sex based on your biological features), so changing gender doesn't require surgery. (I appreciate this is a long thread and you don't want to go reading it all through, but scan the last couple of pages and you should find my response on this). As for the baby thing, this proposal wouldn't mandate that you can't assign someone a gender without their express agreement, but that if they want to change their official gender you must allow them to do so. So a baby wouldn't have to choose their own gender.

[Macsenoedd]

If I Just Make It Illegal To Not Follow The State Religion, There Will Be No Religious Discrimination!

OOC: That puts you in violation of an already existing resolution, though.

And What Might That Be? (Also I Think I Saw Something Saying Old Laws In The World Assembly Don't Apply To New People Joining, Which I Personally Think Doesn't Make Sense)

[Kenmoria]

OOC: That puts you in violation of an already existing resolution, though.

And What Might That Be? (Also I Think I Saw Something Saying Old Laws In The World Assembly Don't Apply To New People Joining, Which I Personally Think Doesn't Make Sense)

(OOC: That would be GA #430, Freedom of Religion, which states that individuals have the right to practice or not practice a religion without state reprisal. Also, WA laws do apply to everyone, regardless of the time you joined. I believe the person who said that was talking about the statistical effects rather than roleplaying.)

[Maowi]

And What Might That Be? (Also I Think I Saw Something Saying Old Laws In The World Assembly Don't Apply To New People Joining, Which I Personally Think Doesn't Make Sense)

This makes it illegal for you to make membership of a religion mandatory.

Also, if you are referring to what I think you are referring:
When a resolution is passed in the GA, it changes all WA nations' stats depending on its category. It only changes the stats of the nations which are already in the WA when the resolution is passed, not those who join later. However, rp-ing, its law is still binding for anyone who joins later, unless it's repealed, of course.

Ninja'd, lol, I thought that only happened in Forum 7

[Macsenoedd]

And What Might That Be? (Also I Think I Saw Something Saying Old Laws In The World Assembly Don't Apply To New People Joining, Which I Personally Think Doesn't Make Sense)

This makes it illegal for you to make membership of a religion mandatory.

Also, if you are referring to what I think you are referring:
When a resolution is passed in the GA, it changes all WA nations' stats depending on its category. It only changes the stats of the nations which are already in the WA when the resolution is passed, not those who join later. However, rp-ing, its law is still binding for anyone who joins later, unless it's repealed, of course.

Ninja'd, lol, I thought that only happened in Forum 7

Ok. Although Your Post States That Makes Membership Of A Religion Mandatory, While I Simply Illegalised Living In The Country And Not Following The State Religion, But The Post Seems To Illegalise That As Well. Maybe If I Just Use State Funds To Buy All Temple Or Religious Buildings For A Religion Other Than The State Religion, And Convert Them To Non-Religious Buildings Or Temples Of The State Religion, While Also Having A State-Funded Missionary Organisation Attempting To Convert People Who Don't Follow The State Religion. Is That Legal?

[Macsenoedd]

Hey, Does This Law Still Apply To Me, As It States (To Paraphrase) "...If Your Nation Allows Civil Marriage..." While We Would Rather Not, And Also The Law Seems To Be About Genders, And In Our State There's Only One Recognised Human Gender: Human.

[The Marconian State]

Hey,

This is the ambassador to the WA from The Marconian State reporting in. Usually we choose not to involve ourselves in much discussion of the ongoings of WA resolutions (or anything, really...), but my aides recommended we speak out on this one. I gotta say, I'm real disappointed, and I think my President would be too. Now, it's completely valid for a nation to be against this or any other resolution if they feel it crosses the lines in how much authority the WA should have, but it's very clear that that's not the only reason people are against this resolution.

What my aides have told me in their summary of the debate so far tells me that there has been an unprecedented level of bigotry used in argument against the resolution, both of the non-religious and religious varieties. To the former: I hope you properly understand the scientific consensus in understanding sex and gender and the difference between the two, and not let your ignorance cloud your judgement. To the latter: We can't claim to know what every one of your religions stands for, as we're not staffed well enough to go through and research them all, but for any that claim to be inclusive, tolerant and loving, especially if you are an Abrahamic religion or an offshoot of it, how can you still claim to be such yet be against this resolution?

I have also been told that many think it does not go far enough, being disappointed in the inclusion of Clause 5 in the final copy of the resolution. Yes, it's not a perfect bill, but it still makes great strides in improving the civil rights of non-binary peoples, and to be against it on the basis it is not doing enough is to be part of the problem. Yes, we would've liked to see a stronger bill too, but sometimes you need those smaller steps to have an easier time making it all the way up the staircase.

Back again to those who worry about the overreaching of the WA in regards to their own nation's sovereignty. Yes, it's always a worry that allowing the WA to impede on any individual country's ability to make their own laws will only further invite it to do so, and many of you, I'm sure, already have great legislation in place allowing non-binary peoples to marry and don't see the point. Sometimes, however, it is important to juggle the importance of sovereignty with doing the right thing, and the right thing here is ensuring that across the multiverse, people of all sexualities and genders will have a right that others, myself included, sometimes take advantage of.

My President has instructed me to keep our "for" vote in place. I can only hope more of you are willing to go "for" this resolution as well. Thank you.

[Maowi]

Ok. Although Your Post States That Makes Membership Of A Religion Mandatory, While I Simply Illegalised Living In The Country And Not Following The State Religion, But The Post Seems To Illegalise That As Well. Maybe If I Just Use State Funds To Buy All Temple Or Religious Buildings For A Religion Other Than The State Religion, And Convert Them To Non-Religious Buildings Or Temples Of The State Religion, While Also Having A State-Funded Missionary Organisation Attempting To Convert People Who Don't Follow The State Religion. Is That Legal?

I mean I don't really know and frankly don't have the time to search through the GA proposals to see whether you are allowed to buy religious buildings whether the owner likes it or not, and anyway atheists don't need temples to worship in.

Hey, Does This Law Still Apply To Me, As It States (To Paraphrase) "...If Your Nation Allows Civil Marriage..." While We Would Rather Not, And Also The Law Seems To Be About Genders, And In Our State There's Only One Recognised Human Gender: Human.

If you allow civil marriage between say a man and a woman, you have to allow it between any two people. If the only type of marriage you currently allow is religious, then you don't have to allow religious marriages for other people.