NationStates

Araraukar wrote:

Trellania wrote:OOC: Probably standard human programming methods in a more advanced form. So your standard combination of sleep deprivation, drug cocktails, repetition by machines of what the new personality is to consist of, and probably some random torture for the particularly tough cases.

OOC: Well, yeah, but that works on things that are in the mind, it doesn't change the body. What Laka's characters seemed to be referring to would have changed the person physically too, which is not what conservation therapy is - it'd be more the equivalent for transitioning of transgender individuals. I don't know if Laka just doesn't know the difference, but the thought of brainwashing being used to make someone believe they're dark-skinned, while they actually remain light-skinned, is just utterly amusing to me.

OOC: From the description, he's combining conversion therapy with transitioning.

Trellania wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Well, yeah, but that works on things that are in the mind, it doesn't change the body. What Laka's characters seemed to be referring to would have changed the person physically too, which is not what conservation therapy is - it'd be more the equivalent for transitioning of transgender individuals. I don't know if Laka just doesn't know the difference, but the thought of brainwashing being used to make someone believe they're dark-skinned, while they actually remain light-skinned, is just utterly amusing to me.

OOC: From the description, he's combining conversion therapy with transitioning.

OOC: That’s true, however, this goes way beyond of what IRL trans people do. Things like genetic rearranging etc.

Araraukar wrote:They brainwash him to believe he's black instead of white?

OOC: It would be the other way around for Laka

A comment on the annoying speed at which Tinhampton shoves her proposals down the Assembly's throat:

Submission pushed back to Wednesday to avoid my campaign clashing with Walfo's canals thing and potentially detracting people from approving that in its early stages.

OOC: So I would be in full support of a replacement of 437 that consisted of, exclusively, clauses a. and b. here. As it stands, I have some questions.

How does clause c. work? The idea that this would be aimed at giving people who go through gender-adequation or gender-affirmation procedures follow-up care and support is, uh, well those things aren't conversion, are they? According to your definition included in clause a, conversion therapy is exclusively stated to be "interventions meant to alter or reverse any person's sexual orientation or gender identity". In the event of gender-affirming care, whether that be surgical procedures or hormonal treatment, someone's gender identity is not being changed. Certainly if they're seeking it, it's not an intervention.

Also, I assume clause d's strong recommendation of support is intended for survivors of conversion therapy procedures. In that instance, why do you have the phrase "likely to undergo" included? If b. is banning (full stop) conversion therapy, then nobody is likely to undergo conversion therapy as of the moment this passes.

I understand these two clauses are a clarification and a recommendation, and therefore don't really have any effect, but they seem odd at best and, in the case of d., slightly unsettling.

My last question is a follow-up of one asked earlier while the thread was in full hijack mode. Why is this not a duplication of #437? I understand you're hoping for a repeal and replace, and I also understand it's dangerous to repeal even an imperfect ban on conversion therapy in case the replacement doesn't pass, but I'm just not sure how this isn't considered a duplicate.

Anyway, you'd have my full support if clauses c. and d. weren't included. As it stands, I'm leaning against until a better replacement is offered.

Support and stuff

Sylh Alanor wrote:How does clause c. work? The idea that this would be aimed at giving people who go through gender-adequation or gender-affirmation procedures follow-up care and support is, uh, well those things aren't conversion, are they? According to your definition included in clause a, conversion therapy is exclusively stated to be "interventions meant to alter or reverse any person's sexual orientation or gender identity". In the event of gender-affirming care, whether that be surgical procedures or hormonal treatment, someone's gender identity is not being changed. Certainly if they're seeking it, it's not an intervention.

Correct - I seek to avoid confusion, especially for those who may interpret an "intervention" to have broader scope than it actually does.

Sylh Alanor wrote:Also, I assume clause d's strong recommendation of support is intended for survivors of conversion therapy procedures. In that instance, why do you have the phrase "likely to undergo" included? If b. is banning (full stop) conversion therapy, then nobody is likely to undergo conversion therapy as of the moment this passes.

Automatic compliance theory has been discredited for five years. Member states may still intervene to provide emotional etc. support for those who could be subject to illegal conversion therapy procedures (or, as Ara said, to conversion therapy that would be illegal if only it had taken place in a member state).

Sylh Alanor wrote:Why is this not a duplication of #437?

Because it covers more forms of conversion therapy and more would-be inflicters of conversion therapy than does BoCT.

OOC: Don’t want to sound toxic but thanks for giving my IC government a reason to justify leaving the WA

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:OOC: Don’t want to sound toxic but thanks for giving my IC government a reason to justify leaving the WA

LOL

“As I see that this has been submitted, I will reiterate my complete and full support. Conversion therapy is almost invariably a malignant and harmful practice, even when done under a veneer of apparent consent, and it is excellent to see this Assembly taking more actions to properly regulate such destructive practices in its member state.”

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:OOC: Don’t want to sound toxic but thanks for giving my IC government a reason to justify leaving the WA

(OOC: That could be an interesting roleplay to do.)

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:OOC: Don’t want to sound toxic but thanks for giving my IC government a reason to justify leaving the WA

I wouldn't be overly worried about this.

Kenmoria wrote:“As I see that this has been submitted, I will reiterate my complete and full support. Conversion therapy is almost invariably a malignant and harmful practice, even when done under a veneer of apparent consent, and it is excellent to see this Assembly taking more actions to properly regulate such destructive practices in its member state.”

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:OOC: Don’t want to sound toxic but thanks for giving my IC government a reason to justify leaving the WA

(OOC: That could be an interesting roleplay to do.)

OOC: Any advice on how to do it an interesting way?

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:OOC: Any advice on how to do it an interesting way?

OOC: On a forum that is not the GA forum.

Araraukar wrote:

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:OOC: Any advice on how to do it an interesting way?

OOC: On a forum that is not the GA forum.

OOC: I already know that this should be done either in II or NS forums, the question is how.

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: On a forum that is not the GA forum.

OOC: I already know that this should be done either in II or NS forums, the question is how.

I'd say "tastefully", but I can't think of any way to tastefully roleplay the torture of transgender people.

Wallenburg wrote:

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:OOC: I already know that this should be done either in II or NS forums, the question is how.

I'd say "tastefully", but I can't think of any way to tastefully roleplay the torture of transgender people.

OOC: I wasn’t talking about roleplaying how my state mistreats minorities- I already do it in other RP’s I was talking about roleplaying the process of leaving the WA.

OOC conversations about how best to RP something should be held elsewhere.

Goobergunchia wrote:OOC conversations about how best to RP something should be held elsewhere.

Where and why? This is an RP subforum, in case you had forgotten, and these RP questions pertain to the WA.

Wallenburg wrote:

Goobergunchia wrote:OOC conversations about how best to RP something should be held elsewhere.

Where and why? This is an RP subforum, in case you had forgotten, and these RP questions pertain to the WA.

This thread is about the "End Conversion Therapy" proposal. If you want to start a new thread about the RP in question, you're welcome to do so.

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:OOC: Don’t want to sound toxic but thanks for giving my IC government a reason to justify leaving the WA

Welcome to the club, sorry to bud in here, not a WA member nor ever will be (not in the WA, don’t have to follow any of it’s dumb rules) but why not ban torture if that’s the problem with it? It’s vague and only allows adequation and affirmation (section c) regardless if that person wants to change it or not (their lives should be only their choice even if no longer being LGBT+) for instance is a Christian gay man decided to stop being gay and become ex-gay and sodomy free there’s nothing the LGBT+ community can do to stop him it’s his close even if offensive. If section c is to be followed by those in the WA (ignored by most of us outside 100% god bless national sovereignty) than wouldn’t that being infringement on that theoretical man’s individual choice to seek non torturous help like counseling and pastership? Furthermore organizations like our Orthodox Church, most of the Roman church, some protestants and faiths based on our God like Islam will promote being ex-gay to be a member or at least not act on those attractions? Would you reject one of your semi-international organization’s laws protection religious freedom? Or would you be hypocritical by being islamophobic?
Just some observations (again this doesn’t effect us just some two sense)

SimTropican wrote:why not ban torture if that’s the problem with it?

OOC: It has been banned forever ago.

“Support, on one major condition; I assume the plan is still to submit this first, before proposing any repeals to the original resolution? We would be hesitant, for obvious reasons, if that ordering of things were reversed.”