[DEFEATED] Repeal "LGBTIQA Inclusiveness In Schools Act"

[Untecna]

"Positive" is hardly a word if you are deciding to leave because a proposal hurts your backwards beliefs.

Sure, sure, and I'm a unicorn disguised as a human.

You literally called it immoral in your post lmao

I don’t want to have to argue with you just to prove I support a group, I wouldn’t lie about something like that either, if I was indeed homophobic I’d probably explicitly say so, and I’m not.

You did though. You said teaching about how being LGBT is okay and how we should respect them is immoral.

You seem to not be aware of your own words.

[Untecna]

It feels like if someone says something even remotely opposing the bill, you’ll just (unfairly) label them a homophobe.

If they say something homophobic or make that their reason for opposition then yes. I don't see much other reason, anyway, other than small spelling errors, to oppose it.

[Federation of Anterica]

Everyone opposes it for different reasons, not necessarily because we’re all homophobes, I oppose it because it seems like something that shouldn’t be taught to that extent in schools, I would support a milder, more clear version however.

[Federation of Anterica]

It feels like if someone says something even remotely opposing the bill, you’ll just (unfairly) label them a homophobe.

If they say something homophobic or make that their reason for opposition then yes. I don't see much other reason, anyway, other than small spelling errors, to oppose it.

Yes, and that’s your opinion and I respect it. I may not agree with it but I won’t attack you for your beliefs.

[Untecna]

Everyone opposes it for different reasons, not necessarily because we’re all homophobes, I oppose it because it seems like something that shouldn’t be taught to that extent in schools, I would support a milder, more clear version however.

And why shouldn't it be taught? Is it because its "immoral" as you said, in your own words?

To be clear, its not; its teaching decency.

[Federation of Anterica]

I’m saying it’s immoral because that’s my opinion, I can’t prove it’s immoral, that’s what makes it an opinion, my opinion

[Federation of Anterica]

I don’t want to have to argue with you just to prove I support a group, I wouldn’t lie about something like that either, if I was indeed homophobic I’d probably explicitly say so, and I’m not.

You did though. You said teaching about how being LGBT is okay and how we should respect them is immoral.

You seem to not be aware of your own words.

I’m not implying the whole proposal is “immoral”, let me clarify. Being LGBT+ is okay, we should respect them. It’s teaching about it in schools that is immoral to me.

[Wallenburg]

If you want to argue it's immoral to speak about gender and sexuality, go to NSG, this is not the thread for you.

[Life empire]

Why should we teach about sexuality and romantic orientation when we’re supposed to be teaching about mathematics and science and actual academic subjects on schools? It’s not something that should even be considered, considering it’s immoral and gets in the way of instructional time for students. Sure the whole “social-emotional learning” aspect of it isn’t all bad, actually that part can possibly do some good for students mental health, but it definitely shouldn’t be so focused on LGBT+ or gender, sexuality, or anything of that sort. I don’t believe the bill clarifies if it applies to a certain age group and above, I would feel bad for those kindergartners who are going to be taught about homosexuality. We’re also ditching science in part iv. of 2a… I support an instant repeal of this act.

We get it, you're a homophobe, move on, bud.

are you for real?

[Wallenburg]

The argument is that the target mandates the teaching of unscientific hypotheses about the nature of orientation and identity.

Is it based on the technicality that all nations aren’t human and we shouldn’t assume they function in a human-like manor, or is it based on the claim that sexuality is under conscious control or unnatural in humans? (acknowledging that the term ‘natural’ when applied to human -or indeed any other sentient entity’s- behaviour is essentially meaningless)

One part of it is the large non-human contingent of the WA population, for which these supposed facts can and often do easily differ. Another part is that gender is not natural but rather a product of culture, as GAR #91 already recognizes (that is, after all, the whole point of distinguishing sex and gender).

You lost me the moment when I realized this wasn’t about correcting a minor spelling mistake.

1. This might be a problem, would you consider the problem fixed if the definition was similar to the US DoE’s for an educational institution?

(a) Educational institution means a school (including a technical, trade, or vocational school), junior college, college or university that is: operated or directly supported by the United States; operated or directly supported by any State or local government or by a political subdivision of any State or local government; or approved by a State agency or subdivision of the State, or accredited by a State-recognized or nationally recognized accrediting body.

A replacement definition similar to that would have its own issues, but would likely overcome the reasons for which I plan a repeal.

2. That claim is pretty bizarre and unconvincing.
A. This one is provably untrue, the lack of a discovered “gay gene” doesn’t prove that sexual orientation and gender identity are choices. It would be most scientifically accurate to say that the two are broadly deterministic, but the exact mechanism is not entirely understood yet.

So what you're saying is that there is no concrete scientific merit for these claims. This repeal does not positively claim that any given sexual orientation or gender identity is a choice. It contests the assertion that they are known to be "beyond conscious control" and "natural".

B. The author’s intent doesn’t effect how this specific bill will be implemented and passing bills into law not necessarily a confirmation of one argument the author makes. For example, a bill banning political internment camps which uses alleviating an undue tax burden as one argument, if passed, does not mean the entire WA is only against human rights abuses for fiscal reasons. I doubt this is sincere disgust and not an attempt to pad the bill’s length.

I still consider it worth mention, unless I see a good argument for why this isn't a fault with the target. The assumptions and arguments upon which a resolution rests are important.

[Life empire]

Everyone opposes it for different reasons, not necessarily because we’re all homophobes, I oppose it because it seems like something that shouldn’t be taught to that extent in schools, I would support a milder, more clear version however.

And why shouldn't it be taught? Is it because its "immoral" as you said, in your own words?

To be clear, its not; its teaching decency.

depends if you define "teaching decency" as mass-brain washing but thats only the 2nd biggest problem with the resolution that should be insta-repealed the biggest problem is it goes against free speech and there for breaks human rights and is fascists in nature so if you can call everyone a homophobe we can call YOU a fascist

[Goobergunchia]

If you want to argue it's immoral to speak about gender and sexuality, go to NSG, this is not the thread for you.

Agreed. Please address the repeal draft when posting to the thread.

depends if you define "teaching decency" as mass-brain washing but thats only the 2nd biggest problem with the resolution that should be insta-repealed the biggest problem is it goes against free speech and there for breaks human rights and is fascists in nature so if you can call everyone a homophobe we can call YOU a fascist

And I can start handing out warnings for flaming if we all don't back off.

[Nepleslia]

Full support, for what it’s worth. One of these days I really ought to make a WA alt so that I can vote on resolutions such as this one…

[Equai]

Federation of Equai opposes to this proposal. Even if this pass the draft phase, our country will vote against this repeal. Our nation believes in freedom of minorities and marginalized groups. Our president, many politicians and citizens are members of LGBTQ+ community and our country always supported and will continue to support LGBTQ+ people. We will not tolerate discriminating, bigoted and backwards thinking proposals.

[Honeydewistania]

Federation of Equai opposes to this proposal. Even if this pass the draft phase, our country will vote against this repeal. Our nation believes in freedom of minorities and marginalized groups. Our president, many politicians and citizens are members of LGBTQ+ community and our country always supported and will continue to support LGBTQ+ people. We will not tolerate discriminating, bigoted and backwards thinking proposals.

This is not a backwards thinking proposal. The proposal does not repeal on the grounds of bigotry. It repeals on the grounds that the target is complete garbage in its execution. The WA needs to stop proposing resolutions such as this one which do nothing but cause arguments and being out the queerphobes.

OOC: I’m LGBTQ+ and I support this. You should as well

[Life empire]

Full support, for what it’s worth. One of these days I really ought to make a WA alt so that I can vote on resolutions such as this one…

I already have a wa alt its an effective an completely allowed (as far as I know of) way to vote without affecting your main account aslong as only 1 account is in the wa at a time

[Balmorns]

Love this proposal, although you should probably add more to your reasons.

[Xanthorrhoea]

This is actually a really interesting intersection between philosophy and science, and there are a few fascinating issues at play here. Essay warning ahead:

TLDR: The non-human argument is an interesting one, but not one based in science. The 'gender is cultural' point doesn't apply here, as the target proposal never claims that it is not. You should completely re-write clause 2a to more clearly state your argument, instead of a generic emotive (and inaccurate) appeal to "science."

Is it based on the technicality that all nations aren’t human and we shouldn’t assume they function in a human-like manor, or is it based on the claim that sexuality is under conscious control or unnatural in humans? (acknowledging that the term ‘natural’ when applied to human -or indeed any other sentient entity’s- behaviour is essentially meaningless)

One part of it is the large non-human contingent of the WA population, for which these supposed facts can and often do easily differ. Another part is that gender is not natural but rather a product of culture, as GAR #91 already recognizes (that is, after all, the whole point of distinguishing sex and gender).

Two things going on here. Firstly, regarding non-humans, it is true that, in a roleplaying environment where people can make up anything they want, facts can differ. This is probably the strongest argument in this repeal, and should be expanded upon in more detail. I disagree however that this is so problematic as to require an insta-repeal. While many species may not even have genders (e.g. some kind of sentient bacterium), this does not neutralise the fact that many do. Similarly, if your specific fictional country is specifically made up of entities incapable of having any identity other than their genetic sex, with no errors or mutations ever occurring in development that would cause blurring of those lines, that doesn't change the fact that many nations do have such diverse citizens. (such a nation would also be ignoring all known laws of biology, chemistry and probbably physics, but hey, we are dealing in fiction here).

This proposal can only apply to WA member nations. Membership in the WA forces you to interact with citizens and peoples of other nations through various trade and human rights resolutions. Many of those citizens will be members of the queer community, hence educating people on how to interect with them is beneficial. You could argue that the target proposal is excessive in meeting that end, but the point here is that all WA nations stand to benefit from educating thier children about how to respectfully interact with gender minorities (even if such minorities do not exist in that nation's native population).

Regarding gender being cultural, that is true, but how on earth does that imply gender is under conscious control? At no point does the target resolution claim gender is not (partially) culturally defined. All it requires students to be taught is:

"how sexual orientation, romantic orientation and gender identity are defined, developed and experienced, including but not limited to the fact that sexual orientation, romantic orientation and gender identity of individuals are beyond their conscious control, as well as that variance in sexual orientation, romantic orientation and gender identity is normal and natural"

Reading the actual text of GAR#91 which you rely on here, it states that genders are "defined not only by genetic and/or anatomical features, but also by cultural roles each culture usually ascribes them." You will note that cultural roles typically ascribed to particular genders are decidedly not under an indivudual's control. Where then is the contradiction that makes the target resolution "lack scientific merit"? I feel like you need to put much more detail into your argument, as at the moment it is wholely unconvincing.

2. That claim is pretty bizarre and unconvincing.
A. This one is provably untrue, the lack of a discovered “gay gene” doesn’t prove that sexual orientation and gender identity are choices. It would be most scientifically accurate to say that the two are broadly deterministic, but the exact mechanism is not entirely understood yet.

So what you're saying is that there is no concrete scientific merit for these claims. This repeal does not positively claim that any given sexual orientation or gender identity is a choice. It contests the assertion that they are known to be "beyond conscious control" and "natural".

As someone with some background in the area, I can assure you that all available evidence does point to it being beyond conscious control and natural. In terms of being natural, there are constantly growing examples of homosexual and bisexual behaviour in animal populations, which are as close to nature as you can get. It is extremely common in numerous bird species (the most famous of which is probably penguins, but also others such as budgies, swans and vultures), as well as mammals and even insects. I would direct you to the wikipedia article on the subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... in_animals) for an overview. Other gender identities are more difficult to talk about in terms of being "natural", mainly because they need to exist within a complex culture to be observable. As no animal other than humans have been observed to have complex culture, we can't say either way whether such phenomenae are peculier to humans, or something more universal. However, looking back at human history, there are numerous examples in ancient Greece, Egypt, Babylon, and native americal cultures where people took on roles not typical of their gender (e.g. Sappho, "twin spirits" and greek pederasity (which was awful btw for reasons unrelated to its inherent homosexuality)). The extremely large number of times such people have appeared in different human cultures is highly supportive of the fact that it is something "natural" or inherant to humanity at the very least.

In terms of being genetically determined, the absence of a single "gay gene" does not contradict the fact there is a genetic element. Twin studies have long demonstrated a genetic link to homosexuality, with identical twins more commonly both being gay than fraternal twins). More recent evidence estimates ~8-25% of homosexual behaviour is determined by identified genes which are objectively beyond conscious control (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693). This is in the context that the human genome was only recently mapped, and genetics is only in the beginnings of being properly studied. Claiming that the abscence of a single identified "gay gene" is evidence that sexuality is a choice is like saying that Huntington's disease was a choice before the human genome was mapped. Huntington's was demonstrably heritable in the 1800s. The specific gene responsible wasn't found until 1993, but it was known to be heritable and genetically determined long before that. Identification of specific genes is the last step in gathering evidence for a trait's heritability. Prior to that, twin and family studies can provide more than adequate evidence of a genetic determinant.

The entire genetic discussion also ignores that fact that environmental causes are also commonly outside a person's control. Malnourishment leads to reduced stature. Having parents of a specific religion increases the chance of a child being the same religion. Growing up in a culture with no word for orange changes how a person percives colour. None of these influences are under conscious control. You don't choose the food available to you, your parent's religion, or your society's language. The same is true of gender and sexuality. Denying that environmental causes can involuntarily influence a person's sexuality is nonsense. You may as well claim that mesothelioma is a choice.

People don't choose to be gay or queer. It's not fun, it's horrible, and it's horrible precisely because of the rancid opinions seen on these forums. You have to deal with large numbers of people telling you you're an abberation or evil or wrong or a million other vicious things evey day, and watching people just like you be beaten up or murdered because they are the same as you. If being queer was a choice, many people would simply have chosen to be straight. To use the trans community as an example, gender dysphoria is horrendous. If people could simply choose to have their identity match their body, don't you think they would? It would save them years of constant confusion, abuse, doubt, depression and fear. Even in modern society, no-one would ever choose the stigma and abuse that comes with being queer.

Sex, sexuality and gender are not a choice. This is a long settled scientific fact. To claim otherwise is to ignore the actual science of the subject. The claims made in the target resolution are entirely supported by science. The claims you make in this repeal are not, despite your assertion to the contrary.

Edit for clarity: I am not opposed to a repeal of the target resolution on gorunds of technical error or poor execution. The WA should maintain the highest standards of authorship and be airtight in it's laws. I am opposed to a repeal based on the arguments presented in this repeal attempt, which are harmful and factually inaccurate.

[Tinhampton]

Xanthorrhoea cites a study which notes that "~8-25% of homosexual behaviour is determined by identified genes." He then states that the remaining "environmental causes are also commonly outside a person's control," without providing any citations or examples specific to LGBTQ+ identity (and of the examples he gives, it is hard but not impossible for a person to adopt a better diet, a new religion, or a more complex language). Based off these findings, he finally asserts that "Sex, sexuality and gender are not a choice. This is a long settled scientific fact."

I will accept that a portion of SOGI is genetic (the 8-25% study got an article on BBC News at the time), that a greater proportion is environmental, and that at least some of this environmental portion is rather deep-seated. But I am unconvinced that all of this environmental portion, for every person, is immutable, at least to the extent that schools in all member states ought to be required to teach that "sexual orientation, romantic orientation and gender identity of individuals are beyond their conscious control."

The fact that LISA's author had been motivated to write it at least in part after being told that (one of) its goals constituted "leftist indoctrination," when most resolutions are based on solid real-world policy rather than some random dude's opinions, was never a good reason to enact it either. I can support an anti-bullying omnibus bill, I can support a bill on mental health in educational environments, and I can support a comprehensive sexuality education bill - I wholeheartedly support the principles outlined in Articles 2a(ii-iv) of LISA, as well - but I cannot support LISA as a package.

[Xanthorrhoea]

Xanthorrhoea cites a study which notes that "~8-25% of homosexual behaviour is determined by identified genes." He then states that the remaining "environmental causes are also commonly outside a person's control," without providing any citations or examples specific to LGBTQ+ identity (and of the examples he gives, it is hard but not impossible for a person to adopt a better diet, a new religion, or a more complex language). Based off these findings, he finally asserts that "Sex, sexuality and gender are not a choice. This is a long settled scientific fact."

I will accept that a portion of SOGI is genetic (the 8-25% study got an article on BBC News at the time), that a greater proportion is environmental, and that at least some of this environmental portion is rather deep-seated. But I am unconvinced that all of this environmental portion, for every person, is immutable, at least to the extent that schools in all member states ought to be required to teach that "sexual orientation, romantic orientation and gender identity of individuals are beyond their conscious control."

The fact that LISA's author had been motivated to write it at least in part after being told that (one of) its goals constituted "leftist indoctrination," when most resolutions are based on solid real-world policy rather than some random dude's opinions, was never a good reason to enact it either. I can support an anti-bullying omnibus bill, I can support a bill on mental health in educational environments, and I can support a comprehensive sexuality education bill - I wholeheartedly support the principles outlined in Articles 2a(ii-iv) of LISA, as well - but I cannot support LISA as a package.

Evidently I wasn't clear enough in my post and for that I apologise.

I am not claiming that it has been definitively proved that every single person's sexual and gender identity is completely beyond all semblence of their control. Such a task would be an unnecessary waste of resources, quite apart from being practically impossible. But that is not the standard that Wally is claiming. This repeal claims that the idea lacks "concrete scientific merit across the breadth of World Assembly member states." I was arguing that it does indeed hold significant scientific merit, and I believe the examples I provided were illustrative of that. I believe that level of evidence is appropriate for the purposes of this discussion. We do not need to write 10,000 word essays with full APA referencing when discussing the merits of a fictional proposal. I unfortunately do not have that kind of time.

My coments re: nutrition, language, mesothelioma and religion wer not intended to be examples of circumstances that can never be influenced (although I would question exactly how a refugee child in a famine can feasably improve their dietary intake, a 6 year old can feasably convert their parents to a new religion, or an 8 year old learn a language alien to their culture while their brain still retains plasticity). They were illustrations of the fact that focussing the discussion of 'choice' purely on genes vs individual will is ignoring a huge number of factors that also lie outside of a person's control. Genes are one type of factor that lies outside of a person's control, environmental factors can be another. I did not provide specific examples on environmental influences on sexuality and gender because that area of study is enormously complicated and isolating a single clear factor in the way you can isolate a gene is almost impossible. The evidence suggests that environmental factors do play a role, but exactly how isn't determined. There's currently no way to 'gene sequence' your upbringing.

Regarding your second paragraph, I don't like that reasoning. The fact that an extremely large person of people's sexuality and gender is provably beyond their control and an even larger portion is at best extraordinarily difficult to change is absolutely justification for that teaching. If part of something lies outside of your control, then you cannot reasonably be said to be in control. It is entirely reasonable to teach students as such.

Also, I'm not sure where the "solid real-world policy" comment comes from. For an example of a resolution based off "some random dude's opinions" that still passed, I would point to GAR#600 (which I personally cannot believe passed, but anyway...). Besides that, education emphasising diversity and acceptance is an very common "solid real-world policy" in developed countries. Some examples from the first 3 countries I searched for:

• the UK government's statutory guidelines on education, which explicity mandates that students explore "the features of stable and healthy same-sex relationships" and how "stereotypes, particularly sterotypes based on sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or disability, can cause damage..." (https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -secondary)
• The Canadian government curriculum, which states it is critical to student success to create an "atmosphere in which students of all body shapes and sizes, abilities, gender identities and sexual orientations, and ethnocultural, racial, and religious backgrounds feel accepted, comfortable, and free from harassment. (http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum ... h9to12.pdf)
• The New South Wales government (Aus) curriculum, which explicitly lists "homophobic and transphobic bullying" as examples of "abuse of power" and tasks students with proposing "protective strategies" for situations where they occur. (https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/w ... -k-10-2018)

[Thousand Branches]

Is the plan for this to literally insta-repeal, or just a quick, early repeal? I generally wouldn’t ask but I’ve heard it go both ways and I was curious. I would support this pretty solidly I think.

[Tajijstan]

Just saying Homo, pan, bi, and asexuality are found in 1500+ animal species.
Numerous scientific studies have proved that both trans and non-binary people actually exist and aren't deluded.
Sorry snowflakes, facts over feelings.

[Apatosaurus]

"As to 2b... what in the world is that supposed to mean and how is that a remotely compelling repeal argument?"

[Tangatarehua]

The Empire of Tangatarehua fully supports the repeal of this resolution.

That it was ever able to pass, given how flawed its reasoning was, was a travesty so great that our nation felt compelled to resign from the WA in protest.

However, should this repeal go ahead then we may be able to reconsider our position for it would symbolise an end to the World Assembly encroaching on national sovereignty and forcing education based on unscientific ideologies.

[El Lazaro]

Xanthorrhoea, thanks for the effortpost explaining what I meant, you saved me a lot of time and wrote it better than I would.

Is the plan for this to literally insta-repeal, or just a quick, early repeal? I generally wouldn’t ask but I’ve heard it go both ways and I was curious. I would support this pretty solidly I think.

I think the author will submit it to the GA as soon as the bill passes.

And why shouldn't it be taught? Is it because its "immoral" as you said, in your own words?

To be clear, its not; its teaching decency.

depends if you define "teaching decency" as mass-brain washing but thats only the 2nd biggest problem with the resolution that should be insta-repealed the biggest problem is it goes against free speech and there for breaks human rights and is fascists in nature so if you can call everyone a homophobe we can call YOU a fascist

Hitler and Mussolini roll in their graves with the knowledge that people in the 21st century become fascists by saying “the gay is ok.”