Poland to withdraw from Istanbul Convention

[Proctopeo]

Indeed it is; "pick a side" or "you should be pan instead" are rather prevalent attitudes in GLBT communities. Part of why I stay away from them tbh, but really that's just one aspect of toxicity in general.

Amusingly, when it comes to trying to exclude gay men, a common argument I've seen is "they're the white people of the community" or something to that effect; basically "you're not oppressed enough".

Yeah, that's been a thing. Which just reeks of white upper class liberalism, tbh. There are, like, a dozen layers of reasons why it's a stupid attitude to take.

The best part, such attitudes often come from the polar opposite of that demographic, in my experience. Non-white, left to far-left people who have like two or three donation links in their bios/pinned tweets.

[Stellar Colonies]

What specifically in the treaty did Poland find detestable? I'm generally supportive of the PiS government, but this one confuses me, as at least on the outside, it doesn't seem like the Istanbul Treaty is a morally degenerate thing.

Although there are legitimate things to criticize about the treaty, Poland seems to have withdrawn because they're sliding backwards into a more extreme form of conservatism.

[Arcturus Novus]

I dunno about everyone else, but I recognize a lot of the hatred trans-women receive is to being perceived as a man, and getting treated like a transgressing man. There’s a reason trans women seem to receive a lot more violence than trans men - because the former is perceived as a transgressing man, while the latter a transgressing woman.

That is because they ARE transgressing men. They are men. The same goes in reverse. It's almost like biological sex is immutable. Who would have thought?

I'm definitely a woman, but like, if you wanna ignore the past few decades of gender research and the literal thousands of years and disparate cultures that have recognized what we'd now consider trans and nonbinary identities, that's cool c:

[DACOROMANIA]

This Treaty should be replaced with a better version of a Treaty or International Agreement based on the prohibition of domestic violence, because the current treaty is sexist -feminist on only one side - the women - when it's about the issue of domestic violence and the victims which should be protected, forgetting of the men as victims, however before to leave the current treaty the party members should consider the creation of a new draft where to include the right of benefits for both sexes, to present it to the public (debates, ideas, suggestions) then to ratify it as a replacement of the current treaty. This is the best solution to solve this.
Even if this Treaty exists the domestic violence was still happening but if or when applicable only women had the right to benefit from this kind of law (treaty).

[Kustonia]

Marital rape is essentially an oxymoron. Marriage is a covenant and a signed contract which gives consent to sexual relations between those in the marriage contract. If a man makes a sexual proposition to his wife, and she says "no," that doesn't make the man a rapist. Even if the man were to keep pursuing, he's pursuing his wife who consented to marry him in the first place. The same applies to gay "marriages."

If the concept of marital rape is included in the Istanbul Treaty, I can understand why there would be fierce opposition to it in many countries.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

What specifically in the treaty did Poland find detestable? I'm generally supportive of the PiS government, but this one confuses me, as at least on the outside, it doesn't seem like the Istanbul Treaty is a morally degenerate thing.

Zbigniew Ziobro said the document, known as the Istanbul Convention, was "harmful" because it required schools to teach children about gender.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53538205

[Galloism]

Marital rape is essentially an oxymoron. Marriage is a covenant and a signed contract which gives consent to sexual relations between those in the marriage contract. If a man makes a sexual proposition to his wife, and she says "no," that doesn't make the man a rapist. Even if the man were to keep pursuing, he's pursuing his wife who consented to marry him in the first place. The same applies to gay "marriages."

If the concept of marital rape is included in the Istanbul Treaty, I can understand why there would be fierce opposition to it in many countries.

Um, no?

Consent to sex is definitely an occasion by occasion thing. Men nor women should be sexually assaulted by their partner.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Marital rape is essentially an oxymoron. Marriage is a covenant and a signed contract which gives consent to sexual relations between those in the marriage contract. If a man makes a sexual proposition to his wife, and she says "no," that doesn't make the man a rapist. Even if the man were to keep pursuing, he's pursuing his wife who consented to marry him in the first place. The same applies to gay "marriages."

If the concept of marital rape is included in the Istanbul Treaty, I can understand why there would be fierce opposition to it in many countries.

Thats fucked up.

[Galloism]

What specifically in the treaty did Poland find detestable? I'm generally supportive of the PiS government, but this one confuses me, as at least on the outside, it doesn't seem like the Istanbul Treaty is a morally degenerate thing.

Zbigniew Ziobro said the document, known as the Istanbul Convention, was "harmful" because it required schools to teach children about gender.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53538205

There is one minor problem there with the education part, but it’s not the one they object to.

Article 14 – Education

1Parties shall take, where appropriate, the necessary steps to include teaching material on issues such as equality between women and men, non-stereotyped gender roles, mutual respect, non-violent conflict resolution in interpersonal relationships, gender-based violence against women and the right to personal integrity, adapted to the evolving capacity of learners, in formal curricula and at all levels of education.

2Parties shall take the necessary steps to promote the principles referred to in paragraph 1 in informal educational facilities, as well as in sports, cultural and leisure facilities and the media.

It has a requirement to indoctrinate children with an incorrect view of how violence actually occurs and creating a false narrative of oppression and victmhood. And if they had objected to that, I would understand.

Instead, it was that they had to teach about lgbt.

[Stellar Colonies]

Marital rape is essentially an oxymoron. Marriage is a covenant and a signed contract which gives consent to sexual relations between those in the marriage contract. If a man makes a sexual proposition to his wife, and she says "no," that doesn't make the man a rapist. Even if the man were to keep pursuing, he's pursuing his wife who consented to marry him in the first place. The same applies to gay "marriages."

If the concept of marital rape is included in the Istanbul Treaty, I can understand why there would be fierce opposition to it in many countries.

no

Consent to marriage doesn't equal either spouse automatically consenting to sex at any time. Each separate incidence of sex requires some form of consent from both people.

[Kustonia]

Marital rape is essentially an oxymoron. Marriage is a covenant and a signed contract which gives consent to sexual relations between those in the marriage contract. If a man makes a sexual proposition to his wife, and she says "no," that doesn't make the man a rapist. Even if the man were to keep pursuing, he's pursuing his wife who consented to marry him in the first place. The same applies to gay "marriages."

If the concept of marital rape is included in the Istanbul Treaty, I can understand why there would be fierce opposition to it in many countries.

Um, no?

Consent to sex is definitely an occasion by occasion thing. Men nor women should be sexually assaulted by their partner.

Battery and other forms of domestic violence in marriages are real and should be illegal. But marital rape does not exist by definition.

[Galloism]

Um, no?

Consent to sex is definitely an occasion by occasion thing. Men nor women should be sexually assaulted by their partner.

Battery and other forms of domestic violence in marriages are real and should be illegal. But marital rape does not exist by definition.

What would you call it if a woman gives her husband a date rape drug and forces sex on him while he’s incapacitated and in no position to consent?

[Stellar Colonies]

Um, no?

Consent to sex is definitely an occasion by occasion thing. Men nor women should be sexually assaulted by their partner.

Battery and other forms of domestic violence in marriages are real and should be illegal. But marital rape does not exist by definition.

Yes it does.

It is possible for someone to not want to engage in sex with their spouse. If he/she initiates anyway against the will of that person, it is rape.

[DACOROMANIA]

Marital rape? Did you forgot that in the past before marriage many people were raped for being forced to marry unwanted partners? And in the same time it may have some ties with paid marriages without the consent of the subject. There were also blackmails of killing the relatives of the future bride/spouse if refusing.
There are also things which should have been added in the treaty but weren't in. Sadly.

Edit: The word "rape" may have dual meanings, one is "abuse" and other is "kidnapping".

[TURTLESHROOM II]

That is because they ARE transgressing men. They are men. The same goes in reverse. It's almost like biological sex is immutable. Who would have thought?

Yeah, whether you think they’re a transgressing man/woman or not (a point I’d argue but it’s largely beyond the scope of this thread), beating people for dressing ways you don’t like and doing things to their own bodies you don’t like is unacceptable.

Correct. Violence against the innocent is never acceptable for any reason.

[Vassenor]

So it's sexist to say that domestic violence should have consequences now. Huh.

Vassenor now endorses the gender equivalent of “white lives matter”.

Oh hey, more straw on the carpet.

[DACOROMANIA]

Battery and other forms of domestic violence in marriages are real and should be illegal. But marital rape does not exist by definition.

Yes it does.

It is possible for someone to not want to engage in sex with their spouse. If he/she initiates anyway against the will of that person, it is rape.

That is the case of sexual abuse, violation.

[Kustonia]

Marital rape? Did you forgot that in the past before marriage many people were raped for being forced to marry unwanted partners? And in the same time it may have some ties with paid marriages without the consent of the subject. There were also blackmails of killing the relatives of the future bride/spouse if refusing.
There are also things which should have been added in the treaty but weren't in. Sadly.

There's no such thing as "forced marriage" either. Marriages can be arranged by family, but marriages are never forced on anyone. Marriages always require some form of consent in order for it to be valid.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

What specifically in the treaty did Poland find detestable? I'm generally supportive of the PiS government, but this one confuses me, as at least on the outside, it doesn't seem like the Istanbul Treaty is a morally degenerate thing.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=489100&p=37452454#p37452454

[Vassenor]

Riders such as what?

The vague definitions allow a wide-reaching and bizarre interpretation of the treaty.

For example:

“domestic violence” shall mean all acts of physical, sexual, psychological or economic violence that occur within the family or domestic unit or between former or current spouses or partners, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the victim;

c“gender” shall mean the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men;

unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, in particular when creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, is subject to criminal or other legal sanction.

The second clause is the sinister one. At no point does the treaty ever define a woman by the actual definition of a woman, which is biological sex. Gender is a social construct in the sense that society, religion, and culture set gender roles. The treaty's definition of gender is correct, and that is the danger. Every reference to the definition of woman uses "gender".

There is no such thing as "economic violence". I would bet the farm that "psychological violence" doesn't just mean gaslighting. With a particularly activist mindset, there is no limit to what this could do (e.g. using "stress" or "fear of not having enough money to feed the kid" as a grounds to murder the fetus, which is already done).

Furthermore, the treaty orders sweeping, vague, and undefined mandates on its signatories to preserve, among other things, "refugee status" and "gender identity". Prohibiting discrimination against those suffering from Gender Identity Disorder requires the indulgence of their dysphoria and resulting costumes, which means nothing can be segregated by sex. To accomodate GID, all sex-based segregation must fall and men must be allowed into women's bathrooms, and to cheat in women's sports, and vice-versa.

In today's world, we don't talk about real refugees or potential refugees like the Vietnamese after the war, or the Christians in China, or every person living in Hong Kong, the Rohingas, the Uyghurs, or the Yazidis, or any minority religion whatsoever in any Muslim country practicing Shariah Hell. The economic migrants invading Europe refuse to become European, they impose their beliefs, which are seen by civilized men as backwards and savage, on others, and they have contributed to a surge of violence, particularly against women. These people should not receive special status.

Then comes the prohibition on things "offensive to a person", the undefined definition of "dignity" and "humiliation", and more. In America, this was the Trojan horse used to fabricate homosexual marriage in breach of states' rights. Based entirely on emotion and feelings, Kennedy decided that same-sex unions must be forced because denying them such "offends their D I G N I T Y and D E G R A D E S T H E M". That is not what law is built on. No one has a right to be protected from offense. You should not criminalize simply saying mean things.

When Bill O'Reily loudly and repeatedly called that woman "hot chocolate", he was NOT committing sexual. All he was doing was being a rude, insensitive jerk, but he was lynched for it. Being too cowardly to fight, he resigned. Under this treaty, a man could be arrested for catcalling, as the treaty empowers its signatories to prosecute everything in that definition.

In short, it is a blank check for social liberalism. THAT is why Poland withdrew.

So the treaty is bad because it acknowledges the LGBT community exists. And because you don't believe in financial abuse.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

Poland withdrawing from the treaty doesn't seem good for women's rights. Are there issues with the treaty? Most likely. Is Poland withdrawing in protest of those flaws though? No, doesn't look like it. If Poland or any other country wanted to address those flaws, would a better option than withdrawal by reworking it rather than leaving? I'd say yes, then again, I'm a layman so I could be completely wrong.

Poland’s withdrawing on the context that the treaty apparently challenges heterosexual marraige, which is probably one of the dumber reasons they withdrew from the treaty.

What specifically in the treaty did Poland find detestable? I'm generally supportive of the PiS government, but this one confuses me, as at least on the outside, it doesn't seem like the Istanbul Treaty is a morally degenerate thing.

Look above. I don’t understand the reasoning either, but PiS does what they want, I guess.

[DACOROMANIA]

Marital rape? Did you forgot that in the past before marriage many people were raped for being forced to marry unwanted partners? And in the same time it may have some ties with paid marriages without the consent of the subject. There were also blackmails of killing the relatives of the future bride/spouse if refusing.
There are also things which should have been added in the treaty but weren't in. Sadly.

There's no such thing as "forced marriage" either. Marriages can be arranged by family, but marriages are never forced on anyone. Marriages always require some form of consent in order for it to be valid.

But yes, such forced marriages still exist in certain parts of Europe and abroad. I forgot to mention the meaning of "kidnapping" in the context along with that of rape and abuse. Even minors are sometimes taken from the streets to foreign or unknown places for forced marriages. A country somewhere in East Europe did not want to reveal this (national reputation) but there were criminal groups trading and dealing with such things that there was necessary a large group of Police Forces to take them down. Yet some such groups still continue to exist.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

What specifically in the treaty did Poland find detestable? I'm generally supportive of the PiS government, but this one confuses me, as at least on the outside, it doesn't seem like the Istanbul Treaty is a morally degenerate thing.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=489100&p=37452454#p37452454

The real refugees point is one that bothers me. Since Polish LGBT people are banned in around 1/3rd of the country and basically persecuted and shamed, that doesn’t make them any less of a refugee. Refugees are people who are fleeing from stuff like oppressive governments, wars, famines, et cetera. The Polish LGBT community definitely falls under the first.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

Marital rape? Did you forgot that in the past before marriage many people were raped for being forced to marry unwanted partners? And in the same time it may have some ties with paid marriages without the consent of the subject. There were also blackmails of killing the relatives of the future bride/spouse if refusing.
There are also things which should have been added in the treaty but weren't in. Sadly.

There's no such thing as "forced marriage" either. Marriages can be arranged by family, but marriages are never forced on anyone. Marriages always require some form of consent in order for it to be valid.

The consent could be forged or the families could pressure both sides to agree because of societal conventions. There’s also non-official marriages where people aren’t officiated, but recognised as married. That lets the people involved do away with the whole consent part altogether.

[Christian Confederation]

The fact there's an international agreement saying domestic violence is wrong is disturbing. There are things people shouldn't need to be told lol