DRAFT: "Resolution to Outlaw Conversion Therapy"

[Maracos]

Hello. I am Maracos and this is the first proposal I'm submitting to the forums for advice, support and perhaps minor editing. I have already submitted a proposal but unfortunately it was removed due to a meta-gaming violation, and I'd like to give this proposal the best chance of actually getting passed. Therefore any help would be greatly appreciated.

TITLE: Resolution to Outlaw Conversion Therapy
STRENGTH: Mild
CATEGORY: Human Rights

DEFINING conversion therapy as any practice intended to suppress, change or destroy one's sexual orientation and/or gender identity,

ACCEPTING that such treatments within the transgender and occasionally intersex communities of gender reassignment surgery and hormone replacement therapy do not qualify as conversion therapy,

ACCEPTING that sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-related counselling or therapy does not qualify as conversion therapy as long as the aim of the treatment is not to suppress, change or destroy the patient's sexual orientation and/or gender identity,

RECOGNISING that many citizens have been forced to endure conversion therapy with awful results, including the suicides of many LGBTQ+ people,

REALISING that the existence of legal conversion therapy contributes to misunderstandings about the LGBTQ+ community, such as that their sexual orientation and/or gender identity can be changed, which in turn contributes to more harassment, persecution and hardship for LGBTQ+ citizens,

POINTING OUT that conversion therapy is very rarely, if ever, successful and instead leaves patients traumatised and distressed,

NOTING that conversion therapy is very rarely carried out consensually and that most patients are indeed forced to go through the procedure,

NOTING that the vast majority of people who have signed themselves up for consensual conversion therapy are simply sufferers of internalised homophobia and/or internalised transphobia,

REALISING that, in many instances, conversion therapy is effectively torture due to methods such as electrocution and inducing vomiting,

NOTING that there are far safer and less harmful methods of combating distress due to one's sexual orientation and/or gender identity, including counselling and mental health therapy, which do not attempt to suppress, change or destroy the patient's sexual orientation or gender identity,

CITING the general scientific consensus that sexual orientation and gender identity are formed and fixed during gestation and cannot be changed after birth,

ASSERTING the right of all citizens to their own sexual orientation and gender identity which should not be forcibly changed by others,

this resolution hereby BANS the practice of conversion therapy on citizens of all ages.


I've made some major edits to the first draft. So, [drum roll] I now present... draft #2.Bits which have been changed are highlighted in red.

TITLE: Outlaw Involuntary Conversion Therapy
STRENGTH: Significant
CATEGORY: Human Rights

Defining conversion therapy as any practice intended to suppress, change or destroy one's sexual orientation and/or gender identity,

Accepting that such treatments within the transgender and occasionally intersex communities of gender reassignment surgery and hormone replacement therapy do not qualify as conversion therapy,

Recognising that many citizens have been forced to endure involuntary conversion therapy with awful results, including the suicides of many LGBTQ+ people,

Realising that, in many instances, involuntary conversion therapy is effectively torture due to methods such as electrocution and inducing vomiting,

Defining 'involuntary' as 'carried out without the patient's informed consent and free will',

Asserting the right of all citizens to their own sexual orientation and gender identity which should not be forcibly changed by others,

this resolution hereby bans the practice of involuntary conversion therapy on citizens.

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

OOC: It's fairly clear your post is Out Of Character - not written by your nation's in-character representative to the World Assembly - so I'm going to respond in kind.

First, the forum is the wrong place to ask for help in passing your resolution. Whether a proposal is well received on the forum or not has nothing to do with its chances of passing; that vote is controlled by a small number of gameplayers, most of whom don't even use this forum. So we won't really be able to help you there.

Second, there will certainly be an effort to try to get your proposal declared illegal if you do try to submit it. So you'll need to think about its legality, including how it interacts with previous resolutions. This is incredibly boring, and largely a waste of your time, but it's a hoop everyone is forced to jump through in the modern WA.

Third, if you are only open to "perhaps minor editing", we can't really do much to help you with your draft. Maybe you could think about why only citizens, and not non-citizen nationals, are protected, but that might be too major an edit.

[Imperium Anglorum]

First, the forum is the wrong place to ask for help in passing your resolution. Whether a proposal is well received on the forum or not has nothing to do with its chances of passing; that vote is controlled by a small number of gameplayers, most of whom don't even use this forum. So we won't really be able to help you there.

Now, now. I'm unconvinced that those players would be unconvinced by a good-looking proposal which solves a real problem.

Second, there will certainly be an effort to try to get your proposal declared illegal if you do try to submit it. So you'll need to think about its legality, including how it interacts with previous resolutions. This is incredibly boring, and largely a waste of your time, but it's a hoop everyone is forced to jump through in the modern WA.

This, one thousand times. We should all have this in our signatures.

Third, if you are only open to "perhaps minor editing", we can't really do much to help you with your draft. Maybe you could think about why only citizens, and not non-citizen nationals, are protected, but that might be too major an edit.

Editing will be required.

[Aclion]

DEFINING conversion therapy as any practice intended to suppress, change or destroy one's sexual orientation and/or gender identity,

ASSERTING the right of all citizens to their own sexual orientation and gender identity which should not be forcibly changed by others,

Suppose the person wants to change their sexual orientation?

NOTING that the vast majority of people who have signed themselves up for consensual conversion therapy are simply sufferers of internalised homophobia and/or internalised transphobia,

Ah I see; The right to self-identity only applies when it's used in a manner you agree with.

Anyway you've got a bit of verb salad going on there. Is "pointing out" really a term you want in international legislation?

[Maracos]

I have made slight changes.

By the way, I'm not looking for direct help in getting a proposal passed. I'm seeking indirect help as I notice that proposals which are well-written, concise, clear and with few loopholes generally get passed more than shoddy first drafts.

Hello. I am Maracos and this is the first proposal I'm submitting to the forums for advice, support and as much editing as repliers feel necessary. I have already submitted a proposal but unfortunately it was removed due to an unintentional meta-gaming violation, and I'd like to give this proposal the best chance of actually getting passed. Therefore any help would be greatly appreciated.

TITLE: Resolution to Outlaw Conversion Therapy
STRENGTH: Mild
CATEGORY: Human Rights

DEFINING conversion therapy as any practice intended to suppress, change or destroy one's sexual orientation and/or gender identity,

ACCEPTING that such treatments within the transgender and occasionally intersex communities of gender reassignment surgery and hormone replacement therapy do not qualify as conversion therapy,

ACCEPTING that sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-related counselling or therapy does not qualify as conversion therapy as long as the aim of the treatment is not to suppress, change or destroy the patient's sexual orientation and/or gender identity,

RECOGNISING that many citizens have been forced to endure conversion therapy with awful results, including the suicides of many LGBTQ+ people,

REALISING that the existence of legal conversion therapy contributes to misunderstandings about the LGBTQ+ community, such as that their sexual orientation and/or gender identity can be changed, which in turn contributes to more harassment, persecution and hardship for LGBTQ+ citizens,

NOTING that conversion therapy is very rarely, if ever, successful and instead leaves patients traumatised and distressed,

NOTING that conversion therapy is very rarely carried out consensually and that most patients are indeed forced to go through the procedure,

NOTING that the vast majority of people who have signed themselves up for consensual conversion therapy are simply sufferers of internalised homophobia and/or internalised transphobia,

REALISING that, in many instances, conversion therapy is effectively torture due to methods such as electrocution and inducing vomiting,

NOTING that there are far safer and less harmful methods of combating distress due to one's sexual orientation and/or gender identity, including counselling and mental health therapy, which do not attempt to suppress, change or destroy the patient's sexual orientation or gender identity,

CITING the general scientific consensus that sexual orientation and gender identity are formed and fixed during gestation and cannot be changed after birth,

ASSERTING the right of all citizens to their own sexual orientation and gender identity which should not be forcibly changed by others,

this resolution hereby BANS the practice of conversion therapy on citizens of all ages.

[Imperium Anglorum]

PARSONS: I'm not voting for anything which is italicised to the letter. Stop italicising every word. Also, this isn't grade school; we don't need to write tons of words in big capital letters for no reason.

[Maracos]

DEFINING conversion therapy as any practice intended to suppress, change or destroy one's sexual orientation and/or gender identity,

ASSERTING the right of all citizens to their own sexual orientation and gender identity which should not be forcibly changed by others,

Suppose the person wants to change their sexual orientation?

NOTING that the vast majority of people who have signed themselves up for consensual conversion therapy are simply sufferers of internalised homophobia and/or internalised transphobia,

Ah I see; The right to self-identity only applies when it's used in a manner you agree with.

Anyway you've got a bit of verb salad going on there. Is "pointing out" really a term you want in international legislation?

I feel that the phrase about citing the scientific consensus that S/O and G/I are fixed from birth pretty much nullifies the idea that anyone would be capable of genuinely changing their S/O or G/I. People may want to but they can't, and so conversion therapy is still pointless and potentially dangerous.

[Aclion]

Suppose the person wants to change their sexual orientation?


Ah I see; The right to self-identity only applies when it's used in a manner you agree with.

Anyway you've got a bit of verb salad going on there. Is "pointing out" really a term you want in international legislation?

I feel that the phrase about citing the scientific consensus that S/O and G/I are fixed from birth pretty much nullifies the idea that anyone would be capable of genuinely changing their S/O or G/I. People may want to but they can't, and so conversion therapy is still pointless and potentially dangerous.

Whether or not it's possible is an entirely separate matter. They should not be denied the legal right to. Something as personal as this must be left to the individual.
And yes, fix your formatting. Mass italicization violates GAR#38
OOC: and keep in mind that the WA is not the real world; Some nations will have the tech to change a person's S/O G/I or even race, gender or species for that matter.

[Maracos]

Just wondering, do you have to be 100% "in character" when writing a proposal? I'm not exactly sure how I would write from the point of view of an inanimate nation. And I don't think I have written this draft particularly out of character - I haven't used first-person at all or showed much of my personality. Clarification from any replier would be good.

[Aclion]

Just wondering, do you have to be 100% "in character" when writing a proposal? I'm not exactly sure how I would write from the point of view of an inanimate nation. And I don't think I have written this draft particularly out of character - I haven't used first-person at all or showed much of my personality. Clarification from any replies would be good.

Resolutions should be written from the point of view of the World Assembly, as when is it pass it is a resolution of the World Assembly. The WA is a body of many nations, so if a pronoun is used it would be "we".

When posting in the forum your should be in character as your nations representative(or sometimes some other character as well, but usually your rep). But I'm bad at this too, so I won't judge.

[Calladan]

Noting that The WA has previously ruled protecting rights and equality in regard to both gender identity and sexual orientation several times,

Noting that attempting to change the gender identity and/or sexual orientation of a person against their free will almost inevitably ends badly,

Noting that such "conversion therapies" sometimes involve pratices that can be incredibly harmful to a person's mental and/or physical well-being,

The WA hereby :-

1. Outlaws all "conversion therapies" that are carried out against a person's free will and expressed consent.

2. Restates its support that a person is free to decide their own sexual orientation and gender

3. Does not prohibit a person from choosing to change their own gender, should they decide to do so of their own free will.

This is just a suggested idea of how it could read. I realise it is not perfect - "free will and expressed consent" is kind of woolly and vague as terms go, and is open to abuse if someone has a particularly strong willed parent and a weak willed child, and it potentially needs to have more of a definition of "conversion therapy" (but the problem with that is if you make it too tight a definition then ANYTHING that suggests you are trying to change someone's mind about their sexuality or gender identity could be classed as a conversion therapy under this proposal and so you could be violating it, although that could just be me over thinking the situation!) and quite honestly for such a complex situation it seems kind of short.

But I just offer it as a starting point and something to discuss

[Calladan]

Just wondering, do you have to be 100% "in character" when writing a proposal? I'm not exactly sure how I would write from the point of view of an inanimate nation. And I don't think I have written this draft particularly out of character - I haven't used first-person at all or showed much of my personality. Clarification from any replier would be good.

I am Tara McGill, Ambassador to My Tri-Arch Lucinda Doyle III

(ooc - I am really not. But, unless I start with "ooc" everything I write is written from the perspective of Mrs McGill, married mother of seven children, who represents her Tri-arch - the head of her government - and Calladan - her country. Her political views mostly match mine but some are VERY different. It's what makes all this SO MUCH FUN!!!! WHEEEEEE!)

[Small Huts]

Just wondering, do you have to be 100% "in character" when writing a proposal? I'm not exactly sure how I would write from the point of view of an inanimate nation. And I don't think I have written this draft particularly out of character - I haven't used first-person at all or showed much of my personality. Clarification from any replier would be good.

uh, Hi there Most Esteemed Proposal Drafter of Maracos,

No, Nations can't talk. Can they? I've never seen any who can. I usually deal with officials from various Nations like myself. Some are really weird though. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Anyhow ...

1. Yeah, italics gotta go.
2. Maybe use the term "Involuntary Conversion"? That should placate those species who like change.
3. I agree; "Pointing out" is a vile phrase.

Nice talking to you,

Kiynah Maebee - Deputy Governor Doubtful
The Uncertainty of Small Huts

[Aclion]

snippy snap

[Celice whips out her colored markers and begins scribbling madly]

Noting that The WA has previously ruled protecting rights and equality in regard to both gender identity and sexual orientation several times,

Noting that attempting to change the gender identity and/or sexual orientation of a person against their free will almost inevitably ends badly,

Noting that such "conversion therapies" sometimes involve praticespractices that can be incredibly harmful to a person's mental and/or physical well-being,

The WA hereby :-

1. Outlaws all "conversion therapies" that are carried out against a person's free will and expressed consent.

2. Restates its support Affirms that a person is free to decide their own sexual orientation and gender

3. Does not Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted to prohibit a person from choosing to change their own gender, should they decide to do so of their own free will.

[Unibot III]

I echo the thoughts of other members here, but I'd like to start off by saying what you have here is a strong idea for a resolution, it just needs careful editing and thought to get things right - listen to your colleagues here.

TITLE: Resolution to Outlaw Conversion Therapy
STRENGTH: Mild Significant or Strong
CATEGORY: Human Rights

"Resolution to..." is superfluous and not how most of our resolution titles begin.

The preambalatory sections are overly long, might I add. You can say most of that in a few clauses.

You'll need to define conversion therapy before banning it, otherwise what you're outlawing could be misconstrued.

One of the previous posters was correct to suggest many would prefer for this resolution to focus only on involuntary therapy, I would disagree because I believe conversion therapy is a great public health risk with little medicinal value - I would like to see a full ban be pursued by this august body.

But, that having been said, any such allowances for voluntary conversion therapy should make it clear that parental rights and discretion cannot be used to 'volunteer' a child to therapy. A youth "voluntarily" pursuing conversion therapy, however, poses a particularly challenging dilemma for any selective ban, because the youth very well may be coerced into pursuing therapy. My preference in the case of a selective ban would be to see a ban on all conversion therapy for those under the age of majority in a nation and then make allowances for voluntary participants over the age of majority.

[Calladan]

[Celice whips out her colored markers and begins scribbling madly]

Noting that The WA has previously ruled protecting rights and equality in regard to both gender identity and sexual orientation several times,

Noting that attempting to change the gender identity and/or sexual orientation of a person against their free will almost inevitably ends badly,

Noting that such "conversion therapies" sometimes involve praticespractices that can be incredibly harmful to a person's mental and/or physical well-being,

The WA hereby :-

1. Outlaws all "conversion therapies" that are carried out against a person's free will and expressed consent.

2. Restates its support Affirms that a person is free to decide their own sexual orientation and gender

3. Does not Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted to prohibit a person from choosing to change their own gender, should they decide to do so of their own free will.

I literally sketched it out on the train coming back from a visit with my mother in law - there is a chance I didn't check the spelling or the grammar or the general syntax when I posted it. So thank you for the corrections - I am in your debt

[Imperium Anglorum]

:- :- :- :- :- :- :- :- :- :- :- :- :- :- :- :- :- :- :- :- :-

PARSONS: (pointing to a line of smileys in the redraft) This is a smiley. There's no need for it to be in the proposal when the punctuation mark known as the colon already does the work.

[Small Huts]

One of the previous posters was correct to suggest many would prefer for this resolution to focus only on involuntary therapy, I would disagree because I believe conversion therapy is a great public health risk with little medicinal value - I would like to see a full ban be pursued by this august body.

But, that having been said, any such allowances for voluntary conversion therapy should make it clear that parental rights and discretion cannot be used to 'volunteer' a child to therapy. A youth "voluntarily" pursuing conversion therapy, however, poses a particularly challenging dilemma for any selective ban, because the youth very well may be coerced into pursuing therapy. My preference in the case of a selective ban would be to see a ban on all conversion therapy for those under the age of majority in a nation and then make allowances for voluntary participants over the age of majority.

A fair point. I would support clear language to this effect.

TITLE: Resolution to Outlaw Ban Conversion Therapy

<snip>

DEFINING conversion therapy as any forceful practice intended to suppress, change or destroy one's sexual orientation and/or gender identity against the will of the individual,

[Wallenburg]

Disregarding all the points already made, this resolution seems to belong in the Moral Decency: Significant category to me, considering that it bans conversion therapy even for those people who wish to undergo it.

[Small Huts]

Disregarding all the points already made, this resolution seems to belong in the Moral Decency: Significant category to me, considering that it bans conversion therapy even for those people who wish to undergo it.

Not if it is clear that it does not refer to gender reassignment of any kind. This is clearly a human rights issue.

[Wallenburg]

Disregarding all the points already made, this resolution seems to belong in the Moral Decency: Significant category to me, considering that it bans conversion therapy even for those people who wish to undergo it.

Not if it is clear that it does not refer to gender reassignment of any kind. This is clearly a human rights issue.

That makes no sense whatsoever. That's like saying a proposal to ban prostitution addresses a human rights issue because it doesn't refer to consumption of pornography of any kind.

[Bananaistan]

Disregarding all the points already made, this resolution seems to belong in the Moral Decency: Significant category to me, considering that it bans conversion therapy even for those people who wish to undergo it.

Not if it is clear that it does not refer to gender reassignment of any kind. This is clearly a human rights issue.

OOC: Not necessarily within the context of the category rules. Human rights and moral decency are opposite ends of a spectrum dealing with civil freedoms. Specifically the category rule states: "Shall the WA require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects?" If the answer is more, the proposal is moral decency. If the answer is less, the proposal is human rights.

An argument could be made either way here but I would assume that the broad interpretation of the category in past precedent indicates that this is a human rights proposal.

IC: "Full support although we'd suggest seriously cutting down on the preambulatory clauses. Also, you could consider trimming the single active clause down: " hereby BANS the practice of conversion therapy.""

- Brian

[Araraukar]

No-one thought to point out that A Convention on Gender already forbids forced "conversion therapy" for gender-related stuff?

OOC: Unsurprisingly this kinda of thing hits a bit too close to home for me personally, so trying to stick to IC as much as possible.

[Imperium Anglorum]

No-one thought to point out that A Convention on Gender already forbids forced "conversion therapy" for gender-related stuff?

PARSONS: Because the resolution isn't applicable. That resolution talks about freedom to choose a gender and bodily autonomy in § 4. This proposal talks about forcing someone to change their sexual preference.

[Wallenburg]

No-one thought to point out that A Convention on Gender already forbids forced "conversion therapy" for gender-related stuff?

PARSONS: Because the resolution isn't applicable. That resolution talks about freedom to choose a gender and bodily autonomy in § 4. This proposal talks about forcing someone to change their sexual preference.

"Or someone choosing to attempt to change their own sexual orientation."