NationStates

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:55 am**

"There appears to be some disagreement here on the issue of gender. Certainly, people here know where my inclinations lie--I certainly want some protections for transgendered individuals from these sorts of practices. Having said that, I'm not acquainted at all with the particular nuances of gender identity, nor with medical practice regarding it. Thus, I'm not sure if my blanket ban does the issue justice. Personally, I'm inclined to remove gender identity from here with the hopes that someone with more knowledge than I takes up the issue as a potential part of a second gender omnibus package. If this is less complex than I imagine, and/or my present wording works, please tell me. If not, do you agree that gender identity should be removed to be handled later by someone more knowledgable than yours truly?"

OOC: Is the issue as simple as it is with sexual orientation?

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:00 am**

Auralia wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I disagree: link, link 2.)

((OOC: Neither of those links demonstrate that it is per se impossible that sexual orientation can safely be changed.))

(OOC: It's possible that a layperson could fly an aeroplane with a few hours training, but extremely unlikely and the costs are so great that one wouldn't risk it. Changing sexual orientation, if possible, would not be done by the overwhelming majority of conversion therapy procedure, most of which are just plain abuse. Furthermore, the cost is risking someone being permanently psychologically damaged by the procedure, maybe leading to suicide.

I don't think it is at all justified for the General Assembly to allow a procedure which is either completely impossible, or almost impossible, when said procedure risks someone's life and is changing something that doesn't need to be changed anyway.)

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:01 am**

"No method exists to change sexual orientation at present, even if it were desirable (it isn't)."

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:38 am**

OOC: If anyone is still trying to claim that there's no harm in "recommending" a practice that's aimed to erase homosexuality or whatever you were aiming at, I'd like to point out GA #38, Convention Against Genocide:

1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation.

(2) Acts of genocide include, but are not limited to: killing or inflicting serious harm upon members of the group, creating living conditions for the group which tend to bring about its physical destruction, forcibly removing children from the group, or taking measures to prevent births within the group.

2. Member nations are prohibited from perpetrating acts of genocide, and must take action against non-state groups undertaking such activities whithin their borders.

*snip*

4. Genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempting to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide shall be punishable acts in all member states.

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:38 am**

United Massachusetts wrote:"There appears to be some disagreement here on the issue of gender. Certainly, people here know where my inclinations lie--I certainly want some protections for transgendered individuals from these sorts of practices. Having said that, I'm not acquainted at all with the particular nuances of gender identity, nor with medical practice regarding it. Thus, I'm not sure if my blanket ban does the issue justice. Personally, I'm inclined to remove gender identity from here with the hopes that someone with more knowledge than I takes up the issue as a potential part of a second gender omnibus package. If this is less complex than I imagine, and/or my present wording works, please tell me. If not, do you agree that gender identity should be removed to be handled later by someone more knowledgable than yours truly?"

OOC: Is the issue as simple as it is with sexual orientation?

"I believe that a blanket blan on gender-changing therapy is all that is needed; anything less would be a disservice to transgender individuals. Although there are many issues where compromise or nuance is needed, this is not one of them. Besides, if there is more ground to cover with regard to transsexualism, that can be covered by another resolution that does not tackle conversion therapy."

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:44 am**

Kenmoria wrote:"I believe that a blanket blan on gender-changing therapy is all that is needed; anything less would be a disservice to transgender individuals."

OOC: That sounds uncomfortably a lot like being banned from having the diagnose of transgender that in RL is often required for hormone therapy and surgeries.

But at the very least GA #91, A Convention on Gender says "4) No intersex, transgender or intergender person shall be forced to choose to fit in any gender", I think a ban on "conversion therapy" of the kind the proposal means, already exists.

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:48 am**

Araraukar wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:"I believe that a blanket blan on gender-changing therapy is all that is needed; anything less would be a disservice to transgender individuals."

OOC: That sounds uncomfortably a lot like being banned from having the diagnose of transgender that in RL is often required for hormone therapy and surgeries.

But at the very least GA #91, A Convention on Gender says "4) No intersex, transgender or intergender person shall be forced to choose to fit in any gender", I think a ban on "conversion therapy" of the kind the proposal means, already exists.

(OOC: When I mentioned gender-changing therapy, I was referring to trying to change the gender someone identities as, that was unclear wording on my part. However, GA #91 could be rationale to remove gender from the definition of conversion therapy. Ultimately though, it's up to the author.)

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:56 am**

"So, should it stay in the proposal or no?"

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:22 pm**

OOC: Have you heard any response from Liberlitatia ever since you telegrammed him or her about their original proposal?

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:29 pm**

Dmitry II wrote:OOC: Have you heard any response from Liberlitatia ever since you telegrammed him or her about their original proposal?

They said if theirs failed, I could take over. Theirs failed, so here we are.

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:32 pm**

Current research suggests that gender dysphoric children should be encouraged to accept their biological sex where possible, given that the majority of prepubescent gender dysphoric children eventually "grow out" of their gender dysphoria. This proposal would therefore effectively prohibit good medical practice.

OOC: That is an irresponsible conclusion to draw from the study you cited. First, the methodology of that study is deeply troubling. 30% of the subjects did not offer a response. Of those that did respond, 43% identified with their sex at birth — not a majority, but a plurality. This might seem significant until you look at the second issue: the sample size of the study is extremely small. There were only 45 respondents in total. That is not wide enough of a sample size to draw any useful conclusions, especially when one considers that 1/3 of the participants failed to respond to the follow-up!

Auralia wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I disagree: link, link 2.)

((OOC: Neither of those links demonstrate that it is per se impossible that sexual orientation can safely be changed.))

OOC: You know that is an impossible standard to prove. No study can demonstrate that conversion therapy is impossible. What we can do is assess whether it works, and in almost any study conducted by credible researchers, the conclusion has been that it does not. You know full well no one will be able to pull up a study whose conclusion is that sex conversion therapy is never possible, because there is no way to prove that.

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:38 pm**

Sciongrad wrote:
Auralia wrote:((OOC: Neither of those links demonstrate that it is per se impossible that sexual orientation can safely be changed.))

OOC: You know that is an impossible standard to prove. No study can demonstrate that conversion therapy is impossible. What we can do is assess whether it works, and in almost any study conducted by credible researchers, the conclusion has been that it does not. You know full well no one will be able to pull up a study whose conclusion is that sex conversion therapy is never possible, because there is no way to prove that.

OOC: This ^. Burden of proof rests on the claimant.

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:43 pm**

United Massachusetts wrote:"So, should it stay in the proposal or no?"

No, psychotherapy is the standard treatment for pediatric gender dysphoria, and Resolution 91 prohibits gender reassignment for minors. If psychotherapy were banned, gender dysphoric children would be left on their own. Moreover, research shows that more than 75% of children who suffer from gender dysphoria, or gender identity disorder, reidentify with their biological sex by the time they reach adulthood (so-called "desisters"). Helping these children cope with their dysphoria and adjust to their biological sex is legitimate medical treatment.

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:16 pm**

Sciongrad wrote:OOC: That is an irresponsible conclusion to draw from the study you cited. First, the methodology of that study is deeply troubling. 30% of the subjects did not offer a response. Of those that did respond, 43% identified with their sex at birth — not a majority, but a plurality. This might seem significant until you look at the second issue: the sample size of the study is extremely small. There were only 45 respondents in total. That is not wide enough of a sample size to draw any useful conclusions, especially when one considers that 1/3 of the participants failed to respond to the follow-up!

There were actually 54 respondents, not 45 -- I assume this was a typo. I'm not qualified to speak to whether 54 is a reasonable sample size for a study of this nature, but the study was published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal for child psychiatry.

In any event, there is certainly more than one study that supports my conclusion. Dr. James Cantor stated in 2016 that there are three large-scale follow-up studies and several smaller studies examining desistance, all of which indicate that a majority of gender dysphoric or gender non-conforming children desist by the time they reach adulthood.

This research is not without its critics, though a great deal of it seems to be politically motivated. Certainly I think it's quite clear that it is not appropriate for the World Assembly to simply ban any kind of medical treatment that encourages children to embrace their biological sex.

Sciongrad wrote:You know that is an impossible standard to prove. No study can demonstrate that conversion therapy is impossible.

I think you are overstating what I am asking for. If we understood the genesis of sexual orientation, I think it would be much clearer whether it could in principle be changed.

I know very little about the existing purported means for changing sexual orientation, besides the fact that the scientific consensus is that they are harmful and ineffective. This seems to me to be a compelling argument to ban such means. I think it would also be an argument to ban any future purported means unless they can be shown in clinical trials to be safe and effective.

It is not, however, an argument to ban any attempt whatsoever to change a person's sexual orientation. To do so suggests that changing a person's sexual orientation is somehow intrinsically evil; that even if a safe and effective means existed to change a person's sexual orientation, it would be wrong to use it.

This does seem to be UM's position, though I'd like to see some discussion of this underlying moral claim. To me it seems that it would be in principle desirable to change one's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, for the same reason that it would be in principle desirable to rid oneself of any kind of inclination towards sin.

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:18 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:...Resolution 91 prohibits gender reassignment for minors.

This is presumably a reference to this clause:

6) No intersex, transgender or intergender persons of any age shall have GAPs until they are mature enough to make an informed decision regarding their own future;

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:25 pm**

Auralia wrote:This does seem to be UM's position, though I'd like to see some discussion of this underlying moral claim. To me it seems that it would be in principle desirable to change one's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, for the same reason that it would be in principle desirable to rid oneself of any kind of inclination towards sin.

"Human sexuality itself involves an inclination to sin. Chastity is a struggle for both homosexual and heterosexual individuals, and I see no reason that special attention should be given to the former when both are just as inclined towards improper sexuality. Your argument easily could be made to outlaw sexual desire entirely--for, surely it would be better (according to your delegation) if sexual attraction were only to occur in marriage. Such is not the case, and rightly so.

But regardless, no discussion of the moral claim is needed, seeing as it isn't pertinent to the proposal at hand--just as sexuality cannot be abolished within humans, nor can same-sex attraction be. "

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:15 pm**

Auralia wrote:This research is not without its critics, though a great deal of it seems to be politically motivated.

Another problem is that critics commit the No True Scotsman fallacy. A gender dysphoric child who reidentifies with his biological sex, they say, must not have really been gender dysphoric (GIDC); he was just exhibiting "childhood gender nonconformity" (CGN).

At any rate, the WA should not prohibit psychotherapy for GIDC and CGN patients.

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:40 pm**

United Massachusetts wrote:"So, should it stay in the proposal or no?"

"Given the differing range of responses, and the existence of GA #91, it could be easier for it not to appear in the proposal."

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:48 am**

Auralia wrote:In any event, there is certainly more than one study that supports my conclusion. Dr. James Cantor stated in 2016 that there are three large-scale follow-up studies and several smaller studies examining desistance, all of which indicate that a majority of gender dysphoric or gender non-conforming children desist by the time they reach adulthood.

This research is not without its critics, [...].

OOC:
I'd certainly fucking hope it has its critics, given that that Cantor is a piece of shit who thinks that all Transwomen are somehow either fetishists or repressed gay guys. (And also that Bi Transwomen like myself don't exist and are just lying.) His 'research' is, at best, intentionally misleading or manipulated to support his position. He is very fucking far from a reliable voice on the subject. 'Desistance' is nothing more than absolute bullshit peddled by people trying to restrict the rights of Trans and GNC people to even exist. Literally just talk to fucking anyone who isn't on Blanchard's Bandwagon and you'll hear that these fucking feelings don't just magically fucking go away. Do some basic goddamn research on who you're getting your goddamned ideas from.

Auralia wrote:Certainly I think it's quite clear that it is not appropriate for the World Assembly to simply ban any kind of medical treatment that encourages children to embrace their biological sex.

It absolutely is. It is absolutely the place of the world assembly to prevent people like you from inflicting incredible abuse on children who children who fucking dare to not conform to how you have decided they should live their lives. Conversion Therapy, in all cases, leads to nothing more than brutal self-repression, Conversion Therapy leads people to suicide, and often directly encourages suicide. Conversion Therapy fucking kills people and traumatizes everyone who goes through it. It absolutely should be banned and everyone who recommends the process or practices it should be in a prison cell for the rest of their fucking lives.

Auralia wrote:I think you are overstating what I am asking for. If we understood the genesis of sexual orientation, I think it would be much clearer whether it could in principle be changed.

If we understood the origin of Sexual Orientation, it still wouldn't be okay to change it. It doesn't fucking matter if it comes from some bit of the brain or some magical connection to the fucking ether, it is a matter of basic fucking ethics not to break in and fuck with it.

Auralia wrote:I know very little about the existing purported means for changing sexual orientation, besides the fact that the scientific consensus is that they are harmful and ineffective.

Then do some basic research. Because every survivor of conversion therapy will tell you in quite a bit of detail how utterly horrific it is.

Auralia wrote:It is not, however, an argument to ban any attempt whatsoever to change a person's sexual orientation. To do so suggests that changing a person's sexual orientation is somehow intrinsically evil; that even if a safe and effective means existed to change a person's sexual orientation, it would be wrong to use it.

Yes. It is. It is literally not anyone's place to go in and fuck with that shit. The Electric Chair doesn't work. Conversion Therapy doesn't work. Beating the shit out of them until you decide they won't be Gay or Trans anymore doesn't work. 'Corrective' rape, doesn't fucking work. And it all leaves psychological traumas that people have to deal with for the rest of their fucking lives. Every fucking atom of evidence on earth points towards the idea that it is impossible to change this, and incredibly damaging to attempt.

Auralia wrote:To me it seems that it would be in principle desirable to change one's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, for the same reason that it would be in principle desirable to rid oneself of any kind of inclination towards sin.

Fuck off.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:42 am**

Christian Democrats wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:"So, should it stay in the proposal or no?"

No, psychotherapy is the standard treatment for pediatric gender dysphoria, and Resolution 91 prohibits gender reassignment for minors. If psychotherapy were banned, gender dysphoric children would be left on their own. Moreover, research shows that more than 75% of children who suffer from gender dysphoria, or gender identity disorder, reidentify with their biological sex by the time they reach adulthood (so-called "desisters"). Helping these children cope with their dysphoria and adjust to their biological sex is legitimate medical treatment.

GAR#91 does not prohibit gender reassignment for minors. It prevents sex reassignment — i.e., steps toward changing one's anatomy or physical features to match one's gender identity. It does not prohibit treating minors according to their preferred gender identity, even if that gender identity does not match their sex at birth. But second, the literature suggesting that minors that identity as transgender overwhelmingly (or even usually) identify with their sex at birth after puberty is spotty at best — there is generally selection bias or alternative explanations, such as strong familial pressure to "conform," not to mention a flagrant political agenda at work. But even if it were true, we have not established that suppressing childhood experimentation with gender is normatively desirable. In other words, it is not enough to simply say that most children "change their minds." You must prove that letting children identify with a gender other than the one assigned at birth (without procedures that change one's anatomy, which are prohibited by GAR#91 for minors) is detrimental to the child.

Kenmoria wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:"So, should it stay in the proposal or no?"

"Given the differing range of responses, and the existence of GA #91, it could be easier for it not to appear in the proposal."

Sciongrad would suggest keeping it, actually. Socially conservative nations are a minority in the World Assembly, and prohibiting conversion therapy for gender identity and conversion therapy for sexual orientation in two different proposals seems like a waste of time when one proposal covering both would surely pass.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:25 am**

Tinfect wrote:Fuck off.

*** Warned for flaming ***

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:36 am**

Kenmoria wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:"So, should it stay in the proposal or no?"

"Given the differing range of responses, and the existence of GA #91, it could be easier for it not to appear in the proposal."

IC: We concur.

OOC: https://www.wpath.org/soc-languages

Auralia's contention that most children grow out of the disordered state seems to be generally accepted by all serious researchers. As far as I can tell, the tactics commonly associated with conversion "therapy" would [rightly] be considered grossly inappropriate. However, it also seems like forbidding psychotherapy aimed at helping a child accord their so-called "gender identity" with the biological reality is excessively restrictive given that it is the outcome, for whatever reason, in such a large majority of cases (at least to the extent of the current litterature). The linked Standard of Care seem to suggest that, at least before puberty, gender transition is pre-mature, and other things should be tried.

I would drop gender identity from this proposal. In the alternative, a more careful definition of conversion therapy would be desirable. Beating, shocking, drugging, etc. a child is inappropriate. Suggesting that Timmy really is a boy and needs to integrate liking show-tunes and cooking into his concept of being a boy may well be the appropriate course of action (of course, it may not be the best course, but at some point we have to trust the actual treatment provider to make individualized patient decisions).

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:40 am**

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:I would drop gender identity from this proposal. In the alternative, a more careful definition of conversion therapy would be desirable. Beating, shocking, drugging, etc. a child is inappropriate. Suggesting that Timmy really is a boy and needs to integrate liking show-tunes and cooking into his concept of being a boy may well be the appropriate course of action (of course, it may not be the best course, but at some point we have to trust the actual treatment provider to make individualized patient decisions).

(OOC: I would add to this, that the word “coercive”, currently referring only to spiritual intervention, should be added to all the different types of conversion therapy.)

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:14 pm**

Sciongrad wrote:But second, the literature suggesting that minors that identity as transgender overwhelmingly (or even usually) identify with their sex at birth after puberty is spotty at best — there is generally selection bias or alternative explanations, such as strong familial pressure to "conform," not to mention a flagrant political agenda at work. But even if it were true, we have not established that suppressing childhood experimentation with gender is normatively desirable. In other words, it is not enough to simply say that most children "change their minds." You must prove that letting children identify with a gender other than the one assigned at birth (without procedures that change one's anatomy, which are prohibited by GAR#91 for minors) is detrimental to the child.

Gender identity disorder, or gender dysphoria, is detrimental to children by definition. It is a source of significant distress, and two-fifths of patients attempt suicide. The idea that parents and psychiatrists should just allow "childhood experimentation" and make no attempts to help children adjust is preposterous. There is no evidence that psychotherapy for gender identity disorder in children (GIDC) is harmful. The burden of proof is on the nations that want to prohibit such treatments.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:22 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:But second, the literature suggesting that minors that identity as transgender overwhelmingly (or even usually) identify with their sex at birth after puberty is spotty at best — there is generally selection bias or alternative explanations, such as strong familial pressure to "conform," not to mention a flagrant political agenda at work. But even if it were true, we have not established that suppressing childhood experimentation with gender is normatively desirable. In other words, it is not enough to simply say that most children "change their minds." You must prove that letting children identify with a gender other than the one assigned at birth (without procedures that change one's anatomy, which are prohibited by GAR#91 for minors) is detrimental to the child.

Gender identity disorder, or gender dysphoria, is detrimental to children by definition. It is a source of significant distress, and two-fifths of patients attempt suicide. The idea that parents and psychiatrists should just allow "childhood experimentation" and make no attempts to help children adjust is preposterous. There is no evidence that psychotherapy for gender identity disorder in children (GIDC) is harmful. The burden of proof is on the nations that want to prohibit such treatments.

You are confusing your variables. It is true that transgender children and people in general disproportionately commit suicide, but the source of stress is often the so-called cure you're proposing. Strong pressure from one's family and community to conform to their sex at birth rather than the gender they identify with is what drives people to suicide. There is no credible, scientifically rigorous and well-replicated evidence that suggests there is a causal relationship between being transgender and suicide when one controls for socialy constructed stigma against transgender individuals.

NationStates

[PASSED] Ban on Conversion Therapy