[PASSED] Defending Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities

[Marxist Germany]

What do you mean?

OOC:

Well are these in character posts - i.e. views of your ambassador to the WA. or are they out of character posts; your personal comments as in comments made by you the player?

Personal.

[Marxist Germany]

What do you mean?

OOC:

Well are these in character posts - i.e. views of your ambassador to the WA. or are they out of character posts; your personal comments as in comments made by you the player?

Personal.

[Marxist Germany]

What do you mean?

OOC:

Well are these in character posts - i.e. views of your ambassador to the WA. or are they out of character posts; your personal comments as in comments made by you the player?

Personal.

[Marxist Germany]

What do you mean?

OOC:

Well are these in character posts - i.e. views of your ambassador to the WA. or are they out of character posts; your personal comments as in comments made by you the player?

Personal.

[Marxist Germany]

Sorry for the spam, i was lagging

[Marxist Germany]

would appreciate if a moderator could delete the extra messages

[Caracasus]

OOC:

Well are these in character posts - i.e. views of your ambassador to the WA. or are they out of character posts; your personal comments as in comments made by you the player?

Personal.

So by your own admission your argument is about half a century behind scientific understanding of sex and gender and we should listen to you why, exactly?

[Lord Dominator]

Funny Lord Dominator, you label anything you don't like as "far right". I guess we're both guilty.

Don't recall doing so

[New Bremerton]

OOC:
First of all, go actually learn what Affirmative Action is, and why it's necessary. Second, I've not seen any reason this would possibly ban it.



For the record, the requirement of psychological evaluation, can, and has, been used to pigeonhole trans people into specific interpretations of the gender binary, and to outright exclude people who don't fit neatly into predetermined sexist boxes from accessing the assistance and resources they need. The illusory threat of cis people abusing the law to do bad things is simple nonsense; if they would do that, they were going to do the bad thing anyway, and the law changes nothing, and serves merely to harm trans people.

OOC: I was thinking about this video. In it, right-wing Canadian activist Lauren Southern (she calls herself an independent journalist, but I consider her to be a conservative political activist) successfully changes her legal gender to male, even though she's clearly faking it to make a political point against any recognition of transgender rights as being about anything more than "muh feelingz", a sentiment I strongly disagree with. She shows that this kind of fakery is theoretically possible in Canada at least. Even if it doesn't happen on a regular, criminal basis, it's still sufficient cause for concern. Where do we draw the line? I honestly don't have the answer to that question. Again, I'm not trying to belittle trans people in any way. Trans recognition is something I think needs to be phased in gradually, so I'm with the Left on this issue.

Also, affirmative action in whose country? Yours or mine? Because AA has been tried and tested in my country for decades on the grounds that the ethnic majority Malay-Muslims are economically less well off than the Chinese minority to which I belong, and also in an attempt to appease the disgruntled Malays who were involved in deadly racial riots (read: anti-Chinese pogroms) that took place in 1969. Cronyism, corruption, racist entitlement, sloth, massive public debt and a bloated civil service consisting almost entirely of Malays has been the end result. Rather than attempt to emulate our relative success, the majority seeks to put us down for daring to be more successful than them, and the racism coming from politicians is oftentimes explicit, with threats of violence and legal action against any non-Malay and non-Muslim daring to challenge the racist doctrine of Malay/Muslim supremacy. It's clearly reminiscent of antisemitism in early 20th century Europe, when Jews supposedly fared better than ethnic Germans and Slavs. It didn't end well for them in the end.

So yes, affirmative action is PC code for discrimination. It is highly vindictive against those whose only crime is to belong to a certain race/gender/religion etc, and it should absolutely be banned worldwide, including the ones that unfairly disadvantage straight, cisgendered men and white people (including Jews, apparently), and Asian-Americans even more so, in Western countries. Individual merit must always take precedence.

Anyway, I think it's best if we remained on topic. I'm still going to support this proposal regardless.

[White Bluff]

Personal.

So by your own admission your argument is about half a century behind scientific understanding of sex and gender and we should listen to you why, exactly?

Yes, your argument seems quite Freudian, which are ideas long since disproven.

[Arasi Luvasa]

Protecting the Civil Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities

Category: Civil Rights
Strength: Significant

HOLDING that the sexuality or gender of an individual does not make them inferior or superior to another individual of a differing sexuality or gender,

REASONING that individuals of all sexualities and genders should be granted the same civil and political rights, and

NOTING the lack of General Assembly legislation which specifically clarifies the civil and political rights of sexual and gender minorities,

The World Assembly:

A) DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "civil marriage" as a legally recognised union of two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony.

B) FURTHER DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "marriage rights" as privileges granted to an individual solely or in part as a consequence of their civil marriage.

Hereby,

1. 1. REQUIRES all member nations which allow civil marriages between individuals of a certain sexuality or gender to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions.
      
   2. ORDERS all member nations to provide the same civil marriage services for individuals of all sexualities and genders.
      
   3. COMPELS all member nations to grant the same marriage rights to civilly married individuals of all sexualities and genders.
      
   4. REQUIRES all member nations to apply legislation of the same scope and effect for the termination of civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders.
   
   
2. MANDATES that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions. Such conditions may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.
   
   
3. ORDERS all member nations to impose exactly the same sanctions or punishments on all organisations which deny any right, power, permission or service to an individual based on their sexuality or gender, as the sanctions or punishments imposed on organisations discriminating on the basis of other arbitrary, reductive criteria (such as, but not limited to, ethnicity, age and religion).
   
4. MANDATES that all member nations must allow each of their citizens to choose or change their own gender, and that member nations must officially recognise and accept the individual's chosen gender.
   
5. CLARIFIES that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution, and should be addressed by future legislation.

While clause 5 continues to provide religious organizations with a loophole and continued carte-blanche to discriminate against sexual and gender minorities, it also leaves the door open for such a loophole to be eliminated in subsequent resolutions. Private establishments that open their doors to the public should not be allowed to discriminate against their customers simply for who they are.

Clause 4 is also sufficiently flexible enough to allow member states to require that transgender individuals undergo psychological evaluation before being allowed to legally transition to a gender other than the one assigned at birth. In New Bremerton, sex reassignment surgery is not required, there is no age limit to legally transition, and any psychological evaluation is kept strictly confidential so as to enable trans individuals to avoid any kind of public embarrassment while at the same time preventing transgender fraud, whereby a cisgendered individual is able to fake being trans in order to break the law, thereby undermining the rights and dignity of the trans community at large. This is similar to preventing benefit fraud by those who don't qualify for certain handouts, thereby undermining the rights and dignity of poor and working-class people.

Also, if this proposal bans affirmative action, then it would only serve to reinforce our support even further. Affirmative action is just politically correct code for plain old discrimination.

We hereby lodge our vote FOR this proposal.

OOC: I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole transgender thing, but generally speaking, I consider myself to be pro-trans.

Religions have followers, not customers. Also by following a religion, you are effectively subscribing to their system of values. The resolution would still force Theocracies to allow individuals a civil marriage, just not a religious one.

[Lamoni]

OOC:
Yes, it absolutely should. Human Rights aren't a matter of 'Member-State's Rights'. They're human fucking rights.

People who change their gender should be in a mental hospital

*** Warning for Trolling ***

You cannot simply put someone in a mental hospital for doing things that you do not like, especially when what they do is not harming anyone. What you are proposing is also the first step on a slippery slope that leads to dark, dark places. I highly advise that you familiarize yourself with the rules, lest your stay on this site be a short one.

[Aestorn]

Yes, gays are oppressed, but forcing one strain of belief onto whole WA is not only irresponsible, but also quite anti freedom, not to mention the political bias in this. Also, this goes, in my opinion, too far, especially number 4. These things are to be left to be decided on national (or regional) level, not WA.

[Caracasus]

Yes, gays are oppressed, but forcing one strain of belief onto whole WA is not only irresponsible, but also quite anti freedom, not to mention the political bias in this. Also, this goes, in my opinion, too far, especially number 4. These things are to be left to be decided on national (or regional) level, not WA.

Political issues in the WA? Well yeah...

[Kenmoria]

Yes, gays are oppressed, but forcing one strain of belief onto whole WA is not only irresponsible, but also quite anti freedom, not to mention the political bias in this. Also, this goes, in my opinion, too far, especially number 4. These things are to be left to be decided on national (or regional) level, not WA.

(OOC: This comment goes for almost everyone who’s posted here, as I don’t want to go to the effort of quoting the 10+ comments similar to this one. The right to national sovereignty is given up upon entering the WA, and the General Assembly’s entire purpose is to pass legislation that restricts the choices of member states, or at least encourages restictions. Natsov is extremely rarely a valid reason to oppose a bill, especially one of human rights such as this one.)

[Araraukar]

With gender being undefined, a person could literally claim their gender is whatever they say it is.

Are you an SJW ? You can't force my government to accept someone's "chosen gender", that's determined by genetics. Period.

Define gender minority, considering there is only male and female, which one would be in this case the minority, or is this towards nations who have either male or female above the other in rights.

Sex is determined by genetics. Gender is a social construct.

OOC: Read GA #91.

I am confused by this. Does 'changing gender' include sex reassignment surgery?

Does this mean that a ten year old child can decide to undergo sex reassignment surgery? And if so, would they need their parents permission, or could they just tell their doctor they want it done. If the parents refuse to allow it, could the child be taken away from them?

If it does not include sex reassignment surgery, then I am even more confused about what it means to 'change gender'.

Please forgive me if my questions make me seem like an idiot. Sometimes I am an idiot, but I am really trying to understand.

OOC: You're not an idiot, but the previously passed resolution, GA #91, Convention on Gender, explains a lot of that in terms of the World Assembly.

[Tinfect]

OOC: I was thinking about this video. In it, right-wing Canadian activist Lauren Southern (she calls herself an independent journalist, but I consider her to be a conservative political activist) successfully changes her legal gender to male, even though she's clearly faking it to make a political point against any recognition of transgender rights as being about anything more than "muh feelingz", a sentiment I strongly disagree with. She shows that this kind of fakery is theoretically possible in Canada at least. Even if it doesn't happen on a regular, criminal basis, it's still sufficient cause for concern. Where do we draw the line? I honestly don't have the answer to that question.

Lauren Southern has actively peddled neo-nazi conspiracies about 'race replacement', among other things. Nothing she does should ever be considered seriously, especially not when she goes out of her way to cause problems. All her little stunt with the gender change achieved is making life harder for trans people.

Again, I'm not trying to belittle trans people in any way. Trans recognition is something I think needs to be phased in gradually, so I'm with the Left on this issue.

Civil Rights are not a gradual issue.

Also, affirmative action in whose country? Yours or mine? Because AA has been tried and tested in my country for decades on the grounds that the ethnic majority Malay-Muslims are economically less well off than the Chinese minority to which I belong, and also in an attempt to appease the disgruntled Malays who were involved in deadly racial riots (read: anti-Chinese pogroms) that took place in 1969. Cronyism, corruption, racist entitlement, sloth, massive public debt and a bloated civil service consisting almost entirely of Malays has been the end result. Rather than attempt to emulate our relative success, the majority seeks to put us down for daring to be more successful than them, and the racism coming from politicians is oftentimes explicit, with threats of violence and legal action against any non-Malay and non-Muslim daring to challenge the racist doctrine of Malay/Muslim supremacy. It's clearly reminiscent of antisemitism in early 20th century Europe, when Jews supposedly fared better than ethnic Germans and Slavs. It didn't end well for them in the end.

So yes, affirmative action is PC code for discrimination. It is highly vindictive against those whose only crime is to belong to a certain race/gender/religion etc, and it should absolutely be banned worldwide, including the ones that unfairly disadvantage straight, cisgendered men and white people (including Jews, apparently), and Asian-Americans even more so, in Western countries. Individual merit must always take precedence.

I'm not even going to touch this nonsense.

[Arasi Luvasa]

Affirmative Action has had problems in my country as well. Mostly all it does is make the rich black (and occasional coloured) richer while further entrenching the poorer people of colour and poorer white people (of which there are now beggars). Personally I believe a slower method aimed specifically at economic class and disregarding race altogether would be a better system.

[Acadian Populace]

Based upon the ruling of major religions, marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman.

Based upon that, as well as our commitment to religious liberty, the Federal Republic of Acadian Populace disregards the efforts of any nation (or the assembly as a whole) to circumvent the definition of the religious rite of marriage.

- President of the Acadian Populace

[Falcania]

A lot of my fellow delegates seem to have signed their nations up to the world assembly completely by accident, judging by the general bewilderment with which they treat fairly simple principles of civil rights.

[Maowi]

This proposal would not enforce the legalisation of polygamy. It defines civil marriage as "a legally recognised union between two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony." So if your nation allows civil marriages between, say, one man and one woman, it must allow civil marriages between two people of any gender or sexuality. If it allows civil marriages between e.g. one man and any number of women, it must allow civil marriages between any number of people of amy sexuality or gender. If it is a nation that only allows civil marriages between one man and three women, it must allow civil marriages between four people of any sexuality or gender.

Based upon the ruling of major religions, marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman.

Based upon that, as well as our commitment to religious liberty, the Federal Republic of Acadian Populace disregards the efforts of any nation (or the assembly as a whole) to circumvent the definition of the religious rite of marriage.

- President of the Acadian Populace

This proposal would not force religious marriages between non-heterosexual people; see clause 5.

[Macsenoedd]

If I Just Make It Illegal To Not Follow The State Religion, There Will Be No Religious Discrimination!

[Araraukar]

If I Just Make It Illegal To Not Follow The State Religion, There Will Be No Religious Discrimination!

OOC: That puts you in violation of an already existing resolution, though.

[Scherzinger]

yeah....no

same sex marriage is still banned, transgenders are executed, and i have no intention of worrying about this farce a bit

[Maowi]

yeah....no

same sex marriage is still banned, transgenders are executed, and i have no intention of worrying about this farce a bit

Banning same sex marriage entirely goes against the CoCR already, unless you can make up some compelling practical purpose for that