[PASSED] Defending Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities

[Maowi]

Hey,

This is the ambassador to the WA from The Marconian State reporting in.

The President of Maowi gives his warm regards and expresses his gratitude for your support.

[Libervalley]

Hey, Does This Law Still Apply To Me, As It States (To Paraphrase) "...If Your Nation Allows Civil Marriage..." While We Would Rather Not, And Also The Law Seems To Be About Genders, And In Our State There's Only One Recognised Human Gender: Human.

The fellow delegate raises a valid point that I was about to make. Many nations like mine do not even have state recognized civil marriages but only religious and secular marriages outside of the state. From my understanding if that is the case this resolution would not apply to such a nation.

On the other hand the resolution essentially forces nations to punish non-violent private entities to act a certain way. In an effort to protect civil rights of a minority this resolution discriminates against others which amounts to no less than tyranny. We recognize the minority of the individual and provide equal rights to all. The Federation of Conservative nations will not punish our great non-violent private institutions for reasons that does not harm people and intern violates our citizens right to freedom.

[Natsoci]

Already, just going down the list of WA nations alphabetically, I found a nation where homosexuality is banned (naming no names ...)

It’s banned in mine.....

How

[Maowi]

The fellow delegate raises a valid point that I was about to make. Many nations like mine do not even have state recognized civil marriages but only religious and secular marriages outside of the state. From my understanding if that is the case this resolution would not apply to such a nation.

On the other hand the resolution essentially forces nations to punish non-violent private entities to act a certain way. In an effort to protect civil rights of a minority this resolution discriminates against others which amounts to no less than tyranny. We recognize the minority of the individual and provide equal rights to all. The Federation of Conservative nations will not punish our great non-violent private institutions for reasons that does not harm people and violates and intern violates our citizens right to freedom.

As defined in the proposal, if your Government recognises marriages which are formalised as non-religious contracts, it allows civil marriages. If marriages are solely religious affairs, you are not affected by clause 1 (although note that civil marriages with a religious ceremony stuck on are still civil marriages; it is the nature of the agreement that defines the type of marriage). And if the state doesn't recognise these secular marriages, clause 1 doesn't apply to you, but the state must ensure that whoever does provide these secular marriage services provides them to all people, as otherwise they are violating clause 3.

Also, you can discriminate without being violent. Denying someone the right to, for example, teach in a school merely because of their sexuality should be a punishable offence, as realistically, how are we going to ensure equality and get rid of discrimination?

I hope I interpreted your message correctly, please ask again if I didn't

[Edwardium]

But what would happen if my nation makes homosexuality illegal(which it is)? I have no intention of making homosexuality legal. Would my nation be forced to change its policy?

[Arasi Luvasa]

But what would happen if my nation makes homosexuality illegal(which it is)? I have no intention of making homosexuality legal. Would my nation be forced to change its policy?

This is already in contravention of existing GA legislation I believe, so either you are non-compliant (in which case I will just ignore you and any further comments in the WA) or those laws aren't on your books. Oh you can actually rp yourself suffering under strain of WA measures, but that is about it if you want those highly active in the GA to take your comments as being worthy of recognition.

[Ophaesia]

We, the people of Ophaesia, are a social democratic nation, but we are also scientifically-minded. The notion that a person can choose their gender is as laughable as the notion that a person can choose their species. Is that where we're headed? Will the next resolution force us to recognize the poor deluded people that call themselves otherkin and demand to be taken seriously? While there's sadly nothing in the constitution of this assembly limiting its ability to shove the agenda of any minority who's only grievance is not being taken seriously enough for their liking down our throats, that doesn't make this a good idea. Ophaesia pledges support of any new resolution retracting this clause even if it goes hand in hand with retracting the entire resolution.

[Libervalley]

The fellow delegate raises a valid point that I was about to make. Many nations like mine do not even have state recognized civil marriages but only religious and secular marriages outside of the state. From my understanding if that is the case this resolution would not apply to such a nation.

On the other hand the resolution essentially forces nations to punish non-violent private entities to act a certain way. In an effort to protect civil rights of a minority this resolution discriminates against others which amounts to no less than tyranny. We recognize the minority of the individual and provide equal rights to all. The Federation of Conservative nations will not punish our great non-violent private institutions for reasons that does not harm people and violates and intern violates our citizens right to freedom.

As defined in the proposal, if your Government recognises marriages which are formalised as non-religious contracts, it allows civil marriages. If marriages are solely religious affairs, you are not affected by clause 1 (although note that civil marriages with a religious ceremony stuck on are still civil marriages; it is the nature of the agreement that defines the type of marriage). And if the state doesn't recognise these secular marriages, clause 1 doesn't apply to you, but the state must ensure that whoever does provide these secular marriage services provides them to all people, as otherwise they are violating clause 3.

Also, you can discriminate without being violent. Denying someone the right to, for example, teach in a school merely because of their sexuality should be a punishable offence, as realistically, how are we going to ensure equality and get rid of discrimination?

I hope I interpreted your message correctly, please ask again if I didn't

Since you have responded respectfully unlike many in the WA I will respond in kind. I believe the first issue mentioned has been clarified. However, the second issue raises the largest problems.

Continuing with your hypothetical I would agree that publicly owned institutions such as public schools should not discriminate based on non-changeable human conditions. Discrimination in and of itself however is not immoral. It happens all the time when people discern and make life decisions to protect their own lives. It is human nature to discern and discriminate. Therefore outright ridding the world of discrimination is not just impossible but also deprives people the ability to make day to day decisions. What questions should the state (government) ask when considering regulating acts of discrimination?

1. Is the discrimination based on scientifically proven immutable characteristics of a human being such as color of skin?
2. Is the institution being regulated a public or private entity?
3. Would the regulation infringe on the natural rights such as the right to free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to petition the government for redress of grievances or even the right of private property?

If the regulation does not pass these questions at a minimum there is no ground for the state (government) to regulate. In the resolution it states that the relationship between the individuals must be consensual. What if the teacher is having a consensual relationship with a student? Under this resolution such underage relationships would be enforced unless there is something I am missing.

The fact of this opening in the resolution and the failure to pass all three questions at this stage would mean such a law in my nation and region would be unjust.

[Libervalley]

We, the people of Ophaesia, are a social democratic nation, but we are also scientifically-minded. The notion that a person can choose their gender is as laughable as the notion that a person can choose their species. Is that where we're headed? Will the next resolution force us to recognize the poor deluded people that call themselves otherkin and demand to be taken seriously? While there's sadly nothing in the constitution of this assembly limiting its ability to shove the agenda of any minority who's only grievance is not being taken seriously enough for their liking down our throats, that doesn't make this a good idea. Ophaesia pledges support of any new resolution retracting this clause even if it goes hand in hand with retracting the entire resolution.

If people can choose gender then it is not an immutable characteristic therefore the government does not have grounds to regulate. I agree with the fellow delegate in must be scientifically proven that it is an immutable characteristic.

[Genovian Empire]

The Free Land of Maowi Changing genders doesn't make sense, who even comes up with this stuff. Male and Female that is it, anything else is a mental illness and must be checked out. Common Sense

[Maowi]

The Free Land of Maowi Changing genders doesn't make sense, who even comes up with this stuff. Male and Female that is it, anything else is a mental illness and must be checked out. Common Sense

State your opinions respectfully. It is frankly way out of order to call non-gender binary people mentally ill.

Libervalley and Ophaesia,
Regarding all your understandable concerns, change of gender is different to change of sex. I have said this several times, so I am not sure if that is the opinion you hold after hearing these arguments. Please clarify
Also, Libervalley, regardless of the fact that it can be changed, it is always wrong to discriminate based on gender. People can't help their gender; it is just that when we are born we are assigned a certain gender, which could be wrong, so we need to have the ability to change it if so.

[Falcania]

I am highly dismayed at the outright homophobia and prejudice boasted by several nations here. If you criminalise homosexuality you are in outright contravention of GAR#35, Article 1, Section C. If you believe that gender is immutable you are, at best, thirty years out of date from a scientific standpoint.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Hoo boy! It took way too long, but I think I finally found a loophole:

If religious organization rules are exempt

then one can simply pass laws that all religious organizations within the nation must make internal rules against the contents of this resolution or be prohibited from practice in the country and replaced by a government back version of that religious organization!

Haha!

(This will probably turn out to actually be wrong, let me wait for the correction)

The Free Land of Maowi Changing genders doesn't make sense, who even comes up with this stuff. Male and Female that is it, anything else is a mental illness and must be checked out. Common Sense

Yes. I concur. Though I think there are 3 genders to be honest (Male, Female, Intersex) but for the most part, gender change is weird as f*ck.

Wait, can I make propaganda in my nation to harass people into not changing gender?

[The New Nordic Union]

Hoo boy! It took way too long, but I think I finally found a loophole:

If religious organization rules are exempt

then one can simply pass laws that all religious organizations within the nation must make internal rules against the contents of this resolution or be prohibited from practice in the country and replaced by a government back version of that religious organization!

Haha!

OOC:
That would be illegal under GAR#430 Freedom Of Religion, in particular clause 4.

Changing genders doesn't make sense, who even comes up with this stuff. Male and Female that is it, anything else is a mental illness and must be checked out. Common Sense

Yes. I concur. Though I think there are 3 genders to be honest (Male, Female, Intersex) but for the most part, gender change is weird as f*ck.

OOC:
You should read up on the difference between sex and gender; also, I hope these posts were IC.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

You should read up on the difference between sex and gender.

I am pretty sure they are interchangeable.

[Arasi Luvasa]

Hoo boy! It took way too long, but I think I finally found a loophole:

If religious organization rules are exempt

then one can simply pass laws that all religious organizations within the nation must make internal rules against the contents of this resolution or be prohibited from practice in the country and replaced by a government back version of that religious organization!

Haha!

(This will probably turn out to actually be wrong, let me wait for the correction)

Wouldn't this conflict with freedom of religion? Regardless if a goverment backed one did civil unions, they would still be forced to do civil unions for ... anyway.

The Free Land of Maowi Changing genders doesn't make sense, who even comes up with this stuff. Male and Female that is it, anything else is a mental illness and must be checked out. Common Sense

Yes. I concur. Though I think there are 3 genders to be honest (Male, Female, Intersex) but for the most part, gender change is weird as f*ck.

Wait, can I make propaganda in my nation to harass people into not changing gender?

[/quote]

sex=/=gender. There is a wealth of information on this in the social sciences, anyway gender is about ones identity and not about ones physical traits. While I take issue with multiple genders (I believe identity is portrayed and the viewer interprets what is portrayed) but regardless I can get behind what this is trying to do. It makes no honess on private bodies that are not part of the market so individual's rights are not limited only buisnesses that would try to refuse service. Religious organisations are exempt likely because it is not providing a service in the market sense (also many religions run on charity, not actually being payed) and therefore are seperate from the market. Religions are also highly tied to moral principles, forcing a religious body to act against those principles is essentially attempting to erase the religion. (yes I know I went off on a tangent).

Technically it is not so much changing genders as it is actually taking on a gender, at birth one has their sex determined and not their gender. For ease, further read sex as Biological Sex/Gender and gender as Social Gender. Honestly that should clear up any future confusion.

You should read up on the difference between sex and gender.

I am pretty sure they are interchangeable.

That is out of date with the modern understanding of gender (again read social gender as opposed to biological gender/sex). within academia the two are definitely distinct categories. Also read further into the definition you provided, it actually goes against yourarguement.

[The Marconian State]

You should read up on the difference between sex and gender.

I am pretty sure they are interchangeable.

Not really. Your own second screenshot clearly has the part of the definition of "gender" which states that it can refer to identities not classified as male or female. Like plenty of people have explained here already, male and female are obviously what refer to one's genitals (intersex peoples withstanding...) and can also be genders, which is why you might be getting mixed up on this. However, there are a range of genders which do not explicitly correspond with a sex, which is why we have this discussion going on in the first place.

[Caracasus]

You should read up on the difference between sex and gender.

I am pretty sure they are interchangeable.

Colloquial and academic expressions do not always mean the same thing. If that were the case the wealth of psychological experiments that measure states of arousal would be very different indeed.

[Union of Pepe]

LBGTQ+ is literally from the depths of hell and must die!

[The New Nordic Union]

:mad: LBGTQ+ is literally from the depths of hell and must die!

OOC:

I hope that is an IC post, and even then, it is in very bad taste.

[Newark Aristocracy]

:mad: LBGTQ+ is literally from the depths of hell and must die!

Mod collision inbound!

[Audioslavia]

:mad: LBGTQ+ is literally from the depths of hell and must die!

No shit-tier trolling, please. *** This is a warning ***.

[Araraukar]

We, the people of Ophaesia, are a social democratic nation, but we are also scientifically-minded. The notion that a person can choose their gender is as laughable as the notion that a person can choose their species.

IC: "Are you aware of those two sentences being directly contradictory? Or is your science just stuck a few centuries behind on medical sciences?"

OOC: I didn't choose to be different gender than what I was assigned to as a baby. I just am different from my assigned-at-birth gender. Have always been.

People can't help their gender; it is just that when we are born we are assigned a certain gender, which could be wrong

^This.

The only change in regards to my gender that I have ever wanted, is the one on paper, to correct the mistake made by others.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

I think I came up with another loophole (at this point the loophole thing is more of a joke):

Make abortion totally legal, just make the process to get a permit to have one approved take 10 months of processing. Problem solved.

[The New Nordic Union]

I think I came up with another loophole (at this point the loophole thing is more of a joke):

Make abortion totally legal, just make the process to get a permit to have one approved take 10 months of processing. Problem solved.

OOC:
This has absolutely nothing to do with the proposal at vote.