[DRAFT] Repeal: Def. The Rights Of S. And G. Minorities

[Jocospor]

Another one.

Unaware that this World Assembly made distinctions of inferiority and superiority based on sexuality and gender.

Primarily concerned that GAR#457 makes no effort to offer some definition for the following terms:

• Gender; and
• Sexuality.

Believing that such definitions should be provided given that the above terms, as GAR#457 does in fact advocate, are so open to interpretation.

Of the opinion that with such terms lacking definition, clauses like the fourth (4) could be dramatically misinterpreted by member nations, with the possibility of severe repercussions (including but not limited to those of political, economic and societal natures).

Further of the opinion that these definitions have been wilfully omitted.

Hereby repeals GAR#457 Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities.

[Battlion]

Gender and sexuality are defined in other resolutions.... why double up?

[Araraukar]

Gender and sexuality are defined in other resolutions.... why double up?

OOC: Also, they're normal English words, and you don't need to define normal English words.

[Jocospor]

Gender and sexuality are defined in other resolutions.... why double up?

OOC: Also, they're normal English words, and you don't need to define normal English words.

OOC: Two decades ago, gender equalled either "male" or "female". This resolution would have us believe that is not the case.

If you can provide a definition for gender, perhaps the author could use that.

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: Also, they're normal English words, and you don't need to define normal English words.

OOC: Two decades ago, gender equalled either "male" or "female". This resolution would have us believe that is not the case.

If you can provide a definition for gender, perhaps the author could use that.

OOC:
Actually, it did not.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Two decades ago, gender equalled either "male" or "female".

OOC: Actually, it did not.

OOC: Aside from ^that, two decades ago "googling" wasn't a verb nor a phenomenon, yet now everyone understands what it means. Language evolves. (Funnily enough, "unfriending" isn't a Facebook-era term, but has existed for a century or more. And yes, in that exact same meaning.)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Two decades ago, gender equalled either "male" or "female". This resolution would have us believe that is not the case.

If you can provide a definition for gender, perhaps the author could use that.

OOC:
Actually, it did not.

OOC: ...and even if it did, the evolution of language (and subsequently the law) is not a serious argument for repeal unless you can make the case that the purpose and benefit of a law is flagrantly ill-served by such evolution (e.g. if a law relied on the word "literally" to mean "actually being the case without any embellishment, exaggeration, hyperbole, or verbal coloring" - whereas nowadays the chucklefucks at the OED list a second meaning of "figuratively, metaphorically, applying hyperbole for emphasis"). In this case, "regardless of gender" used to mean "you can't exclude girls because of cooties or your locker room mentality;" its newly propagated meaning of "you can't exclude humans based on how they present themselves with respect to what you think they should act like based on the shape and texture of their genitals" furthers the intent of the previous meaning.

TL;dr there's no need for a definition.

[Kenmoria]

“A definition was considered for gender, but then we all remembered that, given the word wasn’t used in a technical context, one could just employ a dictionary instead. Those terms are also defined by other resolutions, if one really wants something authoritative. Unless the common meaning of the term ‘gender’ changes into something completely different, for example a synonym of ‘genesis’, then it doesn’t need to be repealed for that.”

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Modly precedent suggest that "it's not defined" falls under the NatSov only rule. Wild claims about misinterpretation due to undefined words are insufficient as the only theme of argument.

[Brittany Normandy Aquitaine]

Please repeal this ruling

There are two genders/sexes, male and female.

The only reason gender is widely used over sex is because many children of today interpret sex as sexual intercourse and not male or female, so the word gender is widespread.

Also the resolution made no attempt to identify their definition of gender minority, considering there are two genders, and males and females in a majority of nations are equal.

[The New Nordic Union]

Please repeal this ruling

There are two genders/sexes, male and female.

The only reason gender is widely used over sex is because many children of today interpret sex as sexual intercourse and not male or female, so the word gender is widespread.

Also the resolution made no attempt to identify their definition of gender minority, considering there are two genders, and males and females in a majority of nations are equal.

'Persistently and constantly repeating unfactual statements will not add any veracity to them.'

[Elyreia]

Please repeal this ruling

There are two genders/sexes, male and female.

The only reason gender is widely used over sex is because many children of today interpret sex as sexual intercourse and not male or female, so the word gender is widespread.

Also the resolution made no attempt to identify their definition of gender minority, considering there are two genders, and males and females in a majority of nations are equal.

Many male children of antiquity used to wear pink as it was a masculine color, while females wore a powder blue as it was a feminine color.

Oh how the times have changed on what constitutes masculine and feminine. If only other societal constructs evolved in time...

[Quink]

USoQ Federal Office of International Relations, World Assembly Affairs Committee
Regarding the movement to repeal General Assembly Resolution #457: "Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities"

Being a relatively new nation and WA member, the United States of Quink wishes to express its respect and appreciation for the intelligent and remarkably civil discourse displayed on this thread. The USoQ holds that the movement to repeal General Assembly Resolution #457 is valid. The issue, however is not solely one of wording. Said resolution is mostly well written and (one hopes) well intended. While the usage of the terms "sex" and "gender" have been debated, and rightly so, the language of the resolution should not be thought of as the primary complaint, but rather the dangerous and insulting sentiments contained therein. GAR#457 calls for member nations (under certain, rather broadly defined conditions) to recognize relationships between any combination of "genders" or "sexes" as legitimate for the execution of a marriage or "civil union". It also calls for member nations to pass legislation in support of the resolution, and orders member nations to

impose... sanctions and punishments on all organisations which deny any right, power, permission or service to an individual based on their sexuality or gender

in the same manner as legislation regarding racial, ethnic, age and religious discrimination. It then goes on to mandate that member nations

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

. As a closing insult, the resolution calls for further legislation regulating the internal functions of religious organizations with regard to such discrimination. GAR#457 is essentially an attempt to force all WA member nations to recognize, and therefore validate the constantly shifting and often ill-advised landscape of modern gender/sex identities. It also seeks to meddle in the affairs of religious groups, when the whole concept of the separation of church and state is to allow each institution to exist and function independently. GAR#457 seeks to control the functioning of independent WA member states, and in doing so undermines the sovereignty of each nation. With a 54.3% to 43.7% final count, the GAR#457 was passed by 1,377 votes out of 16,177 total, which, while not a particularly slim margin, is close enough to be reconsidered at the the very least. The 7,400 nations that voted against the resolution are required abide by it, unless it is repealed. Major modification notwithstanding, this resolution must be appealed, lest each nation be micromanaged into oblivion by the WA. Thank you all for your time and consideration.

USoQ Federal Office of International Relations, World Assembly Affairs Committee

[Elyreia]

With a 54.3% to 43.7% final count, the GAR#457 was passed by 1,377 votes out of 16,177 total, which, while not a particularly slim margin, is close enough to be reconsidered at the the very least. The 7,400 nations that voted against the resolution are required abide by it, unless it is repealed.

A democracy is naught but a dictatorship of 51% of the people over the other 49%. -Tommy Jefferson.

I read that in a factbook somewhere. If the 43.7% of WA nations feel so inclined, they may vacate the World Assembly. Elyreia certainly does not enjoy being told how to treat its criminals by WA legislation, but we abide because we find the benefits outweigh the losses.

And while your arguments are very articulate, Ambassador, they are not in the current repeal draft proposed by the original delegate. Please feel free to draft your own repeal proposal for review and criticism if you wish to argue your own points.

[Quink]

Thank you for the response and advice. Still figuring out how to navigate all of this, and I appreciate the help.

[Elyreia]

Thank you for the response and advice. Still figuring out how to navigate all of this, and I appreciate the help.

No worries, I've stumbled on my heels when first sauntering in myself.

[Aclion]

Could you keep your poison out of this well?

[Quink]

Thank you for the response and advice. Still figuring out how to navigate all of this, and I appreciate the help.

No worries, I've stumbled on my heels when first sauntering in myself.

Would it be best to delete my posts in order to keep from cluttering up the thread?

[The Marconian State]

No worries, I've stumbled on my heels when first sauntering in myself.

Would it be best to delete my posts in order to keep from cluttering up the thread?

No, your quotes are already saved in the responses of other people. You should simply gracefully accept and own up to your loss, as you already are.