[DRAFT] Repeal "DtRoSaGM"

[Auralia]

I am dissatisfied with all of the existing repeal drafts for GAR #457, so I have written my own.

Repeal "Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #457

Commending the General Assembly's existing protections against unjust discrimination, particularly in the form of GAR #35, "Charter of Civil Rights",

Observing that GAR #35 rightly exempts from its prohibitions discrimination undertaken for "compelling practical purposes",

Recalling the specific example provided by GAR #35 of acceptable discrimination on the basis of gender, namely "hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers",

Noting that GAR #457, "Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities", prohibits member states from discriminating on the basis of gender in the granting of "rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals" without any exception comparable to that of GAR #35,

Deeply concerned that this mandate may therefore prohibit member states from engaging in reasonable practices that technically constitute discrimination on the basis of gender, such as:

1. operating same-gender facilities of any kind, including washrooms, changing rooms, or showers,
2. in the context of a physical examination, exclusively using physicians or law enforcement officers that are of the same gender as the examinee, or
3. "hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers", the legitimacy of which was explicitly acknowledged by GAR #35,

Emphasizing that GAR #35 already provides protection against discrimination on the basis of gender without the problems resulting from GAR #457,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #457, "Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities".

[Kenmoria]

“Now this is a repeal behind which I can get. I must admit I am surprised; I expected a few more religiously-minded argument. However, this is the best repeal draft I have seen for the target resolution, and it has my support.”

[Fecaw]

"The Fecawn WA Department has also found itself dissatisfied with previous attempts to repeal GA457, but is satisfied with the Auralian draft. We support."

[Newark Aristocracy]

We do not support this,as GA#457 is very good for us all.

[Maowi]

Deeply concerned that this mandate would therefore prohibit member states from engaging in reasonable practices that technically constitute discrimination on the basis of sex or gender, such as:

1. providing feminine hygiene products free of charge to women,
2. operating same-sex facilities of any kind, including washrooms, changing rooms, or showers,
3. in the context of a physical examination, exclusively using physicians or law enforcement officers that are of the same sex as the examinee,
4. "hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers", the legitimacy of which was explicitly acknowledged by GAR #35,

a): Provide feminine hygiene products free of charge to women would not be discrimination, provided any similar existing male hygiene products are provided free of charge to males (with hygiene products we're probably talking sex not gender anyway so it wouldn't apply).

b): Again, you use sex here instead of gender. But anyway, I think the situation you're envisaging here is like at a public pool with showers etc., right? In which case there must be facilities available for people of any gender. You can say "these genders can only go in this one and the other genders can only go in the other", as long as all genderd can use a shower/changing room and the facilities are of the same standard for all genders.

c): Again, you use sex here, which is not even mentioned in the target resolution. And if you're talking gender, why would you need the examiner and the examinee to be of the same gender?

d): For this, you would have to consider job applicants of any gender, but if the women are truly able to carry out the job more effectively then you are choosing them because of their superior ability, not discriminating based on gender.

Basically, as it stands, this doesn't work.

[Falcania]

#457 is not incompatible with #35. None of the examples you have mentioned are incompatible with #457.

[Battlion]

#457 is not incompatible with #35. None of the examples you have mentioned are incompatible with #457.

On top of this, still opposed.

We don’t need to repeal this.

[Araraukar]

“Now this is a repeal behind which I can get. I must admit I am surprised; I expected a few more religiously-minded argument. However, this is the best repeal draft I have seen for the target resolution, and it has my support.”

"The arguments used may not be religion-based, but let's not fool ourselves; anything from that author is religiously-minded, and the ultimate motives for removing the resolution in question are unlikely to be what is stated in the proposal. In any case, opposed."

[The New Nordic Union]

Deeply concerned that this mandate would therefore prohibit member states from engaging in reasonable practices that technically constitute discrimination on the basis of sex or gender, such as:

1. providing feminine hygiene products free of charge to women,
2. operating same-sex facilities of any kind, including washrooms, changing rooms, or showers,
3. in the context of a physical examination, exclusively using physicians or law enforcement officers that are of the same sex as the examinee,
4. "hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers", the legitimacy of which was explicitly acknowledged by GAR #35,

a): Provide feminine hygiene products free of charge to women would not be discrimination, provided any similar existing male hygiene products are provided free of charge to males (with hygiene products we're probably talking sex not gender anyway so it wouldn't apply).

OOC:
Or rather, 'feminine' hygiene products should be given out to people of all genders who need them; ie, people with uteruses that bleed. There are men with such organs, and women without them. The first group has need of the products, the second doesn't, so gender is not a good deliminator here. Also, sex would probably not be a good one, either, if one just differentiated between female and male.

[Auralia]

It appears I misread the word "sexuality" in the target resolution as the word "sex". That was a silly mistake and I apologize for the confusion. I've updated the draft accordingly.

But anyway, I think the situation you're envisaging here is like at a public pool with showers etc., right? In which case there must be facilities available for people of any gender. You can say "these genders can only go in this one and the other genders can only go in the other", as long as all genderd can use a shower/changing room and the facilities are of the same standard for all genders.

Segregation on the basis of gender is still discrimination on the basis of gender. Individuals who identify as male are unable to share facilities with individuals who identify as female because they identify as male rather than female, and vice versa.

And if you're talking gender, why would you need the examiner and the examinee to be of the same gender?

For their mutual comfort, obviously? How the individual identifies or presents themselves is just as important as their actual sex in this regard.

For this, you would have to consider job applicants of any gender, but if the women are truly able to carry out the job more effectively then you are choosing them because of their superior ability, not discriminating based on gender.

That's a distinction without a difference. They are able to carry out their job more effectively precisely because of their gender. It's still discrimination based on gender, albeit as a means rather than as an end. In any event, GAR #35 has already characterized it for the purposes of World Assembly law as an exception to anti-discrimination rules rather than as something other than discrimination.

"The arguments used may not be religion-based, but let's not fool ourselves; anything from that author is religiously-minded, and the ultimate motives for removing the resolution in question are unlikely to be what is stated in the proposal. In any case, opposed."

Constructive criticism is always welcome from anyone, but if you're only here to cast aspersions, I'd ask that you not comment.

[Falcania]

You've asserted these examples are examples of discrimination contradictory to 457 but you have yet to demonstrate why this is the case.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"I'm unclear as to how the practices cited in subclauses (a) and (b) constitute discrimination. Placing separate restroom or shower facilities for each gender counts as offering the same services regardless of gender. Nothing discriminatory about that unless there is a difference in the quality of the facilities, which would itself be a violation of both this and #35. Only the hiring issue might give this argument a leg to stand on."

[Auralia]

Placing separate restroom or shower facilities for each gender counts as offering the same services regardless of gender.

No, they are distinct services. It does not matter that the services are offered for the same purpose. They are still distinct precisely because one service can only be used by men, while another can only be used by women. Men do not have access to the service offered to women precisely because they are men, not women. This is textbook discrimination on the basis of gender.

Perhaps this becomes clearer if we take your argument and apply it to a case where segregation is widely recognized to be egregiously wrong: "placing separate..facilities for each race counts as offering the same services regardless of race." But it does not -- as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown, "separate...facilities are inherently unequal".

To be clear, there are good reasons to segregate men and women in certain contexts. But it is still segregation, it is still discrimination, and anti-discrimination laws still need to be careful not to accidentally prohibit it, as we see with GAR #457.

[Falcania]

Placing separate restroom or shower facilities for each gender counts as offering the same services regardless of gender.

No, they are distinct services. It does not matter that the services are offered for the same purpose. They are still distinct precisely because one service can only be used by men, while another can only be used by women. Men do not have access to the service offered to women precisely because they are men, not women. This is textbook discrimination on the basis of gender.

Perhaps this becomes clearer if we take your argument and apply it to a case where segregation is widely recognized to be egregiously wrong: "placing separate..facilities for each race counts as offering the same services regardless of race." But it does not -- as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown, "separate...facilities are inherently unequal".

To be clear, there are good reasons to segregate men and women in certain contexts. But it is still segregation, it is still discrimination, and anti-discrimination laws still need to be careful not to accidentally prohibit it, as we see with GAR #457.

I don't know what this "U.S. Supreme Court" you talk about is, but its precedent probably doesn't apply in the World Assembly. And the example you've provided doesn't qualify as discrimination.

[Auralia]

And the example you've provided doesn't qualify as discrimination.

Really? Then let's take a look at the other protected class in GAR #457. Do you really believe that GAR #457 would permit the segregation of gay and straight people using some kind of "separate but equal" doctrine, and that this arrangement would not qualify as discrimination?

[Brittany Normandy Aquitaine]

"Repeal this law, I don't want the gays trying to come back to our streets, I banned it for a reason, it is a mental disorder, marriage is a union between man and woman... and we already have equal rights for man and woman, what you are born as is what you are..."

[Falcania]

And the example you've provided doesn't qualify as discrimination.

Really? Then let's take a look at the other protected class in GAR #457. Do you really believe that GAR #457 would permit the segregation of gay and straight people using some kind of "separate but equal" doctrine, and that this arrangement would not qualify as discrimination?

So, a gay bathroom and a straight bathroom? How would that work?

[Maowi]

Segregation on the basis of gender is still discrimination on the basis of gender. Individuals who identify as male are unable to share facilities with individuals who identify as female because they identify as male rather than female, and vice versa.

First of all, if it's banned to have separate facilities for different genders, I don't think that's a problem. What problems would it cause to have people of different genders sharing facilities? You can still have different facilities for different sexes. Also, GAR 457 doesn't use the word discrimination in its active clauses, so it's not really about how you would define discrimination. GAR 457 "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" and "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". The Government granting people of all sexualities and genders exactly the same services is not the same thing as giving them all access to every single facility in existence. I disagree with unreasonable and discriminatory segregation, but just in terms of DtRoSaGM this leeway is purposefully left as discriminatory segregation is dealt with under GAR 35.

And if you're talking gender, why would you need the examiner and the examinee to be of the same gender?

For their mutual comfort, obviously? How the individual identifies or presents themselves is just as important as their actual sex in this regard.

There is nothing stopping the examinee asking for an examiner of their gender, and member nations are allowed to let this happen, and also if there are examiners of more than one gender available and examiners of a different gender to the examinee ask not to be made to examine them, this is not barred either. GAR 457 only mandates, in this situation, that you can't exclusively allow examiners to examine people of their own gender.

For this, you would have to consider job applicants of any gender, but if the women are truly able to carry out the job more effectively then you are choosing them because of their superior ability, not discriminating based on gender.

That's a distinction without a difference. They are able to carry out their job more effectively precisely because of their gender. It's still discrimination based on gender, albeit as a means rather than as an end. In any event, GAR #35 has already characterized it for the purposes of World Assembly law as an exception to anti-discrimination rules rather than as something other than discrimination.

Again: this is not about defining discrimination. DtRoSaGM "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." So you can, and probably should, set "ability to do the job properly" as a qualifying condition, and completely not bear in mind the applicant's gender. Simple as that.

[Bears Armed]

OOC

Operative clauses of GAR #457

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,

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.

ORDERS all member nations to provide the same civil marriage services for individuals of all sexualities and genders.

COMPELS all member nations to grant the same marriage rights to civilly married individuals of all sexualities and genders.

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.

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.

One could read the second section that I've underlined & bolded as referring to the first, meaning that this clause applies only "subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions", meaning that the "compelling practical purpose" exemption from GAR #35 would still be applicable here... although then, admittedly, the final part of the last clause might seem to contradict that... H'mm, tricky, I'm going to have to think further about this...

[Auralia]

One could read the second section that I've underlined & bolded as referring to the first, meaning that this clause applies only "subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions", meaning that the "compelling practical purpose" exemption from GAR #35 would still be applicable here... although then, admittedly, the final part of the last clause might seem to contradict that... H'mm, tricky, I'm going to have to think further about this...

That's not how I read it. I read "qualifying conditions" as referring to the conditions under which member states grant "rights, powers, permissions and services".

[Elyreia]

The points raised are enough to warrant that Elyreia abstain at the very least. We need to see further debate on the issue before finalizing our stance.

[Karteria]

"While this is the best repeal we have seen so far, our conclusion is that the benefits of the target resolution outweigh any potentially-advantageous exceptions. Additionally, considering how close the vote was, we do not want to see any repeal go to the floor.

Opposed."

[Marxist Germany]

I am dissatisfied with all of the existing repeal drafts for GAR #457, so I have written my own.

Repeal "Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #457

Commending the General Assembly's existing protections against unjust discrimination, particularly in the form of GAR #35, "Charter of Civil Rights",

Observing that GAR #35 rightly exempts from its prohibitions discrimination undertaken for "compelling practical purposes",

Recalling the specific example provided by GAR #35 of acceptable discrimination on the basis of gender, namely "hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers",

Noting that GAR #457, "Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities", prohibits member states from discriminating on the basis of gender in the granting of "rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals" without any exception comparable to that of GAR #35,

Deeply concerned that this mandate may therefore prohibit member states from engaging in reasonable practices that technically constitute discrimination on the basis of gender, such as:

1. operating same-gender facilities of any kind, including washrooms, changing rooms, or showers,
2. in the context of a physical examination, exclusively using physicians or law enforcement officers that are of the same gender as the examinee, or
3. "hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers", the legitimacy of which was explicitly acknowledged by GAR #35,

Emphasizing that GAR #35 already provides protection against discrimination on the basis of gender without the problems resulting from GAR #457,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #457, "Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities".

Brilliant!

[Araraukar]

Individuals who identify as male are unable to share facilities with individuals who identify as female because they identify as male rather than female, and vice versa.

OOC: I identify as male. I use women's toilets and other similar facilities because I don't yet pass as male. Try again.

[Marxist Germany]

Individuals who identify as male are unable to share facilities with individuals who identify as female because they identify as male rather than female, and vice versa.

OOC: I identify as male. I use women's toilets and other similar facilities because I don't yet pass as male. Try again.

Some males may identify as women and be able to use women bathrooms