[Draft]REPEAL DTROSAGM (OH version)

[Marxist Germany]

"This resolution forces countries to allow women and trannies to join the army, which we find ridiculous"

“Whilst what you say it true, I feel there are nuances that go against the spirit of what you are stating. You can select candidates based on physical fitness, you just can’t decide something based solely on sex.

For example, suppose candidate A was a woman who had less physical strength than candidate B, a man. Although this would probably be due to sex, you could very well select B based on physical fitness. However, if candidate A was stronger physically than candidate B, you could not disqualify her based on her sex, but I’ve no idea why you would want to do so.”

"Thank you for the clarification"

[Maowi]

(OOC: That is one, reasonable, interpretation, whereas mine is another, also reasonable, interpretation. Where two competing interpretations exist, a member nation can choose to use whichever it pleases. I am not convinced that any member nation would deliberately opt for such a burdensome ruling.)

OOC:Except that your interpretation is unreasonable(bad faith). The target resolution does not support your interpretation.

It's really not a bad faith argument. Choosing a man over a woman to treat a man with an irrational fear of women because you know that the woman would fail to cure the man, and would in fact worsen their condition, is not what I would consider unreasonable.

[Borinsa]

It's just transitioning seems to be a vulnerable state, war wouldn't help with that.

OOC:
Transgender people are just as capable of military service as anyone else. There is exactly no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.

Transexuals? But isn't that what you call someone who changes their sex form mtf or ftm?

No. The term is Transgender. Transexual is an obsolete term that is rejected in modernity and, I, at least, do not appreciate its use, whatsoever.

But gender and sex aren't the same thing. Changing gender is just about saying your something and identity stuff, changing sex involves actually physical change (not just changing clothes)

[Marxist Germany]

"This resolution forces countries to allow women and trannies to join the army, which we find ridiculous"

Even when it's IC, using slurs can still be offensive. Please be more careful of this in the future.

Ok.

[Maowi]

But gender and sex aren't the same thing. Changing gender is just about saying your something and identity stuff, changing sex involves actually physical change (not just changing clothes)

OK, this is a subject for the General forum, not a GA forum thread.

[Kenmoria]

OOC:Except that your interpretation is unreasonable(bad faith). The target resolution does not support your interpretation.

It's really not a bad faith argument. Choosing a man over a woman to treat a man with an irrational fear of women because you know that the woman would fail to cure the man, and would in fact worsen their condition, is not what I would consider unreasonable.

(OOC: This is it. There is no clarification in the target resolution on to what extent gender and sex can be included in qualifying conditions, save that they cannot be solely based on either of those two criteria. Causing harm to the patient is something that would never be allowed, regardless of gender or sex.)

[Tinfect]

But gender and sex aren't the same thing. Changing gender is just about saying your something and identity stuff, changing sex involves actually physical change (not just changing clothes)

OOC:
There's no 'changing' anything, except for incorrectly marked legal documents. SRS is not necessary for transgender people to be recognized as who they are. The term in modern usage, is Transgender. Transexual is an obsolete term.

[Borinsa]

But gender and sex aren't the same thing. Changing gender is just about saying your something and identity stuff, changing sex involves actually physical change (not just changing clothes)

OOC:
There's no 'changing' anything, except for incorrectly marked legal documents. SRS is not necessary for transgender people to be recognized as who they are. The term in modern usage, is Transgender. Transexual is an obsolete term.

But that's a pointless word change, neither word sounds more or less offensive,
and who are you to say what is "modern" as if all nations ,peoples, and individuals have to act the same in a given time period.
Some African tribes still live as they did thousands of years ago.

[Tinfect]

But that's a pointless word change, neither word sounds more or less offensive.

OOC:
This isn't an argument I'm going to have. Transgender is the appropriate term. Please do not refer to Transgender people as transexual.

[Borinsa]

But that's a pointless word change, neither word sounds more or less offensive.

OOC:
This isn't an argument I'm going to have. Transgender is the appropriate term. Please do not refer to Transgender people as transexual.

Yes, because they are two separate types of people. One gets a sex change, the other just says they are a gender and "acts" like it.

[Tinfect]

Yes, because they are two separate types of people. One gets a sex change, the other just says they are a gender and "acts" like it.

OOC:
Okay, I'm going to pretend that you're actually, genuinely, not arguing in bad-faith. Transexual is an obsolete term for Transgender people that is disused in modernity, and, frankly, may be considered a slur by many transpeople. I consider it a slur. A Transgender person is the gender that they say they are. We aren't 'acting'. Transwomen are women, with or without SRS. Transmen are men, with or without SRS.

[Borinsa]

Yes, because they are two separate types of people. One gets a sex change, the other just says they are a gender and "acts" like it.

OOC:
Okay, I'm going to pretend that you're actually, genuinely, not arguing in bad-faith. Transexual is an obsolete term for Transgender people that is disused in modernity, and, frankly, may be considered a slur by many transpeople. I consider it a slur. A Transgender person is the gender that they say they are. We aren't 'acting'. Transwomen are women, with or without SRS. Transmen are men, with or without SRS.

Why do you care so much? Are you Transexual or something?
And if Transwomen are women and Transmen are men, just call them women and men.

And by that logic, shouldn't transgender be just as offensive?

[Old Hope]

OOC:Except that your interpretation is unreasonable(bad faith). The target resolution does not support your interpretation.

It's really not a bad faith argument. Choosing a man over a woman to treat a man with an irrational fear of women because you know that the woman would fail to cure the man, and would in fact worsen their condition, is not what I would consider unreasonable.

OOC:It isn't unreasonable, generally. It should be perfectly fine. Except that the resolution I am trying to repeal bans it.
The problem is as follows: You are banned to use gender as qualifying condition. If you choose Person A over Person B you must have valid reasoning(with equal qualifications it can be even "It was random"). Now, in your example you have person A(the man), who already has many patients(and is bordering on being overworked), and person B(the woman), who has slightly less. All other factors are equal(except, of course, the reaction of the patient).
If you now say "We assumed that A is more qualified than B" then a court checking the qualifying conditions will find an error.
If you now say "We assumed that A is more qualified than B because the patient was more likely to fear B" then any sensible court will ask you why you assume that. Upon hearing that it was based on their gender, the court will assume that the real qualifying condition was the person's gender, which is banned by the resolution we are talking about(with good reason). If you now say "But the patient fears women" then the court will say that you are still discriminating based on gender, because you are discriminating based on gender for a third person(the patient).

(OOC: This is it. There is no clarification in the target resolution on to what extent gender and sex can be included in qualifying conditions, save that they cannot be solely based on either of those two criteria. Causing harm to the patient is something that would never be allowed, regardless of gender or sex.)

You should Read The Resolution...

Such conditions may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.

... because your assertion

There is no clarification in the target resolution on to what extent gender and sex can be included in qualifying conditions

is false.

[Borinsa]

OOC:
Okay, I'm going to pretend that you're actually, genuinely, not arguing in bad-faith. Transexual is an obsolete term for Transgender people that is disused in modernity, and, frankly, may be considered a slur by many transpeople. I consider it a slur. A Transgender person is the gender that they say they are. We aren't 'acting'. Transwomen are women, with or without SRS. Transmen are men, with or without SRS.

Why do you care so much? Are you Transexual or something?
And if Transwomen are women and Transmen are men, just call them women and men.

Sorry I mean Transgender... does this means gender and sex ARE the same?

[USS Monitor]

Why do you care so much? Are you Transexual or something?
And if Transwomen are women and Transmen are men, just call them women and men.

Sorry I mean Transgender... does this means gender and sex ARE the same?

The topic of the thread is a GA resolution. Get back on topic.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: This is it. There is no clarification in the target resolution on to what extent gender and sex can be included in qualifying conditions, save that they cannot be solely based on either of those two criteria. Causing harm to the patient is something that would never be allowed, regardless of gender or sex.)

You should Read The Resolution...

Such conditions may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.

... because your assertion

There is no clarification in the target resolution on to what extent gender and sex can be included in qualifying conditions

is false.

(OOC: I have read the resolution. I participated quite significantly in the drafting process of the resolution, and, if I remember correctly, gave feedback on reworking that clause, precisely to avoid a situation as you describe.

You are arguing that the target resolution would make a patient who had a clinical fear of one sex necessarily has to have an equal opportunity to be treated by both men and women. In this scenario, the qualifying condition is not gender and sex, but rather avoiding distress to the patient. Although that includes by necessity prioritising one gender, it has been done to avoid distress, and the same procedure would be followed if the patient had a fear of red hair. As long as this is done on a case by case basis, and not as a matter of policy, there are no problems with DRSGM.

Anyway, this is all quite futile, since I’m fairly certain at this point neither of us are going to be convinced by the other’s arguments. I, and several other players in this thread, disagree with your reasoning. However, it is your choice whether or not you keep the arguement in there.)

[Maowi]

However, it is your choice whether or not you keep the arguement in there.

If you do, I will probably challenge it for Honest Mistake.

[Old Hope]

However, it is your choice whether or not you keep the arguement in there.

If you do, I will probably challenge it for Honest Mistake.

OOC:It is the Secretariat who decides if an interpretation is reasonable. I say the interpretation of Kenmoria is not reasonable. Kenmoria disagrees, but they have not said that my interpretation is unreasonable. By threatening to challenge it for Honest Mistake, you are calling the interpretation unreasonable - but you have not provided any arguments. So do it, or refrain from challenging later.

[Maowi]

If you do, I will probably challenge it for Honest Mistake.

OOC:It is the Secretariat who decides if an interpretation is reasonable. I say the interpretation of Kenmoria is not reasonable. Kenmoria disagrees, but they have not said that my interpretation is unreasonable. By threatening to challenge it for Honest Mistake, you are calling the interpretation unreasonable - but you have not provided any arguments. So do it, or refrain from challenging later.

Oh, I think your interpretation is perfectly reasonable; however, I also think Kenmoria's interpretation is reasonable, for reasons stated above. Therefore, I think it unreasonable to claim that yours is the only reasonable interpretation, and if there is another legitimate interpretation that solves the problems in yours, a nation can choose to follow it. Therefore, it is an honest mistake violation to say that 457 causes X problem because of Y interpretation, when actually it doesn't cause X problem if you use Z interpretation.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Ambassador, this would read a lot less nastily if you changed 'phobia' to something like 'post-traumatic response.' As is it sounds like you're trying to legitimize bigotry."

<A couple of hot, steaming crocks of bullshit about gender and military service>

"Oh, for fuck's... this again?" Steph digs into her satchel for a moment and quickly withdraws her service weapon. She stands. Very fast, her arms are out, feet at shoulder width, the safety is off and several twelve-millimeter rockets leave the muzzle with a loud noise somewhere between a bang and a hiss. A careful observer might have noticed the weapons nullifier overhead humming with each pull of the trigger. A second later, she's swiveled and taken aim at another head, and the sounds repeat. Just like that, four big, soft marshmallows apiece have struck the Borinsan and Marxist German ambassadors square in the nose and plopped harmlessly to their respective desks. From the time she stood to the end of the action, perhaps three seconds have elapsed. She blows a breath, almost kiss-like, over the muzzle of the weapon, as she flicks the safety back on.

"Now, that'll be enough of that tired old saw, if you don't mind. And if you do mind, you're welcome to step outside with me at any time."

Steph smiles sweetly and stows her weapon in its holster, back in the satchel, and sits down.

[Hatzisland]

There have been about a dozen mainstream drafts repealing GAR #457, and none have been written as poorly as this one. Even after you adjust to the fact that GAR #457 won't be repealed anytime soon(I hate to say it, but its true), this proposal is still very poorly done. At this point, you should table this, wait a few months, and re-write the entire thing.

[Old Hope]

OOC:It is the Secretariat who decides if an interpretation is reasonable. I say the interpretation of Kenmoria is not reasonable. Kenmoria disagrees, but they have not said that my interpretation is unreasonable. By threatening to challenge it for Honest Mistake, you are calling the interpretation unreasonable - but you have not provided any arguments. So do it, or refrain from challenging later.

Oh, I think your interpretation is perfectly reasonable; however, I also think Kenmoria's interpretation is reasonable, for reasons stated above. Therefore, I think it unreasonable to claim that yours is the only reasonable interpretation, and if there is another legitimate interpretation that solves the problems in yours, a nation can choose to follow it. Therefore, it is an honest mistake violation to say that 457 causes X problem because of Y interpretation, when actually it doesn't cause X problem if you use Z interpretation.

It's actually the other way around. If there is a valid interpretation that supports a statement then that statement is not a honest mistake.


I am planning to submit this soon. Any constructive criticism is welcome(constructive= giving reasons; not constructive= "This is bad" without backing it up).

[Hatzisland]

Oh, I think your interpretation is perfectly reasonable; however, I also think Kenmoria's interpretation is reasonable, for reasons stated above. Therefore, I think it unreasonable to claim that yours is the only reasonable interpretation, and if there is another legitimate interpretation that solves the problems in yours, a nation can choose to follow it. Therefore, it is an honest mistake violation to say that 457 causes X problem because of Y interpretation, when actually it doesn't cause X problem if you use Z interpretation.

It's actually the other way around. If there is a valid interpretation that supports a statement then that statement is not a honest mistake.


I am planning to submit this soon. Any constructive criticism is welcome(constructive= giving reasons; not constructive= "This is bad" without backing it up).

Ok. Constructive criticism:

A) This proposal is very short.
B) Clause 2 and Clause 4 say pretty much the exact same thing, making a very short proposal even shorter.
C) Clause 3a and 3b's first letter is not capitalized.
D) The first word is usually all caps("DECLARING", "DISGUSTED", "REPEALS")
E) "The World Assembly" should be put right before the "REPEALS" clause
F) The proposal makes no clear compelling argument for a repeal, so much so that is legally dubious(it will probably be upheld as legal, but as a regional delegate, I would probably not support it for this reason especially.)

Happy now?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I am planning to submit this soon. Any constructive criticism is welcome(constructive= giving reasons; not constructive= "This is bad" without backing it up).

"Ambassador, this would read a lot less nastily if you changed 'phobia' to something like 'post-traumatic response.' As is it sounds like you're trying to legitimize bigotry."

[Old Hope]

Ok. Constructive criticism:

A) This proposal is very short.
B) Clause 2 and Clause 4 say pretty much the exact same thing, making a very short proposal even shorter.
C) Clause 3a and 3b's first letter is not capitalized.
D) The first word is usually all caps("DECLARING", "DISGUSTED", "REPEALS")
E) "The World Assembly" should be put right before the "REPEALS" clause
F) The proposal makes no clear compelling argument for a repeal, so much so that is legally dubious(it will probably be upheld as legal, but as a regional delegate, I would probably not support it for this reason especially.)

Happy now?

A) Yes, but why is that a problem?
B) Not really, without 2 clause 4 looks very weak.
C) I wouldn't capitalize that usually but I'll think about it.
D) No. Some passed resolutions have them in all caps, but other's don't. Including the majority of recent resolutions.
E) Yes, this is correct. Moved.
F)

Disgusted by the lack of good exemptions banning nations from:
-offering reasonable care conditions for people suffering from phobias related to gender by not exposing them to people of that gender,

Yes, I know that there was an argument about that not being true. But if you follow all passed resolutions in good faith that argument should not hold - while you could theoretically follow the principle "harms the patient" you cannot do it practically because you have to back that up with something else than gender and sexuality which is... not possible without first exposing the person to the patient and getting a negative reaction. After all, a qualifying condition is anything that is used to determine the primary qualifying condition. But... you gave me another possible reason for repealing this, this time about sexuality.