[Draft]REPEAL DTROSAGM (OH version)

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: No, causing potential distress to the patient would be a qualifying condition, as would having the likelihood of causing distress. No actual distress needs to be caused.)

OOC:Yeah but on what do you base the likelyhood of a person causing distress? On them being of the wrong gender? Because that's not allowed by the very resolution I am trying to repeal!

(OCC: Yes it is, since causing harm to the patient would be a qualifying condition, which are allowed by the target resolution. As long as the person wouldn’t be allowed to administer to the patient for the same level of harm, it is perfectly fine.)

[Old Hope]

OOC:Yeah but on what do you base the likelyhood of a person causing distress? On them being of the wrong gender? Because that's not allowed by the very resolution I am trying to repeal!

(OCC: Yes it is, since causing harm to the patient would be a qualifying condition, which are allowed by the target resolution. As long as the person wouldn’t be allowed to administer to the patient for the same level of harm, it is perfectly fine.)

OOC: Only if you allow baseless assumptions of ability upon employment and employment distribution issues.
If you ignore the gender of the person, as required by the resolution, then you have, prior to any issues with a patient(when the damage has been already done), absolutely no allowed reason to discriminate.

[Marxist Germany]

"Marxist Germany has changed its status on this resolution to support"

[Kenmoria]

(OCC: Yes it is, since causing harm to the patient would be a qualifying condition, which are allowed by the target resolution. As long as the person wouldn’t be allowed to administer to the patient for the same level of harm, it is perfectly fine.)

OOC: Only if you allow baseless assumptions of ability upon employment and employment distribution issues.
If you ignore the gender of the person, as required by the resolution, then you have, prior to any issues with a patient(when the damage has been already done), absolutely no allowed reason to discriminate.

(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.)

[Marxist Germany]

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

[Separatist Peoples]

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

"Why? Women and trans persons can fight as well as men."

[Marxist Germany]

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

"Why? Women and trans persons can fight as well as men."

"Women are physically weaker than men due to lower testosterone levels and having more fat than muscle mass, I believe this is common knowledge Mr Ambassador"

[Maowi]

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

"Nations may still test for the best candidate, which is surely in their interest. They just can't make the decision based on gender."

OOC: Only if you allow baseless assumptions of ability upon employment and employment distribution issues.
If you ignore the gender of the person, as required by the resolution, then you have, prior to any issues with a patient(when the damage has been already done), absolutely no allowed reason to discriminate.

(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: ^this.

[Kenmoria]

"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.”

[Separatist Peoples]

"Why? Women and trans persons can fight as well as men."

"Women are physically weaker than men due to lower testosterone levels and having more fat than muscle mass, I believe this is common knowledge Mr Ambassador"

"But strength is not the measure of a soldier. Indeed, modern military forces are extremely automated. Support roles outnumber combat roles, and combat roles are as likely to involve mechanical operation as physical power. And those roles that do require strength all require a measure of physical testing that women and trans persons are potentially capable of passing. Your argument hinges on the idea that, even if strength is uniformly relevant, no women or trans person can meet that high burden, which is absurd."

[Falcania]

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

Women and whom?

[Borinsa]

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

Women and whom?

Transgender people

[USS Monitor]

"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.

[Borinsa]

"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.

I still say tranny isn't a very creative slur.

[Separatist Peoples]

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

I still say tranny isn't a very creative slur.

Ooc: there is no exception for creativity.

[Old Hope]

"Why? Women and trans persons can fight as well as men."

"Women are physically weaker than men due to lower testosterone levels and having more fat than muscle mass, I believe this is common knowledge Mr Ambassador"

We are not convinced. You can always discriminate by physical fitness (amongst other criteria). After all, it is a criterion that can be tested. Your reasoning will not be included in this draft.

[Jebslund]

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

Women and whom?

"My English may be rusty, but I believe the Marxist German ambassador finds the idea of a transmission joining the army absurd. Honestly, I don't know why anyone would suggest the target resolution forces member nations to adopt the idea of car parts as soldiers, but I confess that my understanding of slang is not what it used to be.".

[Borinsa]

I still say tranny isn't a very creative slur.

Ooc: there is no exception for creativity.

Not saying it isn't a slur

[Borinsa]

I'd be fine with women in the military, but transexuals could get their surgery wounds infected or something.

[Maowi]

I'd be fine with women in the military, but transexuals could get their surgery wounds infected or something.

OK, no. By that logic you'd have to deny anyone who's ever had surgery. Please don't go there.

[Tinfect]

I'd be fine with women in the military, but transexuals could get their surgery wounds infected or something.

OOC:
Please do not use that term, first of all. Second, SRS is not a 'wound', and that's patently absurd.

[Borinsa]

I'd be fine with women in the military, but transexuals could get their surgery wounds infected or something.

OK, no. By that logic you'd have to deny anyone who's ever had surgery. Please don't go there.

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

[Borinsa]

I'd be fine with women in the military, but transexuals could get their surgery wounds infected or something.

OOC:
Please do not use that term, first of all. Second, SRS is not a 'wound', and that's patently absurd.

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

[Old Hope]

Can we please stay on topic?

OOC: Only if you allow baseless assumptions of ability upon employment and employment distribution issues.
If you ignore the gender of the person, as required by the resolution, then you have, prior to any issues with a patient(when the damage has been already done), absolutely no allowed reason to discriminate.

(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.

[Tinfect]

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.