[PASSED] Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy

[Morover]

OOC: That's not what he was saying. You cannot change legislation after it is passed. He is commenting on your claims of subjectivity (unless I'm missing something drastic here, which is totally a possibility).

I think this is sound as-is. If you'll look at the other 190 posts here, a majority of them (the ones that weren't "transgender bad!11!!!1!") were helping this proposal get to where it currently is. Your concerns have already been brought up, and worked on or dismissed.

You claim that "affordable" is subjective, but it seems unreasonable to me that a nation can, in good faith (which, may I remind you, is required of all GA legislation), be overpricing transgender individuals for hormone therapy whilst calling it "affordable." We could've gone a step further and made it free-of-charge, but that seems unreasonable even to me.

The posters who said 'transgender bad!11!!!1' are what I am worried about. We are passing a law that provides requirements for nations, but those in bad faith are suseptable to use the loopholes, and the premise not being more specified is my concern. If I am going to approve this bill, I want insurance that is providing the protections it claims to provide, but also not using a falacy as a pretext.

OOC: Article 9 of GAR#2 requires all nations to follow all GA resolutions with good faith. All of your issues (that are legitimate, because I don't really believe the "children shouldn't have access to hormone therapy" argument to be a legitimate one) are covered by prior resolutions, which work with this one in a helpful way. I believe we've found and covered up all loopholes that could arise from this.

[New Lindale]

The posters who said 'transgender bad!11!!!1' are what I am worried about. We are passing a law that provides requirements for nations, but those in bad faith are suseptable to use the loopholes, and the premise not being more specified is my concern. If I am going to approve this bill, I want insurance that is providing the protections it claims to provide, but also not using a falacy as a pretext.

OOC: Article 9 of GAR#2 requires all nations to follow all GA resolutions with good faith. All of your issues (that are legitimate, because I don't really believe the "children shouldn't have access to hormone therapy" argument to be a legitimate one) are covered by prior resolutions, which work with this one in a helpful way. I believe we've found and covered up all loopholes that could arise from this.

How would my concern of chilcren accessing them not be a legitimate issue? I am trying to prevent children being coerced to use of the hormone blockers. Is there a resolution madating an age of consent, or other protections of children?

[Morover]

OOC: Article 9 of GAR#2 requires all nations to follow all GA resolutions with good faith. All of your issues (that are legitimate, because I don't really believe the "children shouldn't have access to hormone therapy" argument to be a legitimate one) are covered by prior resolutions, which work with this one in a helpful way. I believe we've found and covered up all loopholes that could arise from this.

How would my concern of chilcren accessing them not be a legitimate issue? I am trying to prevent children being coerced to use of the hormone blockers. Is there a resolution madating an age of consent, or other protections of children?

I believe a child being "coaxed," as you put it, into receiving hormone therapy would constitute child abuse as defined by GAR#222 ("any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child"), which would make it a non-issue.

OOC: Children who are fully aware and consenting of what they're doing should not be prohibited from doing so. Being coerced into doing it would constitute child abuse, as I've said.

[New Lindale]

How would my concern of chilcren accessing them not be a legitimate issue? I am trying to prevent children being coerced to use of the hormone blockers. Is there a resolution madating an age of consent, or other protections of children?

I believe a child being "coaxed," as you put it, into receiving hormone therapy would constitute child abuse as defined by GAR#222 ("any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child"), which would make it a non-issue.

OOC: Children who are fully aware and consenting of what they're doing should not be prohibited from doing so. Being coerced into doing it would constitute child abuse, as I've said.

However, children shouldn't be consenting, since this is supposed to apply to only to those of age of consent. You do realise only 12% of child sexual abse cases are ever reported, right? I am trying to prevent this since there is no apparent protection.

[Araraukar]

The posters who said 'transgender bad!11!!!1' are what I am worried about.

OOC: GA #29, GA #35, GA #91 and I can't remember the numbers of the others by rote, but two or three others.

People who post here to rant about stuff like that generally haven't got a fucking clue about the resolutions they ALREADY should be abiding by.

However, children shouldn't be consenting, since this is supposed to apply to only to those of age of consent. You do realise only 12% of child sexual abse cases are ever reported, right? I am trying to prevent this since there is no apparent protection.

GA #222, GA #240, GA #300, and so forth. Look, if you want RL debate, go to General Forum. If you want GA debate, read the existing resolutions.

And sexual abuse of children is nothing but an attempt at threadjacking on this topic.

[Wallenburg]

"While the Wallenburgian delegation will vote against this regardless, I must extend some degree of appreciation for the resolution's limitation to allowing consenting individuals to destroy their bodies. At least children will not be exposed to such devastating so-called medical procedures."

OOC: Full support.

[Marxist Germany]

"Bugger your "transgender rights", I will clarify that I am of utmost opposition to this atrocious piece of legislation and shall gladly be voting against shall it ever reach quorum!" He slams the door shut and returns to his office.

OOC:Although I'm opposed to this, good luck with the submission nonetheless!

[Araraukar]

"Bugger your "transgender rights", I will clarify that I am of utmost opposition to this atrocious piece of legislation and shall gladly be voting against shall it ever reach quorum!" He slams the door shut and returns to his office.

"That is perhaps the best proof that this proposal makes for a good piece of legislation."

[Grenartia]

All of the following is OOC, as I presume the initial comment was made OOC:

No, it didn't. (READ: "Any distress arising from this real disconnect between sex and gender is referred to as gender dysphoria -- like any mental condition, it ought to be treated.")


This is presuming that all WA Member nations' primary species are humans, which isn't the case. Even if it was the case (and I don't intend to speak on behalf of transgender and/or gender dysphoric individuals here, perhaps one within our community here can shed some light on their personal experience), I think you're vastly overestimating the number of people who "accept" their gender without being spiteful or bitter about it. It seems to me that the vast amount of transgender/gender dysphoric people go their entire life suppressing what they truly believe themselves to be, due to a multitude of reasons (denial, outside pressure, etc.)


I believe a child being "coaxed," as you put it, into receiving hormone therapy would constitute child abuse as defined by GAR#222 ("any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child"), which would make it a non-issue. Honestly, I think your article on the "negative effects," as you put it, of these hormone blockers is not entirely accurate. The article itself even admits that “Parents did report their children suffering less 'internalising behavioural problems',” which goes to show that the supposed researcher is pulling these claims out of his ass. The article appears to read that the children were suffering as a result of the care of the hospital itself, not of the treatments it provides.


No.


No it won't. If you read the proposal, it merely requires all member-states to legalize hormone therapy, and to have (not provide) an easy-to-access and affordable way for the transgender population of a state to access this hormone therapy. Nowhere does it say that the treatment will be under the direct control of the state.


Well, if nations wish to stay in compliance, then they must keep it affordable. Whether they do this by passing laws requiring private companies to keep the price below a certain point or paying for it themselves is up to them. I'm sure that there would many prospective companies delighted to help nations stay in compliance, should this pass.

I understand your opposing points, but the fact that the hormone blockers are irreversible doesn't seem to matter to you?

Considering they're only prescribed to people who are at an age where they are already often making life and death decisions (many nations, for instance, allow teens to start learning how to drive at 16, which is also the age at which hormone replacement therapy is often started), what is the problem?

If the hormone blockers are not helping transgender people for their health, why should it be classified as such? If the use of hormone blockers is not treating something, then it is effectively cosmetic. I am not opposed to it being legal, or affordable, but when the claim is that hormone blockers are not being used to improve one's health, but that it should be a priority of the government, I find it extremely absurd.

When did anyone say hormone therapy isn't being used for therapeutic reasons?

As I have claimed before above, I would like to see a better treatment for those with Gender Dysphoria.

It seems like you're using a dogwhistle. Maybe you should elaborate on what this "better treatment" would entail that makes it an improvement on the current treatment?

I would also like to note that affordable is subjective, and for the act to be beneficial, we need an objective standard.

How the hell is 'affordable' subjective?

OOC: Article 9 of GAR#2 requires all nations to follow all GA resolutions with good faith. All of your issues (that are legitimate, because I don't really believe the "children shouldn't have access to hormone therapy" argument to be a legitimate one) are covered by prior resolutions, which work with this one in a helpful way. I believe we've found and covered up all loopholes that could arise from this.

How would my concern of chilcren accessing them not be a legitimate issue? I am trying to prevent children being coerced to use of the hormone blockers. Is there a resolution madating an age of consent, or other protections of children?

Requires all member-states to legalize hormone therapy for all consenting individuals,

And, has been previously pointed out, various other passed resolutions that already protect children.

[Dirty Americans]

I would also like to note that affordable is subjective, and for the act to be beneficial, we need an objective standard.

How the hell is 'affordable' subjective?

In order for something to be "affordable" we need to determine the appropriate cost of the item to the person looking to purchase the item. We need to then determine the appropriate value of the item to the person and how much that person is willing to allocate from his "budget" to pay for the item.

Let's stick with "housing" for a moment; everyone needs it and "affordable" housing can be somewhat defined (although not everyone does so equally). In this case it is a simple percentage of gross income, going anywhere from 25% to 40%. As you can see even affordable housing is subjective by at least 15%. So a house for one person may be affordable in one nation but if you move everyone over to another nation, it may no longer be considered "affordable."

The same is true for anything else. After arranging the items in terms of priority (you need housing, you need food, you don't really need hormone therapy) one needs to determine what percentage of gross income is available, after taking into consideration all the other "affordable" things from the ever shrinking gross income pie. Eventually you reach the therapy but that affordability could come at the expense of other things (affordable at home entertainment) lower down in the chain. And that is the ideal world where everything is "affordable" because most of the time it isn't and once again you can't afford things even when you have determined that the value is "affordable."

So is therapy more important than personal transportation?
Is therapy more important than personal recreation?
It's very subjective.

[United Massachusetts]

How the hell is 'affordable' subjective?

In order for something to be "affordable" we need to determine the appropriate cost of the item to the person looking to purchase the item. We need to then determine the appropriate value of the item to the person and how much that person is willing to allocate from his "budget" to pay for the item.

Let's stick with "housing" for a moment; everyone needs it and "affordable" housing can be somewhat defined (although not everyone does so equally). In this case it is a simple percentage of gross income, going anywhere from 25% to 40%. As you can see even affordable housing is subjective by at least 15%. So a house for one person may be affordable in one nation but if you move everyone over to another nation, it may no longer be considered "affordable."

The same is true for anything else. After arranging the items in terms of priority (you need housing, you need food, you don't really need hormone therapy) one needs to determine what percentage of gross income is available, after taking into consideration all the other "affordable" things from the ever shrinking gross income pie. Eventually you reach the therapy but that affordability could come at the expense of other things (affordable at home entertainment) lower down in the chain. And that is the ideal world where everything is "affordable" because most of the time it isn't and once again you can't afford things even when you have determined that the value is "affordable."

So is therapy more important than personal transportation?
Is therapy more important than personal recreation?
It's very subjective.

There is no one-size-fits-all standard, but affordability is a pretty clear one -- if a person can access a good without any hindrance on their life necessities, and little incursion on their personal expenses, something becomes affordable. This metric is obviously different by person and nation, but members are asked to comply in good faith. Attempts to swirl around the definition of "affordable" to deny trans people treatment are definitely bad faith.

[Kenmoria]

How the hell is 'affordable' subjective?

In order for something to be "affordable" we need to determine the appropriate cost of the item to the person looking to purchase the item. We need to then determine the appropriate value of the item to the person and how much that person is willing to allocate from his "budget" to pay for the item.

Let's stick with "housing" for a moment; everyone needs it and "affordable" housing can be somewhat defined (although not everyone does so equally). In this case it is a simple percentage of gross income, going anywhere from 25% to 40%. As you can see even affordable housing is subjective by at least 15%. So a house for one person may be affordable in one nation but if you move everyone over to another nation, it may no longer be considered "affordable."

The same is true for anything else. After arranging the items in terms of priority (you need housing, you need food, you don't really need hormone therapy) one needs to determine what percentage of gross income is available, after taking into consideration all the other "affordable" things from the ever shrinking gross income pie. Eventually you reach the therapy but that affordability could come at the expense of other things (affordable at home entertainment) lower down in the chain. And that is the ideal world where everything is "affordable" because most of the time it isn't and once again you can't afford things even when you have determined that the value is "affordable."

So is therapy more important than personal transportation?
Is therapy more important than personal recreation?
It's very subjective.

(OOC: Affordability seems rather clear-cut to me. Any price which the majority of people can easily buy is to me the delineator. Making a price so high that most transgender people can’t afford it is clearly not affordable, and is blatant bad-faith compliance. There are loopholes in this, but this isn’t one of them.)

[Grenartia]

In order for something to be "affordable" we need to determine the appropriate cost of the item to the person looking to purchase the item. We need to then determine the appropriate value of the item to the person and how much that person is willing to allocate from his "budget" to pay for the item.

Let's stick with "housing" for a moment; everyone needs it and "affordable" housing can be somewhat defined (although not everyone does so equally). In this case it is a simple percentage of gross income, going anywhere from 25% to 40%. As you can see even affordable housing is subjective by at least 15%. So a house for one person may be affordable in one nation but if you move everyone over to another nation, it may no longer be considered "affordable."

The same is true for anything else. After arranging the items in terms of priority (you need housing, you need food, you don't really need hormone therapy) one needs to determine what percentage of gross income is available, after taking into consideration all the other "affordable" things from the ever shrinking gross income pie. Eventually you reach the therapy but that affordability could come at the expense of other things (affordable at home entertainment) lower down in the chain. And that is the ideal world where everything is "affordable" because most of the time it isn't and once again you can't afford things even when you have determined that the value is "affordable."

So is therapy more important than personal transportation?
Is therapy more important than personal recreation?
It's very subjective.

There is no one-size-fits-all standard, but affordability is a pretty clear one -- if a person can access a good without any hindrance on their life necessities, and little incursion on their personal expenses, something becomes affordable. This metric is obviously different by person and nation, but members are asked to comply in good faith. Attempts to swirl around the definition of "affordable" to deny trans people treatment are definitely bad faith.

Precisely this.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

When this resolution will come to vote, because it looks like it will, I am going to vote against it.

I have issues with the studies concluding that gender is not synonymous with sex, both regarding the methodology of such studies and sometimes even their morality. Individuals suffering from gender dysphoria have my sympathy, but procedures based on gender =/= sex axiom bring them more harm than good. Suicide rate among those having gender dysphoria is considerably higher than in the general populace. This resolution aims at solving this growing problem, I am aware. But I think that it may just help it grow all the more, by seeking the solution in science that is quite revolutionary and relatively novel. There is not nearly enough evidence for its conclusions to warrant its revolutionary nature.

[OOC: I might be using another nation for this vote, but this is my main.

My OOC view are mostly the same. The case of John Money's "sex re-assignment" of David Reimer particularly makes me believe that this is just not the way to go in treating gender dysphoria (formerly known as gender identity disorder). John Money basically pioneered the currently accepted gender theory.]

[Araraukar]

I have issues with the studies concluding that gender is not synonymous with sex

IC: "Happily that is not for your nation to decide, given the existence of GA #91, A Convention on Gender."

Suicide rate among those having gender dysphoria is considerably higher than in the general populace.

OOC: No fucking shit, Sherlock? Considering it's a condition that causes depression (which all on its own raises suicide risk), anxiety and literally hating yourself, that's a kind of a no-brainer.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

IC: "Happily that is not for your nation to decide, given the existence of GA #91, A Convention on Gender."

Happily WA has authority over nations, but not over private views of their leaders and citizens.

Suicide rate among those having gender dysphoria is considerably higher than in the general populace.

OOC: No fucking shit, Sherlock? Considering it's a condition that causes depression (which all on its own raises suicide risk), anxiety and literally hating yourself, that's a kind of a no-brainer.

OOC: It is a no-brainer, I just included it to indicate that I understand the motive behind this, because I'm on the "ignorant" side here. The resolution you cited (here and in the beginning of the thread) is another reason I'm against, but I don't think my leader would care about duplicating resolutions.

[Morover]

OOC: This is now at-vote.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: It is a no-brainer, I just included it to indicate that I understand the motive behind this, because I'm on the "ignorant" side here. The resolution you cited (here and in the beginning of the thread) is another reason I'm against, but I don't think my leader would care about duplicating resolutions.

(OOC: Duplicating a resolution would lead to the proposal becoming illegal, in accordance with the rules. Although this piece of legislation covers very similar ground to GA #091, it does not duplicate it due to a few loopholes in that resolution.)

[Wallenburg]

OOC: That gender and sex are fundamentally different things is well established academic consensus. To claim otherwise is to argue against the body of experts that study these things for a living.

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

The first clause, which states that "non-binary" people exist, seems to be out of place for a resolution about transgender rights. Transgenderism is being able to switch between either of the two genders, not choosing to be not either male or female.

[Kenmoria]

The first clause, which states that "non-binary" people exist, seems to be out of place for a resolution about transgender rights. Transgenderism is being able to switch between either of the two genders, not choosing to be not either male or female.

(OOC: Most non-binary people are transgender. Being transgender means that one’s gender does not align with one’s sex; excluding intersex people, nobody is born with a non-binary sex. Therefore, almost all non-binary people are transgender.)

[Lawrence Butcher]

A week in Bangkok was one of my best experiences in my entire life. I would totally vote FOR on this legislation.

[Kranostav]

"Bugger your "transgender rights"

This is a god tier national motto

[WEPA]

Why are we trying to normalize this mental disorder instead of trying help those with it?

[West Phoenicia]

West Phoenicia will be opposing this bill.

1.Transgender and gender non-binary people are real.

If someone wants to be a panda bear and thinks they are. It doesn't make them one. Gender non-binary insults male and female.

One can be male or female, we are not all cut from the same cookie cutter. A boy can have lo g hair or short hair, a six pack or a keg. Choose to wear make up or not. They are still male.

Females can be more feminine or masculine, etc still makes them female.

Stop this merry go round nonsense.