NationStates

Tinfect wrote:

Aclion wrote:*Stares at Australian genocide*

OOC:
Don't you fucking dare use the genocide of indigenous peoples to shield this absurdity that child abusers are protected.
We are not a fucking tool to defend your bigotry. These are not comparable in any remote way.

Im not sure why you are directing anger at Aclion... You are acting as if they are pro-abuse when they are simply pointing out a potential contradiction. They are not using the Aus Genocide as a way to free abusers, they are giving an example of how a fundamental action of taking children away from parents could be taken to be illegal.

You need to take a step back and realize they are not here attacking you, and anyone who may give feedback that isn't for this isn't somehow a bigot. No one wants people to be abused. And the best way to ensure that is to make sure everything is legal, which is what Alcion is debating about.

Kenmoria wrote:“I am opposed on principle. Child abuse legislation is such a delicate issue that it needs to be handled on a case by case basis, with attention paid to differing circumstances. Simply requiring alternative custody in blanket situations risks taking away children in spite of their best interests.”

OOC:
Where, exactly, is anything of the sort in this legislation?

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I agree with Aclion on this. Doubting the idea of being transgender is a belief, by the common meaning of the term, and therefore is protected by GA #038. It is a flaw in that piece of legislation, but still is part of the resolution.)

You cannot be serious. You are seriously going to bat on the idea that removing transgender children, from homes that are abusive against them, constitutes fucking genocide of transphobes?

Kranostav wrote:Im not sure why you are directing anger at Aclion... You are acting as if they are pro-abuse when they are simply pointing out a potential contradiction. They are not using the Aus Genocide as a way to free abusers, they are giving an example of how a fundamental action of taking children away from parents could be taken to be illegal.

Yes, you quite obviously don't understand why I'm angry. They specifically compare an act of genocide against indigenous peoples, to protecting children from abusers. There is context here that you are ignoring.

Do forgive me for being a little bit offended that someone with no understanding of the issues thinks that literal fucking genocide that has been enacted across the world, including against my people, in living memory, is remotely comparable to getting children out of abusive homes.

Tinfect wrote:
Do forgive me for being a little bit offended that someone with no understanding of the issues thinks that literal fucking genocide that has been enacted across the world, including against my people, in living memory, is remotely comparable to getting children out of abusive homes.

OOC:The problem is that prepubescent children can't really understand their gender and sexual orientation and thus wouldn't really be getting abused.

Kranostav wrote:Im not sure why you are directing anger at Aclion... You are acting as if they are pro-abuse when they are simply pointing out a potential contradiction. They are not using the Aus Genocide as a way to free abusers, they are giving an example of how a fundamental action of taking children away from parents could be taken to be illegal.

Yes, you quite obviously don't understand why I'm angry. They specifically compare an act of genocide against indigenous peoples, to protecting children from abusers. There is context here that you are ignoring.

Do forgive me for being a little bit offended that someone with no understanding of the issues thinks that literal fucking genocide that has been enacted across the world, including against my people, in living memory, is remotely comparable to getting children out of abusive homes.

Okay, but thats not what they are saying. They are not comparable at all IRL, but under the WA and GAR#38 they might be conflated because of the way its written. If you prefer one could argue at any genocide in which kids were removed, so as to remove a charged event from it and keeping the focus on the potential contradiction instead of semantics.

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:The problem is that prepubescent children can't really understand their gender and sexual orientation and thus wouldn't really be getting abused.

OOC:
... Are you actually joking?

Kranostav wrote:Okay, but thats not what they are saying.

Aclion wrote:

I'll also note that nothing in this draft is about wiping out transphobes. It's about protecting children from them. Removing children from abusive homes is not genocide.

*Stares at Australian genocide*

That is exactly what they're saying.

Tinfect wrote:

Kranostav wrote:Okay, but thats not what they are saying.

Aclion wrote:*Stares at Australian genocide*

That is exactly what they're saying.

You are totally ignoring the context. They said that to supplement the event of children being removed. Which was an aid in the argument of the GAR038 contradiction.... Not IRL.

OOC: According to GAR 38, 'forcibly removing children from the group' constitutes an act of genocide. To me, this suggests that children have to be part of that group in order to be removed. So, discussions about the interpretation of the word 'belief' aside, a child or teen who has come out to their parents about their sexual orientation and who is being rejected for who they are as a result can be legally separated from their parents.

Marxist Germany wrote:

Tinfect wrote:
Do forgive me for being a little bit offended that someone with no understanding of the issues thinks that literal fucking genocide that has been enacted across the world, including against my people, in living memory, is remotely comparable to getting children out of abusive homes.

OOC:The problem is that prepubescent children can't really understand their gender and sexual orientation and thus wouldn't really be getting abused.

Dude... I don't even know where to begin here

Kranostav wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:The problem is that prepubescent children can't really understand their gender and sexual orientation and thus wouldn't really be getting abused.

Dude... I don't even know where to begin here

OOC:This might have come out as grossly offensive and I apologise but what I meant is that an average 6 year old child wouldn't understand who they're sexually attracted to because they do not understand the concept of sex. I apologise if I offended anyone by that post.

Marxist Germany wrote:

Kranostav wrote:Dude... I don't even know where to begin here

OOC:This might have come out as grossly offensive and I apologise but what I meant is that an average 6 year old child wouldn't understand who they're sexually attracted to because they do not understand the concept of sex. I apologise if I offended anyone by that post.

OOC:
Child abuse extends to minors.

Tinfect wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:This might have come out as grossly offensive and I apologise but what I meant is that an average 6 year old child wouldn't understand who they're sexually attracted to because they do not understand the concept of sex. I apologise if I offended anyone by that post.

OOC:
Child abuse extends to minors.

OOC:Yes I know, that's why I apologised if that post came out as grossly offensive. Child abuse is covered by GA#222 however. And yes I know you're trying to force GenSec to make a ruling by drafting this.

OOc
To start with, as written this is NOT 'Civil Rights', it's 'Moral Decency'.

Aeravahn Reborn wrote:Defines:

1. The deliberate rejection of a child's gender identity or sexual orientation by their parents or guardians as child abuse,

This definition needs to be tightened up, as it's not clear what it means to "reject[]...a child's gender identity or sexual orientation" and such a broad definition will prohibit behaviour that is not child abuse.

In many cases, young children simply don't understand sex or its associated physical characteristics and social norms. There will very possibly be confusion as to what these concepts are and how they apply to particular individuals and situations. Correcting this confusion is not child abuse. For example, if a boy thinks that because he likes to play with dolls he must actually be a girl, it's not child abuse to suggest that he simply needs to integrate his love of dolls into his concept of being a boy.

As I noted in the debate thread on GAR #437, numerous studies indicate that children with gender dysphoria frequently cease to be gender dysphoric when they grow up. Approaching gender dysphoria from the perspective that desistance is likely to occur is not child abuse.

Even in cases where desistance does not occur, Catholics and other religious groups hold that certain treatments for gender dysphoria, such as sex reassignment surgery, are intrinsically immoral because they involve the destruction of otherwise healthy organs in an attempt to change one's sex, which is impossible. To hold these beliefs, to pass them on to one's children, and to require children to act in accordance with them while subject to parental authority (at least up to a certain age) is not child abuse.

With respect to sexual orientation, Catholics and other religious groups draw a distinction between inclination and conduct. There is nothing sinful about being sexually attracted to persons of the same sex, but it is sinful to act on that inclination. Again, to hold these beliefs, to pass them on to one's children, and to require children to act in accordance with them while subject to parental authority (at least up to a certain age) is not child abuse.

OOC: This is regarding legality only, on the GAR #38 question.

If we take "belief" as broadly as some here have advocated, then it becomes nearly impossible to enforce any child safety laws at all. Surely a law against hitting children with a cane is aimed at eliminating the use of canes as a tool of discipline; but it's being framed as causing the destruction of Caners, a people deserving of protection from genocide on the basis of their belief in canes as a tool of raising children. The proposal at hand does not seek to criminalize belief; what it criminalizes is behavior, specifically the behavior of insisting that a child is lying or incorrect about their gender, and pretending that said child is someone different. (Ninja'd by Auralia, it would indeed do to tighten the definition up, a bit - what was obvious to me may be slightly less so to others).

But if you are going to characterize a mother who insists her transgender son is nevertheless a girl or woman as a passive member of a belief system, which is protected by GAR #38, then you are committed to that principle, and the state is not allowed to remove victims of (say) incest child rape from their abusive fathers, because that would be destroying the belief system of families who subscribe to the old primitive paterfamilias ethic, in which the patriarch has every imaginable right and power over his family.

To be sure, if it were the beliefs being prohibited, the objectors would have a point. But they are not - transphobia and bigoted thoughts are not at issue here any more than they are in GAR #35. What is being discussed here is the actions of parents toward their children. And on that score, it's beyond the scope of anything related to this discussion to bring in concerns about GAR #38.

OOC:
Auralia, I have handled each and every one of those bigoted lies a million times. You should know better than to start shit by posting them in my thread.

OOC: Re: GAR#38. Even if one accepts the argument that transphobes are an identifiable group who hold a belief, this proposal does not suggest that their children be taken away from them merely because they are transphobes. A small subset of transphobes might have their children taken away from them if they allow their transphobic beliefs to degrade the quality of their parenting. This is not targeting a group for a belief. It's targeting some members of a group for being piss poor parents. Had the proposal said that no transphobe shall be permitted to hold custody of children, then we'd have to assess whether they're a group under GAR#38. Luckily it doesn't, so we don't. No contradiction with GAR#38 IMO.

Re: GAR#222. This is a tougher nut. "Serious emotional and mental trauma" is not obvious and clear cut like "physical injury or harm." I think this might just slip through as acceptable under the duplication rule as an "[elaboration] in [a specific area] of policy where broad legislation exists". The broad legislation is the "serious emotional and mental trauma" clause in GAR#222, this proposal elaborates that action/words/(whatever rejection means) of a child's gender identity/orientation falls within this.

I feel the GAR#222 question should be the main topic of legality discussion rather than GAR#38 which seems open and shut to me.

Tinfect wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“I am opposed on principle. Child abuse legislation is such a delicate issue that it needs to be handled on a case by case basis, with attention paid to differing circumstances. Simply requiring alternative custody in blanket situations risks taking away children in spite of their best interests.”

OOC:
Where, exactly, is anything of the sort in this legislation?

(OOC: Taking away children from homes because of the parents denial of their identity in all circumstances is a blanket requirement for rehousing, with no room for negotiation in light of differing situations.

Tinfect wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I agree with Aclion on this. Doubting the idea of being transgender is a belief, by the common meaning of the term, and therefore is protected by GA #038. It is a flaw in that piece of legislation, but still is part of the resolution.)

You cannot be serious. You are seriously going to bat on the idea that removing transgender children, from homes that are abusive against them, constitutes fucking genocide of transphobes?

You are conflating what I believe is right with what I believe GA #038 says. I do not think that constitutes genocide, and the author of the text presumably did not think so either. However, the contradiction rule works with the letter, rather than spirit, of a piece of General Assembly legislation.

SL appears to be arguing that the beliefs themselves are not the criteria for removing children from homes, rather the actions are. Personally, I regard ‘denial’ of somebody’s gender or sexual identity as a thought, rather than an act. Perhaps you could clarify that a parent has to act upon this denial, or at least express their disapproval to the children involved, to fall under this proposal? That would make this more unambiguously legal.)

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:Just a genuine question here, what's the appropriate noun for being transgender?

OOC: That's like asking what's the appropriate noun for being cisgender.

Araraukar wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:Just a genuine question here, what's the appropriate noun for being transgender?

OOC: That's like asking what's the appropriate noun for being cisgender.

OOC:True enough

Kenmoria wrote:SL appears to be arguing that the beliefs themselves are not the criteria for removing children from homes, rather the actions are. Personally, I regard ‘denial’ of somebody’s gender or sexual identity as a thought, rather than an act. Perhaps you could clarify that a parent has to act upon this denial, or at least express their disapproval to the children involved, to fall under this proposal? That would make this more unambiguously legal.)

OOC: The draft states deliberate rejection of their own child's gender identity or orientation. I don't see how this can include the mere presence of a thought. In any case, how would anyone other than tech-wank-mind-control-istan manage to police such thoughts?

Tinfect wrote:

Aclion wrote:*Stares at Australian genocide*

OOC:
Don't you fucking dare use the genocide of indigenous peoples to shield this absurdity that child abusers are protected.
We are not a tool to defend bigotry. These are not comparable in any way.

Then don't use the exact same premise the Australian government used when destroying Aboriginal families.

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Re: GAR#38. Even if one accepts the argument that transphobes are an identifiable group who hold a belief, this proposal does not suggest that their children be taken away from them merely because they are transphobes. A small subset of transphobes might have their children taken away from them if they allow their transphobic beliefs to degrade the quality of their parenting.

The proposal has no such requirement. The proposal defines trans-phobic beliefs(disagreement with authorities re; their child's gender) as child abuse per se

Tinfect wrote:ou cannot be serious. You are seriously going to bat on the idea that removing transgender children, from homes that are abusive against them, constitutes fucking genocide of transphobes?

Keep it mind that just because you define something doesn't mean the definition applies outside of debating your proposals merits.

Aclion wrote:Then don't use the exact same premise the Australian government used when destroying Aboriginal families.

OOC:
Are you fucking for real right now?
Child abuse per WA legislation has a very specific definition as outlined in prior legislation. Nothing in either this draft, nor GAR 222, can be construed as supporting genocide under the guise of preventing child abuse.
Furthermore, protecting transgender children from transphobic abuse, is NOT genocide of Transphobes. This is plainly obvious.

Tinfect wrote:

Aclion wrote:Then don't use the exact same premise the Australian government used when destroying Aboriginal families.

OOC:
Are you fucking for real right now?
Child abuse per WA legislation has a very specific definition as outlined in prior legislation. Nothing in either this draft, nor GAR 222, can be construed as supporting genocide under the guise of preventing child abuse.
Furthermore, protecting transgender children from transphobic abuse, is NOT genocide of Transphobes. This is plainly obvious.

But your not protecting them from abuse. You're simply defining beliefs as abuse.

Aclion wrote:You're simply defining beliefs as abuse.

OOC: No she's not. Please stop beating that dead horse.

EDIT: You may have not yet heard the saying "you can believe whatever you want, but you can't do whatever you want", but it applies here as well as on the slavery ban or torture ban or rape prohibition or human sacrifice ban and whatever else that's something to do with separating belief from action.

OOC
I agree that ‘transphobes’ as such do not constitute a protected group under GAR #38. The memberships of specific religions do constitute protected groups under that resolution, of course, so a nation couldn’t legally use this proposal to justify taking away all of a religious group’s children because that religion’s teachings deny the possibility or morality of transgenderism. Taking away children in cases where the clash of beliefs actually become relevant (i.e. where a child’s belief about their gender identity or sexual orientation does clash with their parents’ religious beliefs about such matters), and only in those specific cases, would not constitute a contradiction of GAR #38 either. It might be a heavy-handed response, given the possibility that some of the children involved might actually prefer to spend the rest of their childhood with their own families rather than in state care even if that postponed their ability to function openly in the gender & sexual orientation of their choice for a few years, but it would be legal.

With regard to GAR #222: Unless & until your definitions here are tightened-up, whether parents’ “deliberate rejection of a child's gender identity or sexual orientation” was enough to count as ‘child abuse’ under that law would seem potentially to vary from case to case depending on how strongly the child actually feels about the matter and what form that “rejection” takes. Also, in my opinion, you need to insert wording such as “a form of” [or something similar] before the words “child abuse” in your ‘Defines’ clause here to clarify that you’re not defining this rejection as the only thing that counts as “child abuse” (and thus contradicting GAR #222 in that way).

Any government that tries forbidding the parents from expressing their religious beliefs about these points to the children, on the grounds that doing so constitutes "rejection [etc]" would run into problems with GAR #436 ‘Protecting Free Expression’ unless you explicitly explain in this proposal why one of that resolution’s listed exceptions applies.