[DRAFT] Repeal: Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy

[Sciongrad]

Bracketing for a moment your interpretation of the statutory language, explain to me again why you believe an additional resolution couldn't separately address the provision of synthetic hormones.

See my response to IA above.

Such a proposal would not address the concerns regarding the vague terminology "affordable and easy to access", and would largely make the existing resolution redundant.

I just don't buy either of your claims. You wouldn't be restricted in any meaningful way if your only objective is to extend protection to synthetic drugs. Please tell me specifically what things you would like to cover that the current resolution precludes you from covering.

The legislation also wouldn't be redundant if they both cover two different types of drugs, no?

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Your warrant for why no replacement could be done seems incorrect. Defining in another proposal the words "hormone therapy" isn't contradiction because if you read this here target, it says—

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "hormone therapy" as a medical treatment involving the use of naturally occurring hormones for the purpose of altering one's secondary sex characteristics to more accurately reflect their gender identity,

That aside,

but I would also need to do so while legislating on multiple classes of drugs in much the same way as the original resolution does... effectively the target resolution would become almost entirely redundant.

As you correctly pointed out in GA#410: Repeal "Marriage Equality"

So you'll have to explain to me why that wouldn't be the case here?

Because it's not yet redundant.

A replacement resolution would make the existing legislation redundant, especially if, as you state, I can redefine "hormone therapy" more generally. Repealing this resolution first allows more freedom in drafting said replacement, and affords it a greater area it can legislate on.

If I am not mistaken, you are suggesting I draft and attempt to pass a replacement resolution first, then proceed with this repeal attempt based more on the grounds it would then be redundant?

If I was to draft such a replacement well before submitting this resolution, would you change your stance on this?

Ooc: 8 months ago? Possibly. But I am a cynical man, and you and yours passed up too many opportunities to engage in good faith. I'm not confident you'd actually pursue the draft once this was repealed.

This cynicism is well documented elsewhere, and not unique to you.

I do not recall any significant involvment within the General Assembly that I've had within the past 8 months that may have changed your opinion on this?

Furhter, I don't know why you think that I would not follow up on such a resolution. If anything, as most people seem to claim, I would think the common opinion might be more along the lines of "the CCD is only in it for attention and would never pass on an opportunity to see their proposal voted on".

[Sciongrad]

A replacement resolution would make the existing legislation redundant, especially if, as you state, I can redefine "hormone therapy" more generally. Repealing this resolution first allows more freedom in drafting said replacement, and affords it a greater area it can legislate on.

If I am not mistaken, you are suggesting I draft and attempt to pass a replacement resolution first, then proceed with this repeal attempt based more on the grounds it would then be redundant?

Drafting a resolution that covers all hormones will likely be redundant. But, obviously, you don't need to draft the resolution that way. A resolution that specifically addressed synthetic hormones would not be redundant, because if you repealed GA 467, no resolution would cover "naturally occurring" hormones. As far as I can tell, there would be no amendment or contradiction concerns if we accept your interpretation of GA 467 and someone were to draft a resolution that dealt only with synthetic hormones.

However, for what it's worth, I think, as a matter of statutory interpretation, GA 467 doesn't do what you claim it does. If we read the defining clause literally, it would exclude purely synthetic hormones. I don't think that's the necessary, or even the strongest, interpretation. Reading the text in light of its purpose, it seems inconsistent with the spirit of the resolution to exclude synthetic hormones. If the defining clause or if some other provision categorically excluded synthetic hormones, that would be one thing. But it doesn't do that. Naturally occurring hormone doesn't necessarily mean only those hormones which we collect from natural sources. I think the language, read in light of the purpose expressed in the preamble, pretty comfortably includes synthetic replicas of or substitutes for naturally occurring hormones which serve the same purpose. GA 2 establishes a clear preference, in statutory analysis, for considering the spirit of the text in our statutory analysis. As it stands — and I speak only for myself, not on behalf of other GenSec members — I think this could present an honest mistake issue.

Pedantry and literal but unnecessarily restrictive readings of the text are harmful for the game when used to repeal resolutions. The Honest Mistake Rule doesn't permit repeals based on these types of arguments when a reasonable nation, interpreting the statute in good faith, wouldn't reach that conclusion.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: 8 months ago? Possibly. But I am a cynical man, and you and yours passed up too many opportunities to engage in good faith. I'm not confident you'd actually pursue the draft once this was repealed.

This cynicism is well documented elsewhere, and not unique to you.

I do not recall any significant involvment within the General Assembly that I've had within the past 8 months that may have changed your opinion on this?

Furhter, I don't know why you think that I would not follow up on such a resolution. If anything, as most people seem to claim, I would think the common opinion might be more along the lines of "the CCD is only in it for attention and would never pass on an opportunity to see their proposal voted on".

Ooc: Oh, my sweet summer child. Your GA activity is not the only activity that forms your reputation here. And I am not solely active in the GA.

You and yours have historically been a bastion for, if nothing else, right-leaning players who would be happy to see trans rights rolled back. That is itself reason for motivational concern. Were your word still good, I might have taken it. Alas, reputation is something built over an age and ruined in a moment.

I'm also really sad I missed out on statutory interpretation. It's kinda my thing.

[Separatist Peoples]

A replacement resolution would make the existing legislation redundant, especially if, as you state, I can redefine "hormone therapy" more generally. Repealing this resolution first allows more freedom in drafting said replacement, and affords it a greater area it can legislate on.

If I am not mistaken, you are suggesting I draft and attempt to pass a replacement resolution first, then proceed with this repeal attempt based more on the grounds it would then be redundant?

Drafting a resolution that covers all hormones will likely be redundant. But, obviously, you don't need to draft the resolution that way. A resolution that specifically addressed synthetic hormones would not be redundant, because if you repealed GA 467, no resolution would cover "naturally occurring" hormones. As far as I can tell, there would be no amendment or contradiction concerns if we accept your interpretation of GA 467 and someone were to draft a resolution that dealt only with synthetic hormones.

However, for what it's worth, I think, as a matter of statutory interpretation, GA 467 doesn't do what you claim it does. If we read the defining clause literally, it would exclude purely synthetic hormones. I don't think that's the necessary, or even the strongest, interpretation. Reading the text in light of its purpose, it seems inconsistent with the spirit of the resolution to exclude synthetic hormones. If the defining clause or if some other provision categorically excluded synthetic hormones, that would be one thing. But it doesn't do that. Naturally occurring hormone doesn't necessarily mean only those hormones which we collect from natural sources. I think the language, read in light of the purpose expressed in the preamble, pretty comfortably includes synthetic replicas of or substitutes for naturally occurring hormones which serve the same purpose.GA 2 establishes a clear preference, in statutory analysis, for considering the spirit of the text in our statutory analysis. As it stands — and I speak only for myself, not on behalf of other GenSec members — I think this could present an honest mistake issue.

Pedantry and literal but unnecessarily restrictive readings of the text are harmful for the game when used to repeal resolutions. The Honest Mistake Rule doesn't permit repeals based on these types of arguments when a reasonable nation, interpreting the statute in good faith, wouldn't reach that conclusion.

Ooc: I'm not sure I agree it would rise to the level of HM, but I dont think it definitely isnt. Arguments from literalism are bad, but trying to reduce to intent is really difficult in a text based game.

I would agree that the plain meaning is not facially exclusive of later legislation dealing with synthetic hormones.

[Sciongrad]

Drafting a resolution that covers all hormones will likely be redundant. But, obviously, you don't need to draft the resolution that way. A resolution that specifically addressed synthetic hormones would not be redundant, because if you repealed GA 467, no resolution would cover "naturally occurring" hormones. As far as I can tell, there would be no amendment or contradiction concerns if we accept your interpretation of GA 467 and someone were to draft a resolution that dealt only with synthetic hormones.

However, for what it's worth, I think, as a matter of statutory interpretation, GA 467 doesn't do what you claim it does. If we read the defining clause literally, it would exclude purely synthetic hormones. I don't think that's the necessary, or even the strongest, interpretation. Reading the text in light of its purpose, it seems inconsistent with the spirit of the resolution to exclude synthetic hormones. If the defining clause or if some other provision categorically excluded synthetic hormones, that would be one thing. But it doesn't do that. Naturally occurring hormone doesn't necessarily mean only those hormones which we collect from natural sources. I think the language, read in light of the purpose expressed in the preamble, pretty comfortably includes synthetic replicas of or substitutes for naturally occurring hormones which serve the same purpose.GA 2 establishes a clear preference, in statutory analysis, for considering the spirit of the text in our statutory analysis. As it stands — and I speak only for myself, not on behalf of other GenSec members — I think this could present an honest mistake issue.

Pedantry and literal but unnecessarily restrictive readings of the text are harmful for the game when used to repeal resolutions. The Honest Mistake Rule doesn't permit repeals based on these types of arguments when a reasonable nation, interpreting the statute in good faith, wouldn't reach that conclusion.

Ooc: I'm not sure I agree it would rise to the level of HM, but I dont think it definitely isnt. Arguments from literalism are bad, but trying to reduce to intent is really difficult in a text based game.

I would agree that the plain meaning is not facially exclusive of later legislation dealing with synthetic hormones.

My analysis maybe seems more skeptical of the plain meaning of the text than I meant for it to sound. A repeal doesn't violate the HM rule whenever it reaches the less plausible of two or more interpretations of the text. And obviously, the text is the dominant factor to consider. I do think, though, that when the enacted preambulatory language clearly excludes one of two possible interpretations and the text itself does not weigh decisively in favor of that interpretation, then a reasonable nation interpreting the text in good faith, as is required by GA 2, would very probably struggle to reach that interpretation on its own.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

I would very strongly argue against your interpretation of terminology "naturally occurring".

"Naturally occuring" hormones explicitly excludes synthetic derivatives. This is because, of course, they are not naturally occuring, or naturally derived, but also because many synthetic hormones do not function as hormones in their own right; they are pro-drugs metabolised by endogenous enzymes that convert them into functional hormones.

To classify "synthetic derivatives of hormones" under "naturally occuring hormones" you need to:
a) completely ignore the "naturally occuring" descriptor, and,
b) ignore the fact that most of these drugs are not functional hormones in their own right.

If the original resolution had left off this descriptor, or used a different term like "exogenous" or even "naturally derived", yes I could see statutory interpretation coming into play.

But I would very strongly argue that is not the case here.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Ooc: Oh, my sweet summer child. Your GA activity is not the only activity that forms your reputation here. And I am not solely active in the GA.

You and yours have historically been a bastion for, if nothing else, right-leaning players who would be happy to see trans rights rolled back. That is itself reason for motivational concern. Were your word still good, I might have taken it. Alas, reputation is something built over an age and ruined in a moment.

I'm also really sad I missed out on statutory interpretation. It's kinda my thing.

I very strongly rebute this statement.

I have never, ever personally implied anywhere I would be "happy to see trans rights rolled back". Frankly I'm not even sure where I've ever posted anything that may imply I am right-leaning politically.

Jocospor and I even posted a forum draft on a similar topic last year, before the target resolution of this repeal was drafted and passed: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=462407

[Separatist Peoples]

I would very strongly argue against your interpretation of terminology "naturally occurring".

"Naturally occuring" hormones explicitly excludes synthetic derivatives. This is because, of course, they are not naturally occuring, or naturally derived, but also because many synthetic hormones do not function as hormones in their own right; they are pro-drugs metabolised by endogenous enzymes that convert them into functional hormones.

To classify "synthetic derivatives of hormones" under "naturally occuring hormones" you need to:
a) completely ignore the "naturally occuring" descriptor, and,
b) ignore the fact that most of these drugs are not functional hormones in their own right.

If the original resolution had left off this descriptor, or used a different term like "exogenous" or even "naturally derived", yes I could see statutory interpretation coming into play.

But I would very strongly argue that is not the case here.

Ooc: GenSec applies statutory interpretation without regard for scientific definitions to avoid being verifiers of fact. Sciongrad will certainly respond in his own right to your interpretation (you lucky duck, Sciongrad), but statutory interpretation will kick in regardless.

Ooc: Oh, my sweet summer child. Your GA activity is not the only activity that forms your reputation here. And I am not solely active in the GA.

You and yours have historically been a bastion for, if nothing else, right-leaning players who would be happy to see trans rights rolled back. That is itself reason for motivational concern. Were your word still good, I might have taken it. Alas, reputation is something built over an age and ruined in a moment.

I'm also really sad I missed out on statutory interpretation. It's kinda my thing.

I very strongly rebute this statement.

I have never, ever personally implied anywhere I would be "happy to see trans rights rolled back". Frankly I'm not even sure where I've ever posted anything that may imply I am right-leaning politically.

Jocospor and I even posted a forum draft on a similar topic last year, before the target resolution of this repeal was drafted and passed: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=462407

Ooc: refute? Rebuke?

You needn't have so implied. Actions speak louder than words, and your actions then seemed pretty geared towards ingratiation and not participation in it's own right.

Again, cynical? Probably. Such is the cost of a loss of reputation.

[Sciongrad]

I would very strongly argue against your interpretation of terminology "naturally occurring".

"Naturally occuring" hormones explicitly excludes synthetic derivatives. This is because, of course, they are not naturally occuring, or naturally derived, but also because many synthetic hormones do not function as hormones in their own right; they are pro-drugs metabolised by endogenous enzymes that convert them into functional hormones.

Frankly, this sounds like a difference without a distinction. What does it matter if the chemical "functions as a hormone in [its] own right," as opposed to merely working as a "functional hormone?" I don't know why, either, even if this was a meaningful distinction, the statute necessarily would use this arcane meaning as opposed to the ordinary meaning of hormone, which would include synthetic hormones.

To classify "synthetic derivatives of hormones" under "naturally occurring hormones" you need to:
a) completely ignore the "naturally occuring" descriptor, and,
b) ignore the fact that most of these drugs are not functional hormones in their own right.

If the original resolution had left off this descriptor, or used a different term like "exogenous" or even "naturally derived", yes I could see statutory interpretation coming into play.

But I would very strongly argue that is not the case here.

To convince me, you need to explain to me why a reasonable nation acting in good faith in light of the resolution's purpose, as enacted in the preamble, would conclude that this resolution only covers literally naturally occurring hormones. It's no argument here merely to say "well, the literal text render this result," because I do not think the text can be read independently of the preamble. Again, this would be a different question if the preamble didn't so obviously contemplate the exact opposite interpretation, but here, it does.

[Morover]

OOC:

I, uh, strongly disagree with the sentiment that your issues with this (minus the "affordable and easy-to-access" complaint - more on that later) excluding synthetic substances cannot be remedied without repealing GAR#467, though I must agree with Scion that, in good faith, synthetic substances would be permitted (or, at least, would be grounds for a complaint to the ACA (or is it the Compliance Commission that deals with those things? I forget.)). Feel free to disagree with me, I do see where your argument is coming from. I simply find it troubling that you think the only way to remedy your perceived issue is through a repeal.

Out of curiosity, what would your altered definition look like?

---

RE: "affordable and easy-to-access" being too vague.

That was intentional. I don't see how, by your words, it allows nations to make hormone therapy as "difficult to access" - even by strict reading, it is not really possible for that to happen.

I worded it the way I did to leave flexibility for nations. I didn't want to say how it should be provided because, in reality, there are a multitude of ways in which is could be provided. It could be provided via corporation, or by the government, or any number of other ways, so long as it is affordable and (hear me out here, I know it gets crazy around this part) easy-to-access. It's pretty hard to get those two things wrong, especially without getting a complaint lodged and having your nation fined.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

I very strongly rebute this statement.

I have never, ever personally implied anywhere I would be "happy to see trans rights rolled back". Frankly I'm not even sure where I've ever posted anything that may imply I am right-leaning politically.

Jocospor and I even posted a forum draft on a similar topic last year, before the target resolution of this repeal was drafted and passed: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=462407

Ooc: refute? Rebuke?

You needn't have so implied. Actions speak louder than words, and your actions then seemed pretty geared towards ingratiation and not participation in it's own right.

Again, cynical? Probably. Such is the cost of a loss of reputation.

My bad, I forgot I'm not allowed to make typos.

My actions in the General Assembly consist entirely of this resolution and the previous forum draft of a resolution which I have linked.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion about my nation, but I just don't think in this context that it is justified. Now, if we were in the Security Council which relates to the gameplay side of NationStates, okay yeah you'd have a point.

I would very strongly argue against your interpretation of terminology "naturally occurring".

"Naturally occuring" hormones explicitly excludes synthetic derivatives. This is because, of course, they are not naturally occuring, or naturally derived, but also because many synthetic hormones do not function as hormones in their own right; they are pro-drugs metabolised by endogenous enzymes that convert them into functional hormones.

Frankly, this sounds like a difference without a distinction. What does it matter if the chemical "functions as a hormone in [its] own right," as opposed to merely working as a "functional hormone?" I don't know why, either, even if this was a meaningful distinction, the statute necessarily would use this arcane meaning as opposed to the ordinary meaning of hormone, which would include synthetic hormones.

It is the specific use of the term "naturally occuring". Again, very simply, these drugs are not naturally occuring, they're made by chemists in a lab. If this descriptor was removed I'd absolutely agree they should be included under your interpretation, but the existing resolution cannot be modified.

Also, as I pointed out much earlier and would not come under this interpretation, this resolution does completely miss the inclusion of antiandrogens in its definition.

To classify "synthetic derivatives of hormones" under "naturally occurring hormones" you need to:
a) completely ignore the "naturally occuring" descriptor, and,
b) ignore the fact that most of these drugs are not functional hormones in their own right.

If the original resolution had left off this descriptor, or used a different term like "exogenous" or even "naturally derived", yes I could see statutory interpretation coming into play.

But I would very strongly argue that is not the case here.

To convince me, you need to explain to me why a reasonable nation acting in good faith in light of the resolution's purpose, as enacted in the preamble, would conclude that this resolution only covers literally naturally occurring hormones. It's no argument here merely to say "well, the literal text render this result," because I do not think the text can be read independently of the preamble. Again, this would be a different question if the preamble didn't so obviously contemplate the exact opposite interpretation, but here, it does.

Not all nations are reasonable or acting in good faith in light of the resolution's purpose.

But okay, let's look at the preamble which also has some minor contributing flaws:

6. One such way to resolve the distress is through hormone therapy, and the choice to pursue or not to pursue such treatment ought to rest firmly in the hands of the individual, rather than in the hands of the state.

This point does specify that treatment ought to be determined by the individual. However, the resolution does not mandate that nations provide medical or psychological advice to transgender people regarding physical transition. Many such individuals are poorly informed on the mechanisms of action of drugs they are taking, their origin, etc.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: refute? Rebuke?

You needn't have so implied. Actions speak louder than words, and your actions then seemed pretty geared towards ingratiation and not participation in it's own right.

Again, cynical? Probably. Such is the cost of a loss of reputation.

My bad, I forgot I'm not allowed to make typos.

My actions in the General Assembly consist entirely of this resolution and the previous forum draft of a resolution which I have linked.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion about my nation, but I just don't think in this context that it is justified. Now, if we were in the Security Council which relates to the gameplay side of NationStates, okay yeah you'd have a point.

OOC: You get very little slack from me. Why would you, really? And your actions outside this forum are still relevant.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

OOC:

I, uh, strongly disagree with the sentiment that your issues with this (minus the "affordable and easy-to-access" complaint - more on that later) excluding synthetic substances cannot be remedied without repealing GAR#467, though I must agree with Scion that, in good faith, synthetic substances would be permitted (or, at least, would be grounds for a complaint to the ACA (or is it the Compliance Commission that deals with those things? I forget.)). Feel free to disagree with me, I do see where your argument is coming from. I simply find it troubling that you think the only way to remedy your perceived issue is through a repeal.

Out of curiosity, what would your altered definition look like?

I disagree with this interpretation, and your proposal still lacks any clause relating to antiandrogens. I'm not 100% set on this appeal first, but I do think it would allow for a replacement resolution to be more comprehensive and provide greater clarity regarding these regulations.

My altered defintion (far from final) would look something like this:

Hereby defines "hormone therapy" as the use of any of the following medicines for the purpose of altering one's physical appearance:
a) naturally derived hormones;
b) synthetic derivatives of the above;
c) androgen blocker drugs (antiandrogens);
d) other medicines that, as determined by a relevant medical professional, would assist the individual in their transition.

RE: "affordable and easy-to-access" being too vague.

That was intentional. I don't see how, by your words, it allows nations to make hormone therapy as "difficult to access" - even by strict reading, it is not really possible for that to happen.

I worded it the way I did to leave flexibility for nations. I didn't want to say how it should be provided because, in reality, there are a multitude of ways in which is could be provided. It could be provided via corporation, or by the government, or any number of other ways, so long as it is affordable and (hear me out here, I know it gets crazy around this part) easy-to-access. It's pretty hard to get those two things wrong, especially without getting a complaint lodged and having your nation fined.

"Affordable" is not universal. In a nation with little to no welfare system, one is not guaranteed access to goods and services that most would consider "affordable".

There are also further holes in this clause, which states:

Requires all member-states to have an affordable, easy-to-access way for its transgender population to access hormone therapy,

However, your preamble explicitly classes transgender and gender non-binary people seperately:

Transgender and gender non-binary people are real.

Are gender non-binary people, who also may want to alter their secondary sex characteristics, entitled access to hormone treatment? The resolution is unclear.

[Sciongrad]

It is the specific use of the term "naturally occuring". Again, very simply, these drugs are not naturally occuring, they're made by chemists in a lab. If this descriptor was removed I'd absolutely agree they should be included under your interpretation, but the existing resolution cannot be modified.

I don't know what you mean by the "specific use" of the term. You mean that "naturally occuring hormone" has a technical meaning? Why should we use that meaning over the plain meaning? Do you think it's likely that literally a single player read "naturally occurring hormone" and thought "ah, this only applies to those chemicals which function as hormones in their own right, not pro-drugs metabolised by endogenous enzymes that convert them into functional hormones"? You keep insisting that "naturally occurring hormones" absolutely excludes hormones manufactured synthetically in a lab. I think that's too strong. Your reading is plausible in isolation, I obviously do not deny that. My only argument is that "naturally occurring hormone" does not necessarily exclude synthetic hormones that are intended to imitate or substitute for hormones that literally occur in natural. When confronted with several plausible interpretations, a repeal clears the Honest Mistake rule if the interpretation it chooses could be chosen by a reasonable nation when read in good faith. In light of the rest of the resolution, I do not think that's the case no matter how many times you point to the literal definition of "naturally occurring hormone."

Not all nations are reasonable or acting in good faith in light of the resolution's purpose.

Fine, but as I'm sure you know, that is the standard we use when evaluating a repeal under the honest mistake rule.

This point does specify that treatment ought to be determined by the individual. However, the resolution does not mandate that nations provide medical or psychological advice to transgender people regarding physical transition. Many such individuals are poorly informed on the mechanisms of action of drugs they are taking, their origin, etc.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're arguing here. Could you rephrase for clarity?

[ShrewLlamaLand]

This point does specify that treatment ought to be determined by the individual. However, the resolution does not mandate that nations provide medical or psychological advice to transgender people regarding physical transition. Many such individuals are poorly informed on the mechanisms of action of drugs they are taking, their origin, etc.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're arguing here. Could you rephrase for clarity?

The resolution offers no medical advice to transgender people, for example advice on the medication they're actually taking. The phrase "naturally occuring hormone" could potentially be very misleading when that's really not what they're taking.

It is the specific use of the term "naturally occuring". Again, very simply, these drugs are not naturally occuring, they're made by chemists in a lab. If this descriptor was removed I'd absolutely agree they should be included under your interpretation, but the existing resolution cannot be modified.

I don't know what you mean by the "specific use" of the term. You mean that "naturally occuring hormone" has a technical meaning? Why should we use that meaning over the plain meaning?

The plain meaning is exactly as the phase reads. "Naturally occuring hormone" means: a hormone that... occurs... naturally.

Do you think it's likely that literally a single player read "naturally occurring hormone" and thought "ah, this only applies those chemicals which function as hormones in their own right, not "pro-drugs metabolised by endogenous enzymes that convert them into functional hormones"? You keep insisting that "naturally occurring hormones" absolutely excludes testosterone in a lab. Your reading is plausible in isolation, I obviously do not deny that. My argument is that "naturally occurring hormone" does not necessarily exclude synthetic hormones that are intended to imitate or substitute for hormones that literally occur in natural. When confronted with several plausible interpretations, a repeal clears the Honest Mistake rule if the interpretation it chooses could be chosen by a reasonable nation when read in good faith. In light of the rest of the resolution, I do not think that's the case no matter how many times you point to the literal definition of "naturally occurring hormone."

I think it is very, very reasonable that a player reads "naturally occuring hormone" and excludes "a synthetic hormone produced by chemists in a lab" from this definition.

[Separatist Peoples]

The plain meaning is exactly as the phase reads. "Naturally occuring hormone" means: a hormone that... occurs... naturally.

I think it is very, very reasonable that a player reads "naturally occuring hormone" and excludes "a synthetic hormone produced by chemists in a lab" from this definition.

OOC: You are welcome to hold this belief, but one, and now two, members of GenSec are here to tell you that your argument is unconvincing relative to the ruleset.

[Sciongrad]

The resolution offers no medical advice to transgender people, for example advice on the medication they're actually taking. The phrase "naturally occuring hormone" could potentially be very misleading when that's really not what they're taking.

Okay, it seems to me there is some confusion over what exactly I am saying. The legal test when applying the honest mistake rule, in my view: is the interpretation of the resolution provided by the repeal one that a reasonable nation would accept when interpreting the resolution in good faith? For instance, it would be an honest mistake violation to argue "this resolution requires nations to euthanize all puppies!" if there were some alternative plausible interpretation that would not produce that result, because no reasonable nation would choose that interpretation between the two.

I am making a similar argument here: No reasonable nation that is interpreting this resolution in good faith, in light of the enacted preambulatory language, could conclude that synthetic hormones were excluded. I am not making a policy defense of the resolution. The preamble might mislead people, I don't know (though how many people get their cues on what hormones are covered by reading the non-operative language of an international resolution rather than domestic statutes or guidelines?) — but that individuals might get confused by the preamble is an entirely separate, non-legal argument

The plain meaning is exactly as the phase reads. "Naturally occuring hormone" means: a hormone that... occurs... naturally.

I do not think that a reasonable reader will necessarily conclude that naturally occurring hormone means literally only those hormones that are produced by living beings and not any synthetic replicas or substitutes for those naturally occurring hormones. Again, you seem to be confused about my argument. When I say look to the plain meaning, I mean it's no argument to say "well, actually, a naturally occurring hormone has a highly technical meaning, and that would exclude synthetic hormones" because no one — neither the writer nor the voters — understood the term in that way. I am not advocating that we read the text literally. I think plain or ordinary meaning here is ambiguous. It could mean only those hormones generated naturally or it could mean hormones that are generated naturally (i.e., occur naturally) but are produced in labs or it could include synthetic substitutes for those hormones which literally occur in nature but which we still think of as natural hormones (e.g., synthetic testosterone).

Again, I don't deny that your reading is plausible. But the inquiry doesn't end there if the text is ambiguous.

I think it is very, very reasonable that a player reads "naturally occuring hormone" and excludes "a synthetic hormone produced by chemists in a lab" from this definition.

Not in light of the purpose, which, I remind you is enacted as well. That interpretation, which is not the only possible interpretation, literally undermines the entire purpose of the resolution. No reasonable nation reading the resolution in good faith would select among the several available interpretations the one that defeats the purpose of the resolution.

[The Yeetusa]

I support. I think most people are biased because Shrew is, well, NOTORIOUS. However, I think people should be able to have it with a prescription, I guess so people don't get addicted or something.

EDIT: Most people obviously don't realize the difference between IC and OOC. Shrew is obviously not a "fascist" in real life. Don't be biased just because he's a part of the CoCD This is a simulator, guys! Don't take anything here seriously!

[Separatist Peoples]

I support. I think most people are biased because Shrew is, well, NOTORIOUS. However, I think people should be able to have it with a prescription, I guess so people don't get addicted or something.

"Addicted...to hormone therapy? Ambassador, are you remotely familiar with hormone therapy?"

[ShrewLlamaLand]

I support. I think most people are biased because Shrew is, well, NOTORIOUS. However, I think people should be able to have it with a prescription, I guess so people don't get addicted or something.

"Addicted...to hormone therapy? Ambassador, are you remotely familiar with hormone therapy?"

Apparently being remotely familiar with hormone therapy is not important when it concerns the legal definition of the term, however.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Addicted...to hormone therapy? Ambassador, are you remotely familiar with hormone therapy?"

Apparently being remotely familiar with hormone therapy is not important when it concerns the legal definition, however.

OOC: For somebody insistent about the difference between IC and OOC, you're not great at keeping to it. Which I guess we knew?

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Apparently being remotely familiar with hormone therapy is not important when it concerns the legal definition, however.

OOC: For somebody insistent about the difference between IC and OOC, you're not great at keeping to it. Which I guess we knew?

That doesn't seem to stop anyone calling me, or the CCD, fascist.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: For somebody insistent about the difference between IC and OOC, you're not great at keeping to it. Which I guess we knew?

That doesn't seem to stop anyone calling me, or the CCD, fascist.

OOC: Funny what happens when you muddle your own IC and OOC.

[Anskerdank]

The World Assembly,

Noting that previously passed legislation may not be amended or otherwise modified by this Assembly, only repealed, and thus correction of such legislation first requires a repeal to be passed;

Observing that the target resolution defines "hormone therapy" as "medical treatment involving the use of naturally occurring hormones";

Concerned that this definition does not include synthetic testosterone blockers, "antiandrogens", commonly used in feminizing treatment;

Troubled that this defintion excludes synthetic estrogen and testosterone derivatives, which are often required for effective administration of these hormones;

Further observing that, while the target resolution mandates hormone therapy be "afforable" and "easy to access", it does not specify how these requirements must be satisfied;

Believing that this existing terminology may allow for nations to effectively bypass this legislation by providing ineffective, or difficult to access, treatment to transgender individuals;

Hoping that the repeal of this resolution would encourage the drafting of a more comprehensive replacement;

Hereby repeals GA#467: Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy

The World Assembly,

Noting that previously passed legislation may not be amended or otherwise modified by this Assembly, only repealed, and thus correction of such legislation first requires a repeal to be passed;

Observing that the target resolution defines "hormone therapy" as "medical treatment involving the use of naturally occurring hormones";

Concerned that this definition does not include synthetic testosterone blockers, "antiandrogens", commonly used in feminizing treatment;

Further observing that, while the target resolution mandates hormone therapy be "afforable" and "easy to access", it does not specify how these requirements must be satisfied;

Troubled that no method of oversight has been specified to ensure that nations comply with these vague regulations;

Believing that the existing terminology may allow for nations to effectively bypass this legislation by providing ineffective treatment to transgender individuals;

Hoping that the repeal of this resolution would encourage the drafting of a more comprehensive replacement;

Hereby repeals GA#467: Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy

OOC: Quite frankly, I would honestly be (and vote) against this