[DRAFT] Transgender Rights Act

[ShrewLlamaLand]

My understanding is that testosterone alone is usually enough to suppress estrogen production in transgender men, and estrogen blockers are rarely needed for this purpose. I do think it's worth including, though, so I'll add it in.

OOC: Perhaps, but not in non-binary individuals not wanting to enhance their masculinity but simply reduce their femininity.

Good point, I didn't think of this.

Changes have been made and OP updated.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

I am still very interested in further feedback on this draft.

Current plan is that ideally the proposal will be submitted some time next month, assuming I can first pass a repeal of GA#91 (which I assume would be required? - GenSec confirmation would be nice here please).

[Morover]

I am still very interested in further feedback on this draft.

Current plan is that ideally the proposal will be submitted some time next month, assuming I can first pass a repeal of GA#91 (which I assume would be required? - GenSec confirmation would be nice here please).

OOC:

You may be interested in doing a trial-run submission in order to gauge legality, just to make sure - that's really the only definitive way to check.

[American Pere Housh]

"The UNSC can't in good nature support this proposal Mr. Ambassador. We have nothing against transgender people but we are a military dictatorship and as such would affect the moral of our troops and citizens in a negative way.'

[Astrobolt]

"The UNSC can't in good nature support this proposal Mr. Ambassador. We have nothing against transgender people but we are a military dictatorship and as such would affect the moral of our troops and citizens in a negative way.'

"And how would individuals who are transgender impact moral?"

[Araraukar]

"The UNSC can't in good nature support this proposal Mr. Ambassador. We have nothing against transgender people but we are a military dictatorship and as such would affect the moral of our troops and citizens in a negative way.'

"And how would individuals who are transgender impact moral?"

OOC: Because we are fabulous god-like beings and the poor cisgender individuals would feel inadequate in our presence, thus becoming depressed and reclusive and unwilling to show their faces in our radiant light. *preens*

...it's best to not ask questions you already know you are going to get a very offensive response to.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

2. Permits transgender individuals the right to change their sex and/or gender on all relevant legal documentation;

How does this relate to gender identities other than male, female and intersex? Are states required to allow any gender identity on legal documentation?

3. Requires all member nations grant full recognition to these changes; further requires that these changes are granted full recognition by all entities operating within member nations;
(...)
12. Forbids the requirement of surgical intervention as a prerequisite for the above legal changes.

How would this prevent a certain political columnist in our Holy Empire, Mr Ben Shapiro, who is an outspoken activist against these provisions, from changing his gender on a daily basis and encouraging his followers to do the same--as he has threatened to do?

6. Requires that all member nations provide universal access, without fear of incurring financial difficulty due to cost, to hormone therapy to all transgender residents who choose to proceed with physical transition;

Please clarify: does this require the Holy Empire to subsidise these medical procedurs, in full or in part?

--Saint Luke the Evangelist, patron of physicians and surgeons
Senior membrum, Sanctus Commissio Sancti Imperii

[ShrewLlamaLand]

I am still very interested in further feedback on this draft.

Current plan is that ideally the proposal will be submitted some time next month, assuming I can first pass a repeal of GA#91 (which I assume would be required? - GenSec confirmation would be nice here please).

OOC:

You may be interested in doing a trial-run submission in order to gauge legality, just to make sure - that's really the only definitive way to check.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll probably try this.

2. Permits transgender individuals the right to change their sex and/or gender on all relevant legal documentation;

How does this relate to gender identities other than male, female and intersex? Are states required to allow any gender identity on legal documentation?

This is a good point you've raised; I think a fair compromise is that states are required to recognise "male", "female" and "other". I will amend the draft to clarify this. States may additionally recognise other gender identities if they so choose, but this is not required.

3. Requires all member nations grant full recognition to these changes; further requires that these changes are granted full recognition by all entities operating within member nations;
(...)
12. Forbids the requirement of surgical intervention as a prerequisite for the above legal changes.

How would this prevent a certain political columnist in our Holy Empire, Mr Ben Shapiro, who is an outspoken activist against these provisions, from changing his gender on a daily basis and encouraging his followers to do the same--as he has threatened to do?

Frankly, however, this is not a good point. If Mr Shapiro really has nothing better to do than go back and forth requesting to change his legal gender, he can be dealt with on a national basis.

6. Requires that all member nations provide universal access, without fear of incurring financial difficulty due to cost, to hormone therapy to all transgender residents who choose to proceed with physical transition;

Please clarify: does this require the Holy Empire to subsidise these medical procedurs, in full or in part?

Yes, if they are not otherwise reasonably affordable. This applies only to hormone therapy, and is already required by GA#467.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

How would this prevent a certain political columnist in our Holy Empire, Mr Ben Shapiro, who is an outspoken activist against these provisions, from changing his gender on a daily basis and encouraging his followers to do the same--as he has threatened to do?

Frankly, however, this is not a good point. If Mr Shapiro really has nothing better to do than go back and forth requesting to change his legal gender, he can be dealt with on a national basis.

Well, hopefully, the Ambassador of the Empire of ShrewLlamaLand could enlighten the Holy Empire on how Mr Shapiro and his many followers could be dealt with without running afoul of the proposal. The Holy Empire does not want to waste resources on unnecessary bureaucracy, nor on heavy fines imposed by the IAO under GAR#440.

--Saint Luke the Evangelist, patron of physicians and surgeons
Senior membrum, Sanctus Commissio Sancti Imperii

[Araraukar]

Well, hopefully, the Ambassador of the Empire of ShrewLlamaLand could enlighten the Holy Empire on how Mr Shapiro and his many followers could be dealt with without running afoul of the proposal. The Holy Empire does not want to waste resources on unnecessary bureaucracy, nor on heavy fines imposed by the IAO under GAR#440.

"Either make it an online system that you log in yourself, and untick one box and tick another, or add in a couple of weeks long processing time. He could still change his official sex/gender, but only as often as is feasible. Araraukar has the time set at a month, simply because of all the systems where it needs to be updated, and individuals are encouraged to pick "other", if they're genderfluid."

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC: Under clause 3 and 12, would those who are biologically male be able to participate in women's sport competitions on the mere basis of self-identification?

[The Xaviet Empire]

IC:and this, boys. Is why we are not in the WA

OOC:y e z

[American Pere Housh]

OOC: Under clause 3 and 12, would those who are biologically male be able to participate in women's sport competitions on the mere basis of self-identification?

"Well, APH will leave the WA in protest if this proposal ever passed."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Under clause 3 and 12, would those who are biologically male be able to participate in women's sport competitions on the mere basis of self-identification?

"Well, APH will leave the WA in protest if this proposal ever passed."

"This has never, ever stopped a proposal, ambassador. What makes you think this is persuasive?"

[Araraukar]

OOC: Under clause 3 and 12, would those who are biologically male be able to participate in women's sport competitions on the mere basis of self-identification?

OOC: Wouldn't that depend on the organizers? If they were fine with it, then go ahead. But they could easily set up a non-discriminatory way to determine who competes in what category by, say, amount of testosterone in the blood. Might bump some cis women into men's category too, but eh, would at least be fair.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Well, hopefully, the Ambassador of the Empire of ShrewLlamaLand could enlighten the Holy Empire on how Mr Shapiro and his many followers could be dealt with without running afoul of the proposal. The Holy Empire does not want to waste resources on unnecessary bureaucracy, nor on heavy fines imposed by the IAO under GAR#440.

"Either make it an online system that you log in yourself, and untick one box and tick another, or add in a couple of weeks long processing time. He could still change his official sex/gender, but only as often as is feasible. Araraukar has the time set at a month, simply because of all the systems where it needs to be updated, and individuals are encouraged to pick "other", if they're genderfluid."

This is a very reasonable policy. Again, I think these sorts of issues can easily be dealt with on a national basis and don't need to be explicitly regulated on in this proposal.

OOC: Under clause 3 and 12, would those who are biologically male be able to participate in women's sport competitions on the mere basis of self-identification?

OOC: Wouldn't that depend on the organizers? If they were fine with it, then go ahead. But they could easily set up a non-discriminatory way to determine who competes in what category by, say, amount of testosterone in the blood. Might bump some cis women into men's category too, but eh, would at least be fair.

OOC: I'd agree with this. The current Olympic policy seems a fairly reasonable option to recreate here in game if people are geniunely concerned about this.

The new guidelines require only that trans woman athletes declare their gender and not change that assertion for four years, and demonstrate a testosterone level of less than 10 nanomoles/liter for at least one year prior to competition and throughout the period of eligibility. Athletes who transitioned from female to male were allowed to compete without restriction.

However, I don't think this is strictly required by the legislation in its current form. If enough people disagree with this assumption I'll be happy to clarify this in text.

I'm going to make the change regarding legal gender definitions, and do a trial submission to gauge legality as suggested by Morover. My expectation is that it contradicts GA#91, but hopefully not GA#467.

[Tinfect]

OOC: I'd agree with this. The current Olympic policy seems a fairly reasonable option to recreate here in game if people are geniunely concerned about this.

OOC:
Trans people should be able to compete as the gender that they are, full-stop. Anything else is absurd.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Is there any part of this that is not already covered by existing legislation?

[ShrewLlamaLand]

OOC: I'd agree with this. The current Olympic policy seems a fairly reasonable option to recreate here in game if people are geniunely concerned about this.

OOC:
Trans people should be able to compete as the gender that they are, full-stop. Anything else is absurd.

OOC: I absolutely agree with you on principle, but trans women who are non-transitioning or early in transition do have an inherent physical advantage in athletic events due to higher testosterone levels.

Plus (and as much as I dislike this logic, someone else will bring it up so I might as well...) if there is a sufficient incentive, monetary or otherwise, to win these events, there exists the potential for abuse cases.

Having a period where hormone levels need to be kept within a normal cis female range seems like a reasonable compromise to make and addresses both those concerns, although as above I don't think I need to specify this in this proposal? Happy to hear your thoughts?

OOC: Is there any part of this that is not already covered by existing legislation?

Yes. Most of the definitons and several clauses (mostly related to surgical intervention) are completely new and unrelated to existing legislation.

I see the ruling, as expected, was illegal due to duplication:

Duplication of existing legislation (all of this is already covered by GAR#91, GAR#457, GAR#467)

I don't see any significant duplication of GA#457, only one clause is similar and is further elaborated on here. Correct me if I'm wrong on this?

Much of GA#91 is duplicated here, but as I specified in the OP this proposal uses outdated, or simply incorrect, terminology and several questionable clauses. This will be the proposal I target for a repeal before resubmitting this as a replacement.

There is some duplication of GA#467, but this proposal builds on this and expands these protections, again from the OP:

- the resolution does not sufficiently detail what "affordable and easy to access" entails
- the resolution defines "hormone therapy" as "medical treatment involving the use of naturally occurring hormones", which does not include synthetic testosterone blockers, "antiandrogens", commonly used in feminizing treatment;
- the resolution is ambiguous as to whether it includes synthetic estrogen and testosterone derivatives, which are often required for effective administration of these hormones;
- are gender non-binary people, who also may want to alter their secondary sex characteristics, entitled access to hormone treatment? The resolution is unclear.

Can I ask, in your opinion, would a repeal of GA#91 be sufficient for the proposal in its current state to be deemed legal? Or would I need to repeal both GA#91 and GA#467?

[Tinfect]

OOC: I absolutely agree with you on principle, but trans women who are non-transitioning or early in transition do have an inherent physical advantage in athletic events due to higher testosterone levels.
Plus (and as much as I dislike this logic, someone else will bring it up so I might as well...) if there is a sufficient incentive, monetary or otherwise, to win these events, there exists the potential for abuse cases.

OOC:
This is minimally true, at best, and in reality would never play into any serious consideration. I won't entertain elaborate horror-fantasies about things that have never happened, and all but certainly never will happen.

Having a period where hormone levels need to be kept within a normal cis female range seems like a reasonable compromise to make and addresses both those concerns, although as above I don't think I need to specify this in this proposal? Happy to hear your thoughts?

Whose normal levels? Which cis women? What are we going to do about cis women whose natural levels do not fall within these supposed 'natural ranges'? Unlike transphobic fear mongering about 'what if this is abused somehow', we actually have a case study for this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/spor ... loses.html

Female track athletes with naturally elevated levels of testosterone must decrease the hormone to participate in certain races at major competitions like the Olympics,
[...]
Semenya’s biology has been under scrutiny for a decade, ever since she burst on the scene at the 2009 world track and field championships and was subjected to sex tests following her victory.
[...]
But the sports court expressed some “serious concerns” on Wednesday about the fairness and practical application of testosterone limits. These concerns include the potential inability of athletes to remain within permitted limits even with hormonal treatment and the “practical impossibility” of compliance some athletes may face because of the treatment’s side effects.
[...]
The I.A.A.F. accepts athletes with differences of sexual development as legally female. For competitive purposes, though, it effectively considers them biologically male.
[...]
If Semenya wants to keep participating in her specialty, the 800 meters, at major international competitions, she faces some hard choices: take hormone-suppressing drugs and reduce her testosterone levels below five nanomoles per liter for six months before competing, and maintain those lowered levels; compete against men; or enter competitions for intersex athletes, if any are offered. Otherwise, she would not be allowed to run the 800 at prestigious competitions like the Olympics.
[...]
No female athlete would have natural testosterone levels of five nanomoles per liter or higher without differences in sex development or tumors, the I.A.A.F. has said.[\

Paula Radcliffe of England, the world-record holder in the women’s marathon, said Wednesday that she respected the court’s decision “for ruling that women’s sport needs rules to protect it.”

But Semenya and her supporters challenge the notion that biological sex is so neat and binary. Semenya has called the I.A.A.F. rule, which was introduced a year ago, medically unnecessary as well as “discriminatory, irrational, unjustifiable” and a violation of the rules of sport and universally recognized human rights.
[...]
The World Medical Association on Wednesday called on doctors around the world not to implement the I.A.A.F.’s rule. Its president, Dr. Leonid Eidelman of Israel, said in a statement: “We have strong reservations about the ethical validity of these regulations. They are based on weak evidence from a single study, which is currently being widely debated by the scientific community.”
[...]
But Coleman, the law professor, said that in sports “distinguishing people on the basis of their biology actually matters a lot.”

“It matters because if we failed to do it, we will lose the capacity to isolate the best females on the planet,” she added. “We would never see a female body on the podium.”

The court also expressed concern about a lack of concrete evidence that athletes with differences of sexual development gain a significant advantage at longer race distances — 1,500 meters and the mile. The panel asked that the I.A.A.F. consider deferring application of its testosterone rule beyond 800 meters “until more evidence is available.”

These 'concerns' about testosterone content are nothing more than dressed-up transphobia that is materially harming cis women; effectively preventing a huge number of women, transgender and cisgender, from competing as women. Rigidly declaring that their bodies are inherently not 'female bodies'. These 'natural ranges' are as often as not racialized and psuedoscientific. The simple reality is that biology is not binary, not remotely, not even within closely related populations, not within the same genetic background, not even within the same species. Hell, half the goddamn women in my family have 'elevated' testosterone.

If this concern was genuinely about testosterone content, then they would suggest doing away with gendered sports entirely, and instead group competitors in blocks of testosterone. It is not about that. It is about defining 'women' to mean as small a group as possible, so as to exclude transwomen, and anyone else who they feel should not really be considered a woman.

It is absolutely unacceptable to enshrine this madness in law.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

-snip-

OOC: Besides the fact that there is some precedent for the claim of a risk for abuse, it is well established that biological males are on average faster and stronger than biological women. If such an advantage is considered not a problem, it remains entirely unclear why we have sex-segregated sports to begin with. The reality is that allowing biological males to participate in women's sport competitions diminishes the opportunity of biological women to excel in (inter)national sport competitions, which is why Title IX was passed to begin with.

It is absolutely unacceptable to enshrine this madness in law.

[Tinfect]

[transphobic drivel]

OOC:
A fine example of the people you should ignore. Do go spread your transphobic fear-mongering elsewhere. Or don't. I won't be too broken up about it.

[Jakker]

[transphobic drivel]

OOC:
A fine example of the people you should ignore. Do go spread your transphobic fear-mongering elsewhere. Or don't. I won't be too broken up about it.

Tinfect, if you want to call someone's opinion transphobic that is one thing, but you editing their post like that as well as calling it drivel falls in line with malicious quote-editing. You may not alter another's posts without indicating what the original was. If you want to spoil it or snippet it, that would be more acceptable. *** Warned for malicious quote-editing ***

[ShrewLlamaLand]

-snip-

OOC: Besides the fact that there is some precedent for the claim of a risk for abuse, it is well established that biological males are on average faster and stronger than biological women. If such an advantage is considered not a problem, it remains entirely unclear why we have sex-segregated sports to begin with. The reality is that allowing biological males to participate in women's sport competitions diminishes the opportunity of biological women to excel in (inter)national sport competitions, which is why Title IX was passed to begin with.

It is absolutely unacceptable to enshrine this madness in law.

Can you define "biological male" for me?

Overall I think the inclusion of a clause regarding participation in athletic events is going to do this proposal more harm than good, regardless of how exactly it legislates on the issue, so I'm not intending to include one in this draft. Perhaps a separate proposal more generally covering eligibility in athletic events (which could also legislate on, for example, cis women with high testosterone levels?) could be drafted to address this.

I'm currently working on drafting the repeal for GA#91, which will be posted in a new thread soon-ish.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC: Besides the fact that there is some precedent for the claim of a risk for abuse, it is well established that biological males are on average faster and stronger than biological women. If such an advantage is considered not a problem, it remains entirely unclear why we have sex-segregated sports to begin with. The reality is that allowing biological males to participate in women's sport competitions diminishes the opportunity of biological women to excel in (inter)national sport competitions, which is why Title IX was passed to begin with.

It is absolutely unacceptable to enshrine this madness in law.

Can you define "biological male" for me?.

OOC: Somone who has male biological features: an Y chromosome, balance of testosterone and estrogen, the reproductive system, the type of gonad, and external genitalia.