[DRAFT] Repeal: A Convention On Gender

[ShrewLlamaLand]

The following is a repeal of GA#91 "A Convention On Gender", and is intended so that a more comprehensive, updated proposal covering transgender rights can be enacted as a replacement, which is currently in drafting here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=485551

GA#91 covers transgender legislation broadly, and unfortunately, not in a particuarly correct way. The proposal is now over a decade old, and uses several outdated terms in addition to several more terms I don't think were ever widely accepted: "Majoritarian genders (MG)", "Intergender persons", and "Gender-adequation procedure (GAP)".

The proposal also includes several phrases that could be interpreted poorly, for example:

4) No intersex, transgender or intergender person shall be forced to choose to fit in any gender; persons are free to keep whatever life-compatible features Nature gave them. They shall be recognized as “intersex” (or culturally equivalent gender terms) if documents require gender identification;

The above seems to imply that transgender people must be recognised as "intersex" if they do not wish to undergo surgical intervention to externally match their identified gender.

6) No intersex, transgender or intergender persons of any age shall have GAPs until they are mature enough to make an informed decision regarding their own future;

This clause is vague and seems to imply that people with, for example, some unrelated mental deficiency would not be "mature enough" and hence never permitted to undergo "GAPs".

7 c) Allowed to have GAPs after they have been informed of the risks & benefits (plus evidence, or lack thereof, for both).

This clause does not set out what "informed of the risks & benefits" entails, and potentially allows for cherry picked statistics to mislead transgender people against their own interests.

The current plan is that this repeal of GA#91 (when drafting is complete) is sufficient enough to allow the replacement legislation to be deemed legal under the duplication rule. Additionally, the replacement proposal does duplicate some of GA#467, however it is my hope that this repeal is not required to be deemed legal (if it is, I will likely submit a modified version of a previous draft viewtopic.php?f=9&t=483436).

Any feedback on the following is welcome.

The World Assembly,

Recognising the honourable intentions of GA#91 in attempting to minimise the many horrors experienced by transgender people;

Noting, however, 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 is now over a decade old, and uses various outdated terms that are not accepted among medical professionals:

• "Majoritarian genders (MG)" referring to the genders "male" and "female";
• "Intergender persons", more commonly referred to as "non binary"; and
• "Gender-adequation procedure (GAP)", now referred to as "Gender Confirmation Surgery (GCS)";

Alarmed that clause 4) requires binary transgender people to be recognised as "intersex", rather than as their identified gender, if they do not wish to undergo surgical intervention to physically match their identified gender;

Concerned that clause 6) is too vague, and may be interpreted in a way that prevents responsible individuals from making their own decisions regarding their personal health;

Troubled that the wording of clause 7 c) may allow those opposed to medical intervention to mislead transgender people against their own interests;

Believing that the repeal of this resolution would allow its replacement by a more comprehensive proposal;

Hereby repeals GA#91: A Convention On Gender.

[Honeydewistania]

Let me see the replacement first

Edit: whoops, I’m a dumbass. Need new glasses

[Kenmoria]

Let me see the replacement first

(OOC: ShrewLlamaLand is currently drafting one here.)

[Araraukar]

Let me see the replacement first

OOC: Seconded.

The target is not perfect, but it - coupled with the later trans-rights resolutions - works well enough.

[Honeydewistania]

Let me see the replacement first

(OOC: ShrewLlamaLand is currently drafting one here.)

Anyways, I don’t really see the need (like what Araraukar said). It is supplemented adequately by later resolutions.

Also, it’s common practise to include a link to the target in the OP.

[Maowi]

OOC: While you're right that some of those terms used are outdated, changing that would have virtually no practical effect; I think that point only really detracts from your main arguments.

I think you could flesh out your main points better. What effect does it have on binary transgender people to have to be recognised as "intersex"? What's the exact way in which clause 6 has the effect you claim it does? What could transgender people be misled towards doing as a result of 7c? Expanding on some of that might benefit the proposal.

[Morover]

OOC:

Just some thoughts:

• If I were you, I'd take out the "observing" clause - it's not relevant and not grounds for repeal.
• It's totally stylistic preference, but in repeals, I feel that commas work better for repeals - the same way I feel they work better for preambles and for the Security Council.
• A bit of advice that was given to me on my recently-passed repeal that I'll carry on to you - for each issue you bring up, explain why that's an issue.
• The latter part of clause four in the target resolution appears to be talking about individuals who do not subscribe to any specific gender or set of gender roles - though I do agree with you that the wording is poor.
• I think that your interpretation of clause six is made in bad faith - that's not to say remove it, I'd just be more cautious when wording it. Your explanation in OP kinda makes sense, but the way it's worded in the draft makes it sound like an honest mistake to me (GenSec can probably weigh in on this in a more meaningful way).
• Another stylistic thing, but when referencing clauses, there's no need to include the close parentheses. It may just be me, but it kinda interrupts the flow of the proposal, aesthetically (which is a weird thing to say, I know).
• Your "troubled" clause is ignoring clause three (and partly clause four) of the target resolution, which means that transgender individuals should be able to undergo any procedure to more accurately correlate themselves with their gender as opposed to biological sex, regardless of the information they have been given. When taken in tandem with clauses 7a and 7b (which by themselves should negate your complaint, given their points about being upfront and honest), which implies in every way that feedback is completely optional, and I don't think you have a case here. This looks like another HM to me.

For the record, I'm generally opposed to a repeal of the target, though I can appreciate your replacement. I do have a feeling that you'll submit this regardless, though, so I decided to leave my thoughts. Hope they helped in some way.

[Qhevak]

Article 6) of WA #91 seems like a clear cut reason to repeal. Hormone therapy is much more likely to result passing characteristics if begun before puberty, and restricting it's use to people older than 18 is likely to have the exact opposite result to "eliminating those horrors".

[Araraukar]

Article 6) of WA #91 seems like a clear cut reason to repeal. Hormone therapy is much more likely to result passing characteristics if begun before puberty, and restricting it's use to people older than 18 is likely to have the exact opposite result to "eliminating those horrors".

OOC: Yeah, but you need to think of the realism of what can be passed and what can't. People who don't understand transgender issues, have kneejerk reactions to anything done to minors, so restricting things to usual age of adulthood (your mileage may vary depending on RP) was likely the only way to pass it, especially given it was passed 10 years ago, when these issues were not as well-known by the general public as they are now.

Link to target.