NationStates

IC: Proposed by Bianca Venkman, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador... again. The title is D-A Smith's fault.
OOC: Thank you, Maria Beatrice Giovanardi... and not for the first time, either.

Minimising Gender Stereotypes in Dictionaries
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Disappointed that some dictionaries sold in member states still contain definitions of the word "woman" which depict women in a degrading manner relative to men and non-binary people,

Believing that such depictions normalise negative gender stereotypes, which can subsequently lead to decreased levels of self-esteem and wellbeing among women, and

Convinced, subsequently, that it is in the best interest of this august body to reduce the prevalence of such depictions - especially in media as fundamental to sapient development in each member state as dictionaries...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines a "dictionary" as any resource published in any format (including in print, online, and on machine-readable disc) with the intention of defining each word in common usage in a given language, and
2. strongly urges the publishers of each dictionary produced or sold in any member state to amend their definition of the word "woman" (including synonyms and real-world examples of usage) to:
   
   1. ensure that it does not contain any phrasing which a reasonable reader of that dictionary will believe to be sexist, degrading towards women, or otherwise objectionable, or
   2. where this is not viable, clearly label such phrasing as being sexist,
3. recommends that the publishers of each such dictionary make similar changes to the definitions of any other word which refers to an arbitrary, reductive characteristic that can be held by an individual, and
4. clarifies that this resolution does not impose any restrictions on freedom of expression on behalf of the World Assembly itself.

Is it really necessary for the General Assembly to decide what goes in a dictionary?

OOC: I feel comfortable saying this is most definitely not an international concern, not even remotely close to one.

The World Assembly is here to address real, actual problems, not imaginary ones. Please don't waste the World Assembly time with imaginary problems.

Also, this is exclusively a problem in English, and your proposal will not only solve an imaginary problem in the English language exclusively but it'll also make it impossible to print dictionaries at all in langauges where gender neutrality is impossible. I'd love to see how you expect to extebd your proposal to countries that speak langauges such as Arabic, Hebrew, French, Spanish, Italian, etc. Langauges where gender neutrality is totally, utterly and completely impossible. Considering that all WA laws apply to all nations equally, nations that speak these langauges would be affected, trying to solve an imaginary problem in a manner that is incompatible with the entire structure of their languages

Tinhampton wrote:especially in media as fundamental to sapient development in each member state as dictionaries...

Yes?

"Sorry, we just reestablished communication with the WA a few minutes ago, turns out all of their telegrams got dumped directly into the furnace in the West Auzea headquarters (serving to save thousands on Heating). And our main question now that we've started re-integration and level-4.a compliance is: Why is this a thing that is needed to be legislated?"

Girl Power

"While the Commonwealth of the Langburn Islands empathizes with your concerns D-A Venkman, we are opposed to this resolution as it's passage will establish a dangerous precedent in permitting the restriction of freedom of speech.

It should be no business of any government, international, national or subnational, to force censorship on writers and publishers. This resolution is an outrageous restriction on civil liberties."

This isn't an international national provincial local issue.

Jedinsto wrote:Is it really necessary for the General Assembly to decide what goes in a dictionary?

No

Against. If your government wishes to do this you can but we aren’t

I feel like things like this are a step in the right direction for inclusivity, but as Australian rePublic said, this is mostly a problem for Romantic and gendered languages. This may be an English mostly platform, but it doesn't mean that English is to be the only language spoken here. Keep that in mind as we move along. As a native Chinese speaker, Chinese is a lot more gender-neutral compared to English or other Romantic languages. Keep that in mind if you're going to actually push this resolution through for submission.

The woman part would be tough to actually follow up on in my opinion? How do you make the word "woman" sexist or offensive? Can you provide an example of where "woman" is used in a degrading/sexist manner? As far as I know, a woman could mean two things: someone born with female characteristics and someone who identifies with a female, not mutually exclusive. I'm unsure of any examples as to how a dictionary could make a word's definition degrading. If you could please correct me, I would love to be corrected right now.

And I would like to agree with The Langburn Islands here. We can't dictate what a dictionary says. This is a dangerous precedent if set. If we start minimizing certain definitions, it can lead to lots of miseducation on certain words and their meanings and it could act as a justification for a restriction on free speech. Please consider that as well if you're going to be pushing this resolution through.

I would vote against this resolution in its current state. We are not to dictate what goes inside a dictionary.

"Opposed. The World Assembly is for real problems. Not soapbox standing."