Repeal Convention on Gender

[Second Indus Order]

The General Assembly,

NOTING the resolution's intention to improve worldwide human and civil rights;

CONCERNED on the lackluster redefining of gender from natural to the merely "prevalent";

SUPPORTING for nations to act on the topic of Gender on a non-revisionist way;

Hereby Repeals Resolution on the Convention on Gender(World Assembly Resolution #91).

[Sincluda]

OOC: This is illegal for being a NatSov only at the moment. How can you find an argument against this legislation in particular, and less about sovereignty?

[Second Indus Order]

OOC: This is illegal for being a NatSov only at the moment. How can you find an argument against this legislation in particular, and less about sovereignty?

We think that enforcing the particular definition of gender as also by cultural roles each culture usually ascribes them, goes against ours and quite possibly many other nation state's values, which they may choose to abstain from. Keeping that in mind, nations who do support this theory may choose to voluntarily do so.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: This is illegal for being a NatSov only at the moment. How can you find an argument against this legislation in particular, and less about sovereignty?

We think that enforcing the particular definition of gender as also by cultural roles each culture usually ascribes them, goes against ours and quite possibly many other nation state's values, which they may choose to abstain from. Keeping that in mind, nations who do support this theory may choose to voluntarily do so.

Repeating your natsov only argument doesn't make it less illegal. You'll have to make arguments against the actual resolution, rather than merely assert that member states should be free to do whatever they want.

[Second Indus Order]

We think that enforcing the particular definition of gender as also by cultural roles each culture usually ascribes them, goes against ours and quite possibly many other nation state's values, which they may choose to abstain from. Keeping that in mind, nations who do support this theory may choose to voluntarily do so.

Repeating your natsov only argument doesn't make it less illegal. You'll have to make arguments against the actual resolution, rather than merely assert that member states should be free to do whatever they want.

Hi
How about the fact that human gender has been genetic for all human history, with the exception of modern times. We must return to tradition and oppose these modern notions which redefine what is written in scripture. Trad states like us therefore object to this convention.

[Sincluda]

Repeating your natsov only argument doesn't make it less illegal. You'll have to make arguments against the actual resolution, rather than merely assert that member states should be free to do whatever they want.

Hi
How about the fact that human gender has been genetic for all human history, with the exception of modern times. We must return to tradition and oppose these modern notions which redefine what is written in scripture. Trad states like us therefore object to this convention.

ok make that your repeal then

[Second Indus Order]

Hi
How about the fact that human gender has been genetic for all human history, with the exception of modern times. We must return to tradition and oppose these modern notions which redefine what is written in scripture. Trad states like us therefore object to this convention.

ok make that your repeal then

Well perhaps you could help me, I am new to this, and I do not know to how integrate this argument into my format.

[Wallenburg]

Repeating your natsov only argument doesn't make it less illegal. You'll have to make arguments against the actual resolution, rather than merely assert that member states should be free to do whatever they want.

Hi
How about the fact that human gender has been genetic for all human history, with the exception of modern times. We must return to tradition and oppose these modern notions which redefine what is written in scripture. Trad states like us therefore object to this convention.

I didn't realize that there was genetic testing way back then. I wonder how they managed to identify every person's genetic gender when the concept of genetic material hadn't even been conceived.

[Sincluda]

ok make that your repeal then

Well perhaps you could help me, I am new to this, and I do not know to how integrate this argument into my format.

My suggestion is to try to find a way to put what you just said into words similar to those you have in your draft.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

OOC: This is illegal for being a NatSov only at the moment. How can you find an argument against this legislation in particular, and less about sovereignty?

We think that enforcing the particular definition of gender as also by cultural roles each culture usually ascribes them, goes against ours and quite possibly many other nation state's values, which they may choose to abstain from. Keeping that in mind, nations who do support this theory may choose to voluntarily do so.

OOC: You argue Westphalian sovereignty in a chamber as non-Westphalian as possible, in the name of oppressing the Others you personally deem to be objectionable. Do you see where this is going?

[Separatist Peoples]

Repeating your natsov only argument doesn't make it less illegal. You'll have to make arguments against the actual resolution, rather than merely assert that member states should be free to do whatever they want.

Hi
How about the fact that human gender has been genetic for all human history, with the exception of modern times. We must return to tradition and oppose these modern notions which redefine what is written in scripture. Trad states like us therefore object to this convention.

"Why is your scripture worthy of international adherence, ambassador?"

[Outer Sparta]

Not well-written of a repeal and the arguments are not sufficient.

[Second Indus Order]

We think that enforcing the particular definition of gender as also by cultural roles each culture usually ascribes them, goes against ours and quite possibly many other nation state's values, which they may choose to abstain from. Keeping that in mind, nations who do support this theory may choose to voluntarily do so.

OOC: You argue Westphalian sovereignty in a chamber as non-Westphalian as possible, in the name of oppressing the Others you personally deem to be objectionable. Do you see where this is going?

>anime profile picture

[Second Indus Order]

The General Assembly,

NOTING the resolution's intention to improve worldwide human and civil rights;

CONCERNED on the lackluster redefining of gender from natural to the merely "prevalent";

SUPPORTING for nations to act on the topic of Gender on a non-revisionist way;

Hereby Repeals Resolution on the Convention on Gender(World Assembly Resolution #91).

[Outer Sparta]

OOC: You argue Westphalian sovereignty in a chamber as non-Westphalian as possible, in the name of oppressing the Others you personally deem to be objectionable. Do you see where this is going?

>anime profile picture

Do you have any other good faith and structured rebuttals to ABH's criticisms or are you just going to dismiss it entirely by saying they have an anime profile pic?

[Frisbeeteria]

Repealing Convention on Gender

All drafts belong in the same thread. Threads merged.

>anime profile picture

*** Warned for flamebaiting and spam ***

[Berhakonia]

>anime profile picture

Do you have any other good faith and structured rebuttals to ABM's criticisms or are you just going to dismiss it entirely by saying they have an anime profile pic?

Indus is too much of a sigma male for us lowly virgins

[Separatist Peoples]

The General Assembly,

NOTING the resolution's intention to improve worldwide human and civil rights;

CONCERNED on the lackluster redefining of gender from natural to the merely "prevalent";

SUPPORTING for nations to act on the topic of Gender on a non-revisionist way;

Hereby Repeals Resolution on the Convention on Gender(World Assembly Resolution #91).

"What benefit do the minorities being protected under the resolution gain by devolving authority to member states?"

[Tsaivao]

"Opposed. Nothing more than the petulant whining of a state that's unhappy that rights and liberties take precedence over faith and tradition. If you would like to exercise your right to full autonomy on this matter, consider abandoning the World Assembly so that the target resolution no longer applies, rather than sinking the entire Assembly down with you."

[Jedinsto]

"The WA has no place to tell people they can't feel female, male, or anywhere in between."

[Second Indus Order]

Do you have any other good faith and structured rebuttals to ABM's criticisms or are you just going to dismiss it entirely by saying they have an anime profile pic?

Indus is too much of a sigma male for us lowly virgins

>Barge into discussion
>I am opposed to LGBT laws
>Refuse to elaborate.
lol.

[Second Indus Order]

"The WA has no place to tell people they can't feel female, male, or anywhere in between."

that's the thing. the WA has no right to redefine gender to some kind of spectrum as opposed to the original unit of male and female. we simply want to repeal that.

plus how does a plea to repeal a convention go into voting? i am new to this

[Tsaivao]

"The WA has no place to tell people they can't feel female, male, or anywhere in between."

that's the thing. the WA has no right to redefine gender to some kind of spectrum as opposed to the original unit of male and female. we simply want to repeal that.

plus how does a plea to repeal a convention go into voting? i am new to this

OOC: Nobody said gender was a spectrum, gender is just what gender identity the person believes that they are. The WA is only enforcing that member states recognize that people can decide their own gender for themselves, and not require neat little confined boxes when people don't want them. The WA doesn't have a right to determine anyone's gender, meaning that the WA makes all member nations comply to that same standard of accepting all genders as valid. Just because you personally disagree with it does not make it grounds for a repeal, as your original NatSov-only arguments have stated. Even with an argument of strange proportions that "The WA has no right to fight for civil rights," the rest of the assembly will most likely not agree with you.

As for your latter question, the process is that you'd draft it here on the forums, take in feedback, maybe let it sit for a while before then writing it up and submitting it on the World Assembly page (click the number next to "proposals" and then click "submit a proposal"). You then have to reach quorum from something like 6% (?) of all World Assembly delegates across different regions (which at this time means you need about 80 approvals to pass quorum and go to vote). Once you've hit your 80 approvals, the proposal is put on queue and then voted on, and only then can your legislation work.

But again, as I've said, even if this were one of the most well-written counter-arguments in the world, the World Assembly as a whole (based on past popular votes) does not want to reduce the rights of transgender, non-binary, and gender-fluid individuals over asinine cultural traditions from backwaters they don't care about.

[Drew Durrnil]

why are we wasting time on this fascist crap

[Danaqa]

"The WA has no place to tell people they can't feel female, male, or anywhere in between."

that's the thing. the WA has no right to redefine gender to some kind of spectrum as opposed to the original unit of male and female. we simply want to repeal that.

plus how does a plea to repeal a convention go into voting? i am new to this

Gender has never been just male and female. Many cultures around the world recognized multiple gender identities. Just because you’re westernized doesn’t mean that gender is as well. There are the Hijras of India, Māhū of Hawai’i, two spirits of indigenous America, Muxe of Oaxaca, Fa'afafine of Polynesia, Sworn Virgins of Albania, Chibados of Angola, Waria of Indonesia, Travestis of Latin America, and Knanith of Oman. Just because your belief tells you something, doesn’t mean it’s correct. You just have to open up your mind. The conversation isn’t about a redefinition of your archaic values, it’s about including the marginalized peoples that your ideology do desperately tries to erase.

And to further piggyback on the above quote, if most of the WA votes for, than it goes into action. If the WA votes against, then it doesn’t go into action. And therefore the decisions of the WA affect your nation slightly.