[PASSED] Access to Transgender Hormone Therapy

[Araraukar]

OOC: Not entirely certain this is actually needed given existing resolutions, but for obvious personal reasons not opposed, so... will vote for if and when it gets into vote, I guess.

[Jedinsto]

"Why does the WA need two resolutions regarding hormone therapy for gender identity disorder, and not all forms of cosmetic therapy? Why should someone with body dysmorphic disorder not get access to free plastic surgery? There is absolutely no reason taxpayers should be paying for someone's cosmetic therapy, especially not when this proposal makes no distinction between minors and adults, allowing any infant or minor to get access to HRT, which is an exception not made for any other medical procedure in this assembly, excluding, of course, abortion."

"People deserve to express their gender identity no matter how wealthy they are."

[Marxist Germany]

This fearmongering is not appreciated. Legal competence laws will prevent infants from getting on HRT so you’re talking out of your arse.

OOC: Even if that is true, legal competence laws do not stop parents from giving them to children.

OOC: Though of course, what did I expect from the that person is openly against "transgenderism" in his forum signature.

This is a good reminder for me to scrap the poorly written section in my signature on political views. To clarify, my opposition is to allowing children to access puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones; adults are not making life-altering decisions during early childhood or puberty, periods during which many people experience identity disturbances as part of normal development; therefore, adults should be able to change their appearance, but that is not something the state should fund with taxpayer money.

"People deserve to express their gender identity no matter how wealthy they are."

"If so, then this assembly should make barbers and apparel stores state-funded and free for all to access. If someone wants to express their gender identity by wearing expensive watches and hand-tailored suits, it is not the taxpayers who should fund such luxuries with their hard-earned money."

[Morover]

"People deserve to express their gender identity no matter how wealthy they are."

"If so, then this assembly should make barbers and apparel stores state-funded and free for all to access. If someone wants to express their gender identity by wearing expensive watches and hand-tailored suits, it is not the taxpayers who should fund such luxuries with their hard-earned money."

Darin Perise.

"This is a false equivalency and you know it. Take your bad-faith argumentation out of this chamber, ambassador."

[Greater Cesnica]

"If so, then this assembly should make barbers and apparel stores state-funded and free for all to access. If someone wants to express their gender identity by wearing expensive watches and hand-tailored suits, it is not the taxpayers who should fund such luxuries with their hard-earned money."

Ambassador McCooley scoffs. "Access to proper medication and treatment is very different from access to watches and suits. What a disingenuous argument."

[Wallenburg]

I feel like this is turning into the new abortion debate with how often someone writes a proposal about it.

[Marxist Germany]

"If so, then this assembly should make barbers and apparel stores state-funded and free for all to access. If someone wants to express their gender identity by wearing expensive watches and hand-tailored suits, it is not the taxpayers who should fund such luxuries with their hard-earned money."

Ambassador McCooley scoffs. "Access to proper medication and treatment is very different from access to watches and suits. What a disingenuous argument."

"Let us not lie to ourselves, ambassador McCooley, hormone therapy is not a treatment, but rather a method for someone to change their appearance to the way they want it to be, just like plastic surgery. A treatment would be something that treats the underlying problem, which is that a person's perception of their identity is in conflict with their biology and genes. Besides, this resolution does not make the distinction between medically necessary hormone therapy, and purely cosmetic one. As for calling my argument disingenuous, the ambassador was claiming that people should be able 'to express their gender identity' regardless of their wealth, and there is nothing stopping someone from claiming that their gender expression relies on expensive apparel."

[Araraukar]

"Let us not lie to ourselves, ambassador McCooley, hormone therapy is not a treatment, but rather a method for someone to change their appearance to the way they want it to be, just like plastic surgery. A treatment would be something that treats the underlying problem, which is that a person's perception of their identity is in conflict with their biology and genes. Besides, this resolution does not make the distinction between medically necessary hormone therapy, and purely cosmetic one. As for calling my argument disingenuous, the ambassador was claiming that people should be able 'to express their gender identity' regardless of their wealth, and there is nothing stopping someone from claiming that their gender expression relies on expensive apparel."

"If your nation has perfected the way to change one's body to fit one's gender, right down to their DNA, then I am sure your citizens would prefer to use that method instead of hormone therapy, but I daresay that for the majority of member nations that is not an available choice and thus hormone therapy is a necessary addition to the methods being used. It is funny you should mention plastic surgery, however, as gender reassignment surgery is medically necessary plastic surgery. No different from you getting your face fixed after it has been malformed by an unfortunate accident."

[ShrewLlamaLand]

While I support this proposal in principle, if it reaches quorum I will be voting against.

This effectively makes GA#467 redundant - why not repeal it first instead of tip-toeing around it?

[Honeydewistania]

While I support this proposal in principle, if it reaches quorum I will be voting against.

This effectively makes GA#467 redundant - why not repeal it first instead of tip-toeing around it?

GA#467’s existence did not cause me problems writing this resolution aside from potential duplication illegality, so I saw no reason to repeal it if I could write this without having to temporarily remove vital protections.

Also, voting against this because I didn’t repeal it first is completely ridiculous. If you’re so obsessed with getting one over Morover, go and repeal 467 after this passes.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

While I support this proposal in principle, if it reaches quorum I will be voting against.

This effectively makes GA#467 redundant - why not repeal it first instead of tip-toeing around it?

GA#467’s existence did not cause me problems writing this resolution aside from potential duplication illegality, so I saw no reason to repeal it if I could write this without having to temporarily remove vital protections.

Also, voting against this because I didn’t repeal it first is completely ridiculous. If you’re so obsessed with getting one over Morover, go and repeal 467 after this passes.

It's not ridiculous. When you draft a replacement, convention is that you repeal the target resolution (which is often, but not always, required for legality reasons).

If you were expanding on the original resolution, it would of course be fine to submit this without a repeal... but this isn't an expansion, because you're legislating on the exact same thing. If this passes, GA#467 is entirely redundant.

Technically, sure you can tip-toe around it SC legality wise, but... why? Whether you believe me or not, I could not care less about Morover - but there is literally no reason not to repeal GA#467 unless you're exceedingly desperate to spare Morover's feelings.

[Hookah Castle]

https://imgflip.com/i/5jw0cs

What I immediately thought of with such a resolution. This is why I'm big brain supreme leader.

[Sylh Alanor]

https://imgflip.com/i/5jw0cs

What I immediately thought of with such a resolution. This is why I'm big brain supreme leader.

Maybe we can collectively agree to not view a maligned and oppressed demographic in an exclusively-sexual way. Maybe that's the least we can do as human beings.

[Honeydewistania]

GA#467’s existence did not cause me problems writing this resolution aside from potential duplication illegality, so I saw no reason to repeal it if I could write this without having to temporarily remove vital protections.

Also, voting against this because I didn’t repeal it first is completely ridiculous. If you’re so obsessed with getting one over Morover, go and repeal 467 after this passes.

It's not ridiculous. When you draft a replacement, convention is that you repeal the target resolution (which is often, but not always, required for legality reasons).

The convention is to repeal resolutions for a reason. I repealed resolutions such as "Promotion of Recycling" because it was actively preventing a better resolution on the topic. I do not need to repeal 467 to pass this. Therefore I will not. I do not wish to unnecessarily repeal resolutions.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

It's not ridiculous. When you draft a replacement, convention is that you repeal the target resolution (which is often, but not always, required for legality reasons).

The convention is to repeal resolutions for a reason. I repealed resolutions such as "Promotion of Recycling" because it was actively preventing a better resolution on the topic. I do not need to repeal 467 to pass this. Therefore I will not. I do not wish to unnecessarily repeal resolutions.

Can you give an example of an old resolution that still exists after being made entirely redundant by its replacement (as GA#467 will be)?

[Wallenburg]

The convention is to repeal resolutions for a reason. I repealed resolutions such as "Promotion of Recycling" because it was actively preventing a better resolution on the topic. I do not need to repeal 467 to pass this. Therefore I will not. I do not wish to unnecessarily repeal resolutions.

Can you give an example of an old resolution that still exists after being made entirely redundant by its replacement (as GA#467 will be)?

Preventing the Execution of Innocents

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Can you give an example of an old resolution that still exists after being made entirely redundant by its replacement (as GA#467 will be)?

Preventing the Execution of Innocents

False.

The death penalty is abolished except for crimes under a military penal code committed during time of war.

GA#443 still applies for crimes under those circumstances.

[Wallenburg]

Preventing the Execution of Innocents

False.

The death penalty is abolished except for crimes under a military penal code committed during time of war.

GA#443 still applies for crimes under those circumstances.

See GA #545.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

False.



GA#443 still applies for crimes under those circumstances.

See GA #545.

Fair enough. In this case, GA#443 should be repealed.

I will say this is not a great comparison because neither proposal acts as a direct replacement for GA#443, and thus I don't think it's unreasonable to wait until after they pass to repeal the original resolution.

For all intents and purposes, this proposal is a direct replacement for GA#467 - it's legislating on the exact same thing. Hypothetically, if they had significantly different intentions - for example if the original proposal addressed the legality of transgender HRT, and this addressed access - I would not have a problem with doing the same here, but that is not the case as both proposals address access. I don't recall an instance where a direct replacement has been passed without first repealing the original resolution.

edit:

While I support this proposal in principle, if it reaches quorum I will be voting against.

For what it's worth, I retract this statement and will likely vote for this proposal either way.

Regardless of the claims people make regarding my region, or myself as an individual, I have no strong feelings towards or against Morover. I do also personally support the provisions contained within this proposal contains, and would also like to see it (or a very similar version) pass.

I do think, however, that by not first repealing GA#467 you're making this a lot harder to pass than it needs to be. "Don't we already have a resolution on this?" is not an unreasonable stance to take, and given the answer is "yes, but it's not great" I think it is reasonable to suggest that passing additional provisions through a repeal and replace gives your proposal a much better chance of becoming law... especially given the reality is that this is a relatively small and already over-legislated area.

[Honeydewistania]

I don't recall an instance where a direct replacement has been passed without first repealing the original resolution.

FYI: The recent "End Conversion Therapy" was passed before "Repeal Ban on Conversion Therapy".

[ShrewLlamaLand]

I don't recall an instance where a direct replacement has been passed without first repealing the original resolution.

FYI: The recent "End Conversion Therapy" was passed before "Repeal Ban on Conversion Therapy".

Yes, but this resolution had always intended to be a repeal and replace - in fact, repeal resolution was posted to the forum at the same time and drafted concurrently.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=508999

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: Given the current proposal is not illegal for duplication, it clearly does not do all the same things as the target. If you dislike superfluous resolutions, go comb through the list, I'm sure there are others. But the repealing of random resolutions is not what this proposal does, so talking about repeals on this thread is quite off-topic. Do you have any critique on the current proposal? The one whose thread this is?

[ShrewLlamaLand]

*snip*

OOC: Given the current proposal is not illegal for duplication, it clearly does not do all the same things as the target. If you dislike superfluous resolutions, go comb through the list, I'm sure there are others. But the repealing of random resolutions is not what this proposal does, so talking about repeals on this thread is quite off-topic. Do you have any critique on the current proposal? The one whose thread this is?

Correct, it legislates additional protections that GA#467 does not, hence it is not entirely duplication. If it passes, however, it does make the aforementioned proposal entirely redundant.

My primary critique of this proposal is that the author did not draft a repeal of the previous resolution concurrently, and preferably submit it beforehand. As I have repeatedly stated I would like to see this pass, but I also think that attempting to do so without a plan to repeal GA#467 makes this more difficult (hence my draft above).

Given the proposal has already been submitted and reached quorum I think it's probably a little late to suggest changes to the content of the proposal, and generally I think it is well written and covers what it needs to. fwiw I do think that clause 3 could probably be changed, as it may put off potential voters in its current form, but it's a minor grievance.

[Coronational Chechyans and affiliates]

Fyi if you respond to this message they sent saying you don't agree with the transgender agenda this author will report you to the mods

[Sylh Alanor]

Fyi if you respond to this message they sent saying you don't agree with the transgender agenda this author will report you to the mods

"Given that bigotry should be cast out of polite society, ambassador, the Alanori delegation considers this a point in favour of this proposal."