[Challenge] Repeal: “Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy”

[Morover]

Link to proposal: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1631198107
And for posterity: https://ifly6.no-ip.org/wa-proposal/the ... 631198107/

The General Assembly;

APPLAUDING the intent of GA Resolution #467 “Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy”, which seeks to ensure universal access to hormone therapy for all consenting individuals in WA member states; but

CONCERNED that parts of GA #467 create serious ambiguity and fail in some cases to adequately protect the rights of transgender individuals;

OBSERVING that resolutions passed both before and after the passage of GA #467 provide a more comprehensive framework for WA member states to work within and address many of the inadequacies of GA #467; for example

NOTING that GA Resolution #91 “A Convention On Gender” had already mandated states provide gender-adequation procedures in addition to establishing the legal status of intersex, transgender, and intergendered persons;

DISAPPOINTED that although GA #467 states that the experiences of transgender individuals “are not the product of “mental illness,” “confusion,” “disease,” or anything of the sort”, it goes on to claim that gender dysphoria is a “mental condition [that] ought to be treated,” an attitude which may unwittingly contribute to public stigmatization and medicalization of transgender individuals, while GA #91 avoids any mention of individuals belonging to non-majoritarian genders innately having an accompanying mental condition;

ALARMED that GA #467 both definitionally excludes puberty blockers as well as synthetic estrogen and testosterone derivatives, which are often required for effective administration of these hormones, and requires member states to provide hormone therapy to any consenting individual, including those who, while capable of consenting, are genuinely medically unfit to receive it, whereas GA Resolution #571 “Access To Transgender Hormone Therapy” addresses both of these issues;

WORRIED that while GA #467 requires that all member states provide affordable access to hormone therapy, it fails to provide for any sort of explicit financial assistance or WA subcommittee to oversee disbursement of aid from the WA General Fund to countries in need of such monetary assistance, a situation which may result in impoverished WA members struggling to comply with its requirements, such a mandate goes beyond GA #467’s purpose in recognizing a civil right by unduly imposing substantial obligations on member states and their populations;

AFFIRMING the WA’s requirements that member states may not criminalize transgender individuals’ expression of their gender identity and its prohibition on using coercion as a tool to either impose or deny an individual hormone therapy; but

CONCERNED that since GA #467 “[f]orbids any member-state from denying a transgender person access to hormone therapy as a punishment or as part of a punishment for a crime”, WA members who impose fines as punishments for crimes (regardless of the gender identity of the criminal) are functionally barred from imposing such punishments on some transgender individuals insofar as an individual may be unbale to both pay the fine and continue their hormone therapy, thereby hindering the effective application of genuine justice in some cases through WA law;

ALARMED that GA #467 simply requires access to hormone therapy, but does not so much as encourage that therapy be overseen by a medical professional, a situation which may lead to poorly-informed individuals with little medical expertise attempting to oversee their own hormone therapy regimen, potentially to harmful effect;

HEREBY, this body does repeal GA Resolution #467 “Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy”.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=467/council=1

The World Assembly, by the advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof, and by the authority of the same, hereby:

Submits the following as fact:

1. Transgender and gender non-binary people are real.
2. Their experiences are not the product of "mental illness," "confusion," "disease," or anything of the sort -- rather, their understanding of their relationship to the world in the lens of gender does not correspond with their biological sex.
3. Their first-hand accounts of this understanding are real; each person is in the best position to understand and discern their own gender identity.
4. Any distress arising from this real disconnect between sex and gender is referred to as gender dysphoria -- like any mental condition, it ought to be treated.
5. Further, it ought to be treated in a manner that respects the fundamental facts: that transgender and non-binary individuals' experiences are real, and that their gender identity is not the same as their birth sex.
6. One such way to resolve the distress is through hormone therapy, and the choice to pursue or not to pursue such treatment ought to rest firmly in the hands of the individual, rather than in the hands of the state.

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "hormone therapy" as a medical treatment involving the use of naturally occurring hormones for the purpose of altering one's secondary sex characteristics to more accurately reflect their gender identity,

Requires all member-states to legalize hormone therapy for all consenting individuals,

Requires all member-states to have an affordable, easy-to-access way for its transgender population to access hormone therapy,

Forbids any member-state from denying a transgender person access to hormone therapy as a punishment or as part of a punishment for a crime,

Forbids any member-state from forcing an individual to undergo hormone therapy.

Co-Authored by United Massachusetts

Rule challenged: Honest Mistake
Relevant clause:

CONCERNED that since GA #467 “[f]orbids any member-state from denying a transgender person access to hormone therapy as a punishment or as part of a punishment for a crime”, WA members who impose fines as punishments for crimes (regardless of the gender identity of the criminal) are functionally barred from imposing such punishments on some transgender individuals insofar as an individual may be unbale to both pay the fine and continue their hormone therapy, thereby hindering the effective application of genuine justice in some cases through WA law;

Argument: Fundamentally, I think that there is contention as to what "affordable" means in the context of GA467 - I think that the most reasonable and commonly accepted definition is that it means that each individual seeking out hormone therapy can reasonably afford it without crippling them economically or creating some other kind of undue burden on them. The example I use for this is that if there are two transgender people, both seeking out hormone therapy, and person A is very wealthy whereas person B is extremely poor, there is nothing in 467 saying that the price must be uniform between them - instead, the reasonable interpretation is that they can both afford it, even if person B's cost is significantly lower than person A's cost.

This same sentiment holds true in the scenario raised by the repeal - if there is a fine imposed on somebody for committing a crime that impacts their own personal affordability for hormone therapy, then the hormone therapy is no longer affordable and must be reevaluated. This can happen through a variety of ways - either government subsidization, an evaluation agency, or any other avenues - but it must happen in one way or another. Thus, the clause in the repeal has a misunderstanding of how the target resolution handles these cases.

[Bears Armed]

I think that it's what the legally-trained members of Gensec (Yes, we have some; No, I'm not among them...) call "a colorable interpretation", and therefore legal. They might disagree, of course.

[Morover]

I think that it's what the legally-trained members of Gensec (Yes, we have some; No, I'm not among them...) call "a colorable interpretation", and therefore legal. They might disagree, of course.

Thanks for looking at it - I'll wait for some other opinions, though, as I still think it's pretty unreasonable.

I think I just think the argument that "not being able to deny people hormone therapy as a punishment means that fined cannot be imposed on certain transgender people" makes literally no sense whatsoever. Even assuming my primary argument regarding the definition of "affordable" here is wrong, (1) Bringing someone below the line to which they can afford hormone therapy is not denying them it, and (2) what sort of reasonable nation would adopt this approach?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

There was a draft proposal that had some issues with a similar claim.

The claim about criminal punishment [clauses 2(c) through 2(e) inclusive] remains an Honest Mistake as written, but could be brought into line with the rule by changing the factual misrepresentations ("physically unable"/"unable to afford", "too dangerous and unstable for a physician to safely administer", "effectively prohibits") to mere exaggerations about "vastly" increased costs and difficulties for the state in the realm of criminal incarceration - both bureaucratic as paperwork, and practical as getting all these horrifyingly vicious transgender prisoners into the Hannibal Lecter getup to receive their hormones - and about the bureacratic difficulty of adding hormone therapy costs to the list of factors like rent, food, clothing, etc. that go into the accountants' schemes for wage garnishment or whatever other means they have of ensuring payment of criminal fines (I'll accept the underlying allegation that most member states have never heard of spreadsheets or databases as "exaggeration" for that purpose ).

Given that GAR #344 exists and exempts only those criminals who "refuse to make a good faith attempt to make restitution for crimes," it is necessarily the case that states must have a mechanism for guaranteeing a minimum standard of living to those individuals who do "make a good faith attempt." In this case, the costs of hormone therapy will simply be added to those existing mechanisms by all compliant states.

By itself, the claim in the repeal is not unreasonable, but the problem is addressed by another resolution entirely.

GenSec precedent is mostly clear that a repeal claim that is true with respect to its target is not an Honest Mistake, even if another resolution(s) already deals with the issue; while I feel as though my colleagues' attitudes may be shifting on that a tiny bit, I don't think we ever overturned that principle.

[Morover]

This has fallen out of queue, so this is no longer relevant. Thanks, GenSec!