[DRAFT] Queer Inclusiveness in Education (GA#603 replace.)

[Minskiev]

No, it's not.

Meh, disagree. If some weirdo told me they hated me because I'm male, I'd shrug it off. I know there's nothing wrong with being male, and I know they're crazy.

The definition is written as broadly as it is because this is a regulation for what schools need to reduce, and schools permitting discrimination will (1) cause discrimination to spread well beyond the grounds of just a school (2) hurt students being discriminated against. This is not a resolution mandating what hate speech member states need to crack down on - that is for a future resolution targetting hate speech in general.

But my resolution and definition of hate speech don't permit discrimination?

[Platoon of Peace]

I don't see the problem with Minsk's definition of hate speech? It covers what most would define as hate speech, so what's the problem?

[The Turkmen Emirate]

Homophobia and transphobia are very real things. Malephobia and femalephobia are not

“Are you saying misogyny isn’t a thing?
What about Incels?”

[Apatosaurus]

No, it's not.

Meh, disagree. If some weirdo told me they hated me because I'm male, I'd shrug it off. I know there's nothing wrong with being male, and I know they're crazy.

OOC: "Oh people can just ignore it cuz they're wrong" can be used to justify any bigoted remark.

[Minskiev]

Homophobia and transphobia are very real things. Malephobia and femalephobia are not

“Are you saying misogyny isn’t a thing?
What about Incels?”

Misogyny is not "femalephobia" >_>

Misogyny exists. A student making a claim so silly as "i hate females" is not a comment that genuinely makes people feel unsafe.

Meh, disagree. If some weirdo told me they hated me because I'm male, I'd shrug it off. I know there's nothing wrong with being male, and I know they're crazy.

OOC: "Oh people can just ignore it cuz they're wrong" can be used to justify any bigoted remark.

But the fact is that many people make bigoted remarks like "homosexuality is wrong". Barely anybody is saying "being a male or female is wrong". So one actually does create an unsafe school environment, while the other is silly and inane.

[Apatosaurus]

OOC: "Oh people can just ignore it cuz they're wrong" can be used to justify any bigoted remark.

But the fact is that many people make bigoted remarks like "homosexuality is wrong". Barely anybody is saying "being a male or female is wrong".

Misogyny is absolutely an issue in schools.

So one actually does create an unsafe school environment, while the other is silly and inane.

Both are silly and inane, but both do actually create unsafe school environments. That bigotry is stupid does not mean that schools should not crack down on it.

[Astrobolt]

OOC: Re misogyny, sexism and hate against women, I can unequivocally say that Apato is correct. Also note that incels have killed people before. Its ridiculous to think its not really much of a concern.

For the title, is ‘queer’ accepted worldwide? I know its accepted where I live, but in certain areas it may be associated with its more heinous original homophobic/transphobic meaning.

Lastly, why are we limiting it to ‘non-specialized’ schools?

[The Turkmen Emirate]

But the fact is that many people make bigoted remarks like "homosexuality is wrong". Barely anybody is saying "being a male or female is wrong".

Misogyny is absolutely an issue in schools.

So one actually does create an unsafe school environment, while the other is silly and inane.

Both are silly and inane, but both do actually create unsafe school environments. That bigotry is stupid does not mean that schools should not crack down on it.

“Yes. Indeed we imprison rapists and misogynistic killers for life without parole. Incitement (exempted under WA freedom of speech laws) gets 25 to life, up to life so that they’re only released if deemed safe.
We used to hang them but stopped before we joined the WA, inshallah we’ll always imprison them for life but never hang them again.
Hanging isn’t reversible which endangers the innocent more than long prison terms whilst being no better as a threat to the guilty.
Back to the topics of prejudice, hate speech against women is more likely than hate speech against someone with homosexual urges as it is only Allah (subhana wa tala) is able to read minds whilst a person’s gender identity is normally apparent in how they dress.
Moving on to more pressing matters we support the relevant proposal.”

[Wansul]

"I can't see how this improves on the legislation it seeks to replace. As Apatosaurus pointed out, the definition of hate speech used in their bill is purposefully broad, so that schools have to work to reduce more broad kinds of discrimination and hatred, rather than few specific strains. Narrowing the definition and scale of applications only lets more hate and harm happen, and that's not good for students or anyone."

[Attempted Socialism]

Would 2a apply to universities and other (non-specialised) higher learning institutions?

[Fachumonn]

Completely and utterly unapprove. Seems like once Minsk saw a repeal coming, new they had to whip something up real fast.

Also, what's with all the GA#603 replacements and repeals?

[Untecna]

OOC: I concur with others, mainly Apato and Astrobolt. This replacement seems much worse than the target of your repeal, Minsk, and it shows quite a bit.

For one thing, Apato is correct in the definition. The broadness of the original definition is to pertain to a more broad removal of hate speech rather than what is only expressed in certain types of hate speech.

In another, the clauses only look to apply to "non-specialized schools", but nowhere in the draft is such a term defined. If this term should continue to see use, might I recommend a definition of such a term?

The vagueness kills, however. A lot of this feels vague and schools can just as easily provide lip service and be perfectly acceptable under this resolution. (To clarify, I am referring to Clause 2; what types of resources? It could just as easily be one shoddy counselor that they pay minimum wage, that doesn't help anyone in reality)

I may provide further points given time to fully compare both resolutions next to each other.

[Minskiev]

But the fact is that many people make bigoted remarks like "homosexuality is wrong". Barely anybody is saying "being a male or female is wrong".

Misogyny is absolutely an issue in schools.

Stop putting words in my mouth. While saying "I hate women" is misogynistic, it doesn't carry the same problems as actively discriminating against women.

So one actually does create an unsafe school environment, while the other is silly and inane.

Both are silly and inane, but both do actually create unsafe school environments. That bigotry is stupid does not mean that schools should not crack down on it.

My point is that far more people are homophobic or transphobic than people who hate a sex.

For the title, is ‘queer’ accepted worldwide? I know its accepted where I live, but in certain areas it may be associated with its more heinous original homophobic/transphobic meaning.

It's been largely reclaimed.

Lastly, why are we limiting it to ‘non-specialized’ schools?

Because there is no need for a culinary school to teach gender studies.

"I can't see how this improves on the legislation it seeks to replace. As Apatosaurus pointed out, the definition of hate speech used in their bill is purposefully broad, so that schools have to work to reduce more broad kinds of discrimination and hatred, rather than few specific strains. Narrowing the definition and scale of applications only lets more hate and harm happen, and that's not good for students or anyone."

Just because it's narrower doesn't mean it allows more hate speech. You'll find I've actually used a perfectly functional definition of hate speech, which is narrower than Apato's, but not too narrow to allow hate speech. His is purposefully broad, but overly broad, though in application? It achieves the same, because both specify (mine in the definition, his in 2d) that hate speech on the basis of gender identity, gender expression, romantic orientation, sexual orientation, etc., isn't allowed.

Would 2a apply to universities and other (non-specialised) higher learning institutions?

Erm. Yes, although I think I still need to address overlap, forgot about that.

OOC: I concur with others, mainly Apato and Astrobolt. This replacement seems much worse than the target of your repeal, Minsk, and it shows quite a bit.

For one thing, Apato is correct in the definition. The broadness of the original definition is to pertain to a more broad removal of hate speech rather than what is only expressed in certain types of hate speech.

2d of the target narrows its definition to what is basically mine. I don't know what you think it accomplishes.

In another, the clauses only look to apply to "non-specialized schools", but nowhere in the draft is such a term defined. If this term should continue to see use, might I recommend a definition of such a term?

A non-specialized school is a school that isn't specialized. I don't see any need for a definition, because the term leaves no room for other interpretations.

The vagueness kills, however. A lot of this feels vague and schools can just as easily provide lip service and be perfectly acceptable under this resolution. (To clarify, I am referring to Clause 2; what types of resources? It could just as easily be one shoddy counselor that they pay minimum wage, that doesn't help anyone in reality)

I'll...try I guess?

[Apatosaurus]

Misogyny is absolutely an issue in schools.

Stop putting words in my mouth. While saying "I hate women" is misogynistic, it doesn't carry the same problems as actively discriminating against women.

And schools should be allowed to permit that why? It is not hard to append the phrase "birth sex" to the list in Clause 1, so this is a strange hill to die on.

Both are silly and inane, but both do actually create unsafe school environments. That bigotry is stupid does not mean that schools should not crack down on it.

My point is that far more people are homophobic or transphobic than people who hate a sex.

Did you read my link?

A non-specialized school is a school that isn't specialized. I don't see any need for a definition, because the term leaves no room for other interpretations.

And what is a specialised school?

[El Lazaro]

That is not what I was saying. I said that saying "I hate everyone assigned male/female at birth" doesn't negatively affect anyone. Because it's dumb. Homophobia and transphobia are very real things. Malephobia and femalephobia are not.

OOC: Misogyny does negatively affect people, particularly considering how damaging it has been to women both historically and today.

I still don’t think this is relevant to the bill at all, given that it’s about LGBT people, and therefore does not need to include all forms of hate to protect them in specific. We could include class discrimination too, but it’s not what the bill is about and the fact that classism is bad does not necessarily make it anti-LGBT hate speech.

Regarding Minskiev’s other comment about sexism vs. other bigotry, I think they’re correct for the most part and you’re being obstinate.
(Warning: incoming essay post)

Most harm from sexism is dependent rather than exclusive in nature. A friend of mine really likes Wollstonecraft and she uses the term “infantilization” to describe it, which I think that’s a pretty good way to put it. Whereas it could be said that racists use hatred to push their idea that other races are aren’t as human, sexism primarily hinges on removing autonomy and agency from women— as if they are children who need to be watched over rather than thinking adults.

While a sexist might say women should be subservient to men because they are irrational, weak, and childish, a racist would believe something along the lines of other races being uncivilized, dangerous, and animal-like. The difference is that the latter promotes explicit hatred and large-scale political violence while being uniformly beneficial to the racist in power, while the former primarily weakens the societal power of one gender and is generally poor for everyone, albeit worst for women. For the most part, violence against women, especially sexual violence, is motivated more so by a desire to uphold the role of women as subservient to men rather than conscious hatred of women as a group.

I use racism as an example, but the same holds true for homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, etc. Bigotry against these groups is motivated by the belief society would be better without them and they should be treated as inferiors if that can’t be done. The reason that “I hate [gender]” is a comparatively trivial phrase compared to “I hate [minority group]” is because discrimination against the two is usually different in nature and society is not structured in a way (through culture, language, politics, etc.) where you can express an overt hatred of women or men with the simplicity and ease that you can for other groups. Compare this to how, as an English-speaking Westerner, you can’t really genuine bigotry towards white people as easily as the n-word can towards black people because it just doesn’t happen in your society.

In conclusion, it’s unhelpful to blur everything together when being able to discern how different forms of discrimination take place is ultimately is necessary if you ever want to counter them. If you fundamentally don’t know what the nature of the problem is, any solution is going to be broad and ineffective. Understanding it is also essential for building arguments and further analyzing other things which relate to it.

[Macadia]

Apatosaurus is correct on their definition, and the draft seems rushed and should be improved but I would support it should GA#603 be repealed.

[Minskiev]

Apatosaurus is correct on their definition, and the draft seems rushed and should be improved but I would support it should GA#603 be repealed.

How so? I'd genuinely feel more open to talk about it with someone other than him, because he has a tendency to frequently miss the point and make debate difficult.

[Attempted Socialism]

Would 2a apply to universities and other (non-specialised) higher learning institutions?

Erm. Yes, although I think I still need to address overlap, forgot about that.

I think the exchange Apatosaurus and I had during the drafting of GAR#603 could be useful to you here:

(...)I am also torn about your definition of school, because while school doesn't stop at the age of majority (AFAIK highschool in the US also includes 18-19 year olds), I don't want it to be a university's responsibility to include e.g. gender identity etc. in the curriculum of every course. But the clauses about resources and stopping harassment or hate speech could easily include the last year(s) of highschool and university. If you can work in that clause 2 should be taught during general schooling and 3-5 also applies to institutions of higher learning, then I think it would be an improvement.(...)

Using age of majority, or otherwise specifically excluding institutions of higher learning, in clause 2a would mean universities wouldn't have to shoehorn sexuality and sexual attraction into lessons on, for instance, geology or corruption. Meanwhile, 2b, 2c, and 2d are probably needed, even for the ivory tower.

[Minskiev]

Erm. Yes, although I think I still need to address overlap, forgot about that.

I think the exchange Apatosaurus and I had during the drafting of GAR#603 could be useful to you here:

(...)I am also torn about your definition of school, because while school doesn't stop at the age of majority (AFAIK highschool in the US also includes 18-19 year olds), I don't want it to be a university's responsibility to include e.g. gender identity etc. in the curriculum of every course. But the clauses about resources and stopping harassment or hate speech could easily include the last year(s) of highschool and university. If you can work in that clause 2 should be taught during general schooling and 3-5 also applies to institutions of higher learning, then I think it would be an improvement.(...)

Using age of majority, or otherwise specifically excluding institutions of higher learning, in clause 2a would mean universities wouldn't have to shoehorn sexuality and sexual attraction into lessons on, for instance, geology or corruption. Meanwhile, 2b, 2c, and 2d are probably needed, even for the ivory tower.

It's not like it'd need every class to have it. I think I have a solution though, to let there be opt-outs if the material would be repeated, not a blanket exclusion.

[Minskiev]

Bump

[Alistia]

If submitted to the general assembly, the delegation of Alistia will approve the said measure so that it comes to vote.

[Penguin Dictators]

OOC: Misogyny does negatively affect people, particularly considering how damaging it has been to women both historically and today.

I still don’t think this is relevant to the bill at all, given that it’s about LGBT people, and therefore does not need to include all forms of hate to protect them in specific. We could include class discrimination too, but it’s not what the bill is about and the fact that classism is bad does not necessarily make it anti-LGBT hate speech.

I will say that unlike Classism, Gender actually plays an important role specifically in the T aspect of LGBT considering Transgender is all about gender identity (and being treated as equally as the gender that they identify with), so having some protections against gender-based hate speech is not really that large of a leap compared to throwing in protections against class or racial discrimination in this kind of bill.

[Life empire]

Hello. Proposed replacement for GA#603. Title a work in progress. Feedback is always appreciated.

The World Assembly,

Since bigotry towards the LGBTQIA+ creates undue harm and a divided, unsafe, and uncivil society and school environment, and since that is undesirable, hereby:

1. Defines “LGBTQIA+ hate speech” as public speech that expresses, encourages, stirs up, or incites hatred against an individual or group of individuals distinguished by and the hatred being for their gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or romantic orientation,
2. Mandates member states to require their schools to:
   
   1. if that school is non-specialized, teach in good faith, in the curriculum (though making an effort not to teach repeated material, and excepting colleges or similarly higher education if the material would be already taught before then):
      
      1. the definitions of gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and romantic orientation; and
      2. how these four traits and their non-cisgender, non-heterosexual, and non-romantic variations are normal, equal in status and rights to their cisgender, heterosexual, or heteroromantic counterparts, and should not be used to justify LGBTQIA+ hate speech.
   2. if that school is non-specialized, offer resources to their students to assist in questioning, determining, and accepting the student’s gender identity, sexual orientation, or romantic orientation, and to help them deal with bigotry due to gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or romantic orientation;
   3. actively work to prevent (and punish those behind known occurrences) LGBTQIA+ hate speech and harassment or discrimination by their students against individuals or groups of individuals for their gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, romantic orientation, sex assigned at birth, or the perception thereof, and encourage their students to report and work to prevent such LGBTQIA+ hate speech, harassment, and discrimination by their students,
   4. not express LGBTQIA+ hate speech, nor harass, nor discriminate because of gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, romantic orientation, sex assigned at birth, or the perception thereof.

2b could be considered brainwashing kids to be a diffrent gender (especially for younger kids) and 2c violates free speech which is neccesary for free media and a fair democracy there for this cannot pass for the same reasons as the thing its meant to replace and in reality is pretty much the same thing as what its trying to replace I just suggest we repeal without replacement and if a replacemnet is really neccesary (I don't think it is really neccesary) then atleast fix those isues

[Thousand Branches]

2b could be considered brainwashing kids to be a diffrent gender (especially for younger kids) and 2c violates free speech which is neccesary for free media and a fair democracy there for this cannot pass for the same reasons as the thing its meant to replace and in reality is pretty much the same thing as what its trying to replace I just suggest we repeal without replacement and if a replacemnet is really neccesary (I don't think it is really neccesary) then atleast fix those isues

Different*
Necessary*
Therefore*
Replacement*
Necessary*
Necessary*
At least*

[Neuer California]

Hello. Proposed replacement for GA#603. Title a work in progress. Feedback is always appreciated.

The World Assembly,

Since bigotry towards the LGBTQIA+ creates undue harm and a divided, unsafe, and uncivil society and school environment, and since that is undesirable, hereby:

1. Defines “LGBTQIA+ hate speech” as public speech that expresses, encourages, stirs up, or incites hatred against an individual or group of individuals distinguished by and the hatred being for their gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or romantic orientation,
2. Mandates member states to require their schools to:
   
   1. if that school is non-specialized, teach in good faith, in the curriculum (though making an effort not to teach repeated material, and excepting colleges or similarly higher education if the material would be already taught before then):
      
      1. the definitions of gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and romantic orientation; and
      2. how these four traits and their non-cisgender, non-heterosexual, and non-romantic variations are normal, equal in status and rights to their cisgender, heterosexual, or heteroromantic counterparts, and should not be used to justify LGBTQIA+ hate speech.
   2. if that school is non-specialized, offer resources to their students to assist in questioning, determining, and accepting the student’s gender identity, sexual orientation, or romantic orientation, and to help them deal with bigotry due to gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or romantic orientation;
   3. actively work to prevent (and punish those behind known occurrences) LGBTQIA+ hate speech and harassment or discrimination by their students against individuals or groups of individuals for their gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, romantic orientation, sex assigned at birth, or the perception thereof, and encourage their students to report and work to prevent such LGBTQIA+ hate speech, harassment, and discrimination by their students,
   4. not express LGBTQIA+ hate speech, nor harass, nor discriminate because of gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, romantic orientation, sex assigned at birth, or the perception thereof.

2b could be considered brainwashing kids to be a diffrent gender (especially for younger kids) and 2c violates free speech which is neccesary for free media and a fair democracy there for this cannot pass for the same reasons as the thing its meant to replace and in reality is pretty much the same thing as what its trying to replace I just suggest we repeal without replacement and if a replacemnet is really neccesary (I don't think it is really neccesary) then atleast fix those isues

And where is freedom of speech guarantees in the form you state it is?

Rights don't just spontaneously come into.existence from thin air. They only exist as far as governments allow them to