[DRAFT] Repeal "Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Mi

by **The Galactic Supremacy** » Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:56 am

Repeal "Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities"

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA #457

General Assembly Resolution #457 "Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities" (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Commending the work of this august body in furthering the cause of various civil rights and,

Seeking to perfect this valiant tradition,

The World Assembly,

Acknowledges that WA Resolution #457 fails to rigorously define sexuality or gender for effective legislative purpose,

Asserting — steadfastly — that any civil rights legislation that defends the rights of a particular group must succeed at clarifying the boundaries of said group,

Concerned that GAR#457 fails to provide a dedicated enforcement mechanism whereby member states are expected to provide recognition and the preservation of rights,

Believing that the World Assembly must be upheld by certain standards of judicial professionalism and that its laws must be fit for purpose,

Cognizant that this includes the provision of robust legal definitions and remedies that guarantee the smooth practice of law in no unclear terms,

And, believing that any civil rights legislation must provide a legal framework whereby member states can effectively preserve said rights, rather than a collection of statements,

Hereby resolves the situation by repealing WA Resolution #457 "Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities".

by **Tinhampton** » Sun Apr 03, 2022 9:10 am

Some random intern: Where is your "more constructive resolution?"

by **The Galactic Supremacy** » Sun Apr 03, 2022 9:13 am

Tinhampton wrote:Some random intern: Where is your "more constructive resolution?"

WA Ambassador: "Well, it's in the works. I might share a draft of it... maybe. If this repeal passes... of course. To be honest, I really think... um... the Charter of Rights was already sufficient to begin with... Yes! There's a lot of redundant resolutions that ought to be..."
INTERJECTION, intern slams door and barges in.
Unpaid and Drunk Intern: "N..n.. now that we're inside... we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing...uhh.. the foreign office is... *hiccup* terribly pleased."
*stunned look WA Ambassador: "Uh, ha ha...uh ignore him."

by **Equai** » Sun Apr 03, 2022 3:55 pm

How about no? Our federation deeply opposes this draft of the repeal. The reasoning for this repeal are is too reaching, severely improbable and fail to even separate a paraphilia from a sexuality. Additionally, this repeal plays into a harmful homophobic rhetoric. Minorities and marginalized group deserve all rights as normal majority citizens.
Pedophiles are not a minority group and its NOT a sexuality, like the author of this poorly drafted repeal is trying to say.

by **The Galactic Supremacy** » Sun Apr 03, 2022 5:10 pm

by **The Galactic Supremacy** » Sun Apr 03, 2022 5:11 pm

Equai wrote:How about no? Our federation deeply opposes this draft of the repeal. The reasoning for this repeal are is too reaching, severely improbable and fail to even separate a paraphilia from a sexuality. Additionally, this repeal plays into a harmful homophobic rhetoric. Minorities and marginalized group deserve all rights as normal majority citizens.
Pedophiles are not a minority group and its NOT a sexuality, like the author of this poorly drafted repeal is trying to say.

1) The reasons are not a stretch. Mind you, it's heavily based on World Assembly Resolution #327. Ehm, legal precedence.
2) You know what else failed to differentiate a 'paraphilia' from a sexuality? GA Resolution #457.
3) Where is the homophobic rhetoric? Where!? If anything, I'm proudly pedophile-phobic.
4) Of course minorities and marginalised groups deserve rights. Why don't you write the replacement? Make no sure no stone is left unturned. You can't make excuses for a bad law - this was going to happen sooner or later.

by **WayNeacTia** » Sun Apr 03, 2022 5:20 pm

Reads like a list of nitpicks and made up problems to me. On top of that, a far superior repeal is already being crushed at vote. What chance do you actually believe this will have?

by **The Galactic Supremacy** » Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:28 pm

Wayneactia wrote:Reads like a list of nitpicks and made up problems to me.

I think otherwise. The World Assembly is upheld by certain standards of judicial professionalism — and this no doubt includes the provision of robust legal definitions in ensuring the smooth practice of the law. Unfortunately, these standards are easily bypassed via the popular will. Or through the inability of member states to effectively parse the resolution for inconsistencies and loopholes at the time of passing.

I'll make this absolutely clear, I've got no axe to grind with the LGBT+ community. I just think that the enumeration of rights has to be very precise, otherwise, there will arise loose ends as I've demonstrated. You have to think of it critically: how do you defend the rights of a particular group if you have failed to define the boundaries of this group? Are they implied to be endless? If so, do member states truly understand its implications? Do they want that?

Obviously, all objectively good laws provide clear legal constraints and remedies per their practice — they leave no important stone unturned and that is precisely what GA Resolution #457 has failed to do.

On top of that, a far superior repeal is already being crushed at vote. What chance do you actually believe this will have?

Yes, it is certainly a brilliant piece of work. It gets down to the nitty-gritty of the resolution it seeks to repeal and explains in no unclear terms its inherent failures. And if the WA had any inkling of consistency in its legal practice, it should pass with ease. Followed by a swift review of other inconsistencies unmentioned by the author, GA Resolution #603 should be replaced. Unfortunately, respect for the legal process has been overtaken by blind acceptance, and it's obvious the current repeal won't pass.

Alike many past repeals, I think my proposal is advantageous because of its brevity and conciseness. I reckon the longer the repeal resolution, the more subject matter exists for member states to dispute.

Nevertheless, there will always exist the irrational view that any given resolution is perfect and wholly righteous — and hence must be made immutable in an effective sense. These assertions are made by member delegations that do not understand the role of repeals in perfecting the World Assembly's practice of international law. Repealing (and sometimes replacing) is part and parcel of the pursuit of progress. It is the natural sieve by which effective resolutions are differentiated from the ineffective, unclear, or unenforceable. Regardless, it's inevitable that many will still defer to ideological leaning, both for and against my proposal.

Do you have any constructive criticism regarding the current draft?

by **WayNeacTia** » Sun Apr 03, 2022 8:43 pm

The Galactic Supremacy wrote:Do you have any constructive criticism regarding the current draft?

If I were you, I would read the rules regarding repeals. Legislating within a repeal is illegal.

by **The Galactic Supremacy** » Sun Apr 03, 2022 9:25 pm

Wayneactia wrote:
The Galactic Supremacy wrote:Do you have any constructive criticism regarding the current draft?
Legislating within a repeal is illegal.

Where am I doing that?

by **WayNeacTia** » Sun Apr 03, 2022 9:28 pm

The Galactic Supremacy wrote:
Wayneactia wrote: Legislating within a repeal is illegal.

Where am I doing that?

Understands that — defined simply — sexuality is the capacity to exhibit and act on sexual feelings,

by **The Galactic Supremacy** » Sun Apr 03, 2022 10:26 pm

Wayneactia wrote:
The Galactic Supremacy wrote:Where am I doing that?

Understands that — defined simply — sexuality is the capacity to exhibit and act on sexual feelings,

Does that really count as legislating? What exactly is 'legislating' here? I don't intend on entering that definition into a body of law, that was an argumentative construct, to build justification. Can I get a second opinion here? Where's Imperium when you need him.

Is the phrasing that made it 'legislating'? Is this any better:
"Recognises that - for argumentative and not legislative purposes - sexuality is the capacity to exhibit and act on sexual feelings,"

by **WayNeacTia** » Sun Apr 03, 2022 11:58 pm

The Galactic Supremacy wrote:
Wayneactia wrote:
Understands that — defined simply — sexuality is the capacity to exhibit and act on sexual feelings,

Does that really count as legislating? What exactly is 'legislating' here? I don't intend on entering that definition into a body of law, that was an argumentative construct, to build justification. Can I get a second opinion here? Where's Imperium when you need him.

Is the phrasing that made it 'legislating'? Is this any better:
"Recognises that - for argumentative and not legislative purposes - sexuality is the capacity to exhibit and act on sexual feelings,"

That is still legislating in a repeal. You are attempting to legislate a definition into law, which you cannot do while repealing legislation. The rule is quite simple and clear.

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Mon Apr 04, 2022 9:29 am

Recognition of the meaning of a word as a warrant for an interpretation in a repeal is not legislating in a repeal. Even if it were, provided that it has a non-legislative interpretation, it should not be viewed that way.

by **Xanthorrhoea** » Mon Apr 04, 2022 9:58 am

Your fondness for inappropriately simplistic definitions of nuanced topics once again undermines your logic. If you base your argument on a complex topic “defined simply” you’re going to have a bad time. Put simply, some things things are simple, many are not. Sexuality is decidedly the latter.

In terms of honest feedback on the proposal: it’s made up of a poor quality argument poorly stated. While I have no interest in assisting this proposal, I do have another piece of advice.

Might I suggest that if you want to give the impression that you’ve “got no axe to grind with the LGBT+ community,” you avoid comparing them to paedophiles and people who engage with bestiality (a long worn-out trope of people against LGBT+ rights) and avoid exclusively targeting resolutions offering them protections for repeal.

Actions speak louder than words, and it frankly seems odd that someone claiming no prejudice against the queer community has almost exclusively attacked them in this forum. There are many other poorly written resolutions out there. Why not try your hand at those?

by **The Galactic Supremacy** » Mon Apr 04, 2022 1:48 pm

Xanthorrhoea wrote:Your fondness for inappropriately simplistic definitions of nuanced topics once again undermines your logic.

If supposedly "simplistic" definitions undermine my logic, what does not having a definition do? Hm?

If you base your argument on a complex topic “defined simply” you’re going to have a bad time. Put simply, some things are simple, many are not. Sexuality is decidedly the latter.

In the 5 years I've spent merely observing the operation of the WA, and the passage of resolutions and repeals, that's not how things work. Resolution authors should be grilled. If there is to be an international law on the books, then it must be of high quality. Again I ask, how do you defend the rights of a particular group if you have failed to define the boundaries of said group?

In terms of honest feedback on the proposal: it’s made up of a poor quality argument poorly stated.

Noted.

Might I suggest that if you want to give the impression that you’ve “got no axe to grind with the LGBT+ community,” you avoid comparing them to paedophiles and people who engage with bestiality (a long worn-out trope of people against LGBT+ rights) and avoid exclusively targeting resolutions offering them protections for repeal.

I also want to repeal World Assembly Resolution #20. Does that mean I bootlick pirates and smugglers? Please oh please, tell me my intentions.

Actions speak louder than words, and it frankly seems odd that someone claiming no prejudice against the queer community has almost exclusively attacked them in this forum.

Ah, an accusation. Mate, the burden of proof now falls on you. Where did I attack queer people? I didn't say anything about people of differing sexuality from mine. I am assuming by queer you mean homosexual, of which I have made no comments about.

What I did do was engage in discussion about how to best to define gender, and my suggestion was to rely on XY-sex determination with a specific focus on the actability of the SRY gene. This is already common practice and is similar to how entomologists classify insects via ZW/ZZ sex chromosome determination. The whole thing was in regards to intersex people and by association some transgender classifications, but not queer. But hey, apparently, quoting up-to-date scientific literature and referencing at least 3 reputable scientific journals now counts as "attacking" the queer community.

The other fellow I was discussing with had preferred to define gender by means of a spectrum. I then asked them to elaborate on how this spectrum would work, i.e. would they include phenotypical or genotypical characteristics in their assessment? And how would that apply? etc. Still, I must be sooooo bigoted for engaging in useful and mutually-enlightening discussion.

by **Xanthorrhoea** » Mon Apr 04, 2022 8:19 pm

The Galactic Supremacy wrote:
Xanthorrhoea wrote:Your fondness for inappropriately simplistic definitions of nuanced topics once again undermines your logic.

If supposedly "simplistic" definitions undermine my logic, what does not having a definition do? Hm?

If you base your argument on a complex topic “defined simply” you’re going to have a bad time. Put simply, some things are simple, many are not. Sexuality is decidedly the latter.

In the 5 years I've spent merely observing the operation of the WA, and the passage of resolutions and repeals, that's not how things work. Resolution authors should be grilled. If there is to be an international law on the books, then it must be of high quality. Again I ask, how do you defend the rights of a particular group if you have failed to define the boundaries of said group?

In terms of honest feedback on the proposal: it’s made up of a poor quality argument poorly stated.

Noted.

Might I suggest that if you want to give the impression that you’ve “got no axe to grind with the LGBT+ community,” you avoid comparing them to paedophiles and people who engage with bestiality (a long worn-out trope of people against LGBT+ rights) and avoid exclusively targeting resolutions offering them protections for repeal.

I also want to repeal World Assembly Resolution #20. Does that mean I bootlick pirates and smugglers? Please oh please, tell me my intentions.

Actions speak louder than words, and it frankly seems odd that someone claiming no prejudice against the queer community has almost exclusively attacked them in this forum.

Ah, an accusation. Mate, the burden of proof now falls on you. Where did I attack queer people? I didn't say anything about people of differing sexuality from mine. I am assuming by queer you mean homosexual, of which I have made no comments about.

What I did do was engage in discussion about how to best to define gender, and my suggestion was to rely on XY-sex determination with a specific focus on the actability of the SRY gene. This is already common practice and is similar to how entomologists classify insects via ZW/ZZ sex chromosome determination. The whole thing was in regards to intersex people and by association some transgender classifications, but not queer. But hey, apparently, quoting up-to-date scientific literature and referencing at least 3 reputable scientific journals now counts as "attacking" the queer community.

The other fellow I was discussing with had preferred to define gender by means of a spectrum. I then asked them to elaborate on how this spectrum would work, i.e. would they include phenotypical or genotypical characteristics in their assessment? And how would that apply? etc. Still, I must be sooooo bigoted for engaging in useful and mutually-enlightening discussion.

I will happily debate sex and science via telegram or some other method if you want, but I feel at this point we're threadjacking a little (probably more my fault in this case for bringing up a previous thread). Rest assured I was not making an accusation, merely pointing out the perception that your pattern of comments creates. That is why I tried to refer to the impression you wish to create. Let me want to know if you want to continue on the topic, it's a fascinating one that I enjoy exploring. I'm also genuinely curious to see a proposed repeal of GAR#20. Those older legacy resolutions have a lot of love and history behind them, so it would be interesting to see your arguments.

On a separate, less thread-jacking note and as a show of good faith, I'll elaborate on some of my problems with this proposal.

Firstly, I will take it in good faith that you hold no malice against gender minorities. Unfortunately, intent cannot be measured, only words and context, and the words of your proposal as currently written coupled with the context of previous history creates the perception of bias. When you're discussing highly charged issues such as minority rights, it is vital that you have an awareness of the context and history of those topics. There is a long history in many countries of the slippery slope argument being used as a pretext to deny the rights of gender and sexual minorities. You are using a highly similar argument here in an attempted repeal of a resolution that affords protections and rights to these minorities, which at face value appears extremely similar.

Because of the context, and regardless of your actual intentions, you will have to tread extremely carefully and explictly distance yourself from this history to avoid creating the perception of bigotry. Your proposal does not yet do this, therefore the surrounding context creates a very strong impression that it has bigoted motivations. Not addressing the elephant in the room gives the impression that you want it to stay, and not acknowledging the similarites of your proposal to historical queer* persection creates the impression that the similarities are intentional. I humbly suggest that if you wish to proceed, you explicitly affirm your support of the intent behind GAR#457 and reaffirm the importance of minority protections within your proposal. It would also be handy to explicitly address the history and affirm your opposition to it. That would more clearly demonstrate a benign intent, and reassure people that this isn't a poorly disguised attempt at denying queer rights.
(*I'm using queer here as a synonym for gender minorities in general. It's an accepted use of the term where I live, although I do acknowledge that to others it might mean differently. This is how I generally read and use the word, unless the surrounding conext makes it clear it's being used in a narrower sense (e.g. as part of the acronym LGBTQIA+, where is is explicitly separated from other categories of gender, sex and sexual minority)

Secondly, I disagree that your main protest against GAR#457 requires a repeal. Specifically, I disagree with the notion that 'any civil rights legislation that defends the rights of a particular group must succeed at clarifying the boundaries of said group'. While this is true for the legal system as a whole, it is not necessarily true for a single resolution.

Not every concept needs a rigid definition at the international level, and leaving nations the freedom to define things how they choose can be advantageous. When discussing resolutions, it is important to remember that WA law is not the only law, and we can take advantage of that fact. When a concept is not formally defined in a resolution, nations are free to select a definition for it under their own national laws, as long as that definition does not contradict other GA resolutions, and as long as that definition is a colourable interpretation of the concept supported by common language usage. The arguments you make in this repeal attempt are all based around the specific interpretation of sexuality you put forward, but other nations are free to define it differently, and would be well-supported in doing so (for example, Equal's interpretation of sexuality differs wildly from yours).

The problem with your proposed repeal is it assumes that all nations are bound by your specific definition, and therefore must afford protections to paedophiles etc, however this is not so. If a nation's individual definition of sexuality excludes paraphilic disorders, then it would not be obliged to offer such protections. Put more generally, the lack of a definition cannot impose a specific definition on nations. GAR#16 relied heavily on explicit definitions of sex acts and consent, and a logical outcome of those specific definitions was that it imposed legalised incest on all WA nations. GAR#457 offers no such definition, hence avoids the problem of imposing a definition on the WA. The precedent of GAR#327 repealing GAR#16 does not apply here due to the different approches to defining key terms.

Such a loose approach to definitions has advantages. It avoids unintended consequences like those of GAR#16, and it promotes national soverignty, as without a single international definition it gives nations the freedom to define the topic themselves. It sacrifices some power in losing specificity, but it can still remain effective. If your nation protests to including things like paedophilia in the definition of sexuality, then I humbly suggest you use a different definition. You could argue that a nation could deliberately choose a definition under GAR#457 that includes paraphilic disorders specifically with the goal of offering such protections, and this would be true if not for pre-existing WA law (namely GAR#222 and GAR#300). If there are multiple possible defintions of an undefined concept, nations are only free to use those that are not illegal.

Beastiality is not something I am aware is explicitly addressed in WA law, so I suppose you could argue that it is not illegal in the WA. However, nations were just as free to legalise beastialty before GAR#457 as after it, and it's lack of a definition means you are still free to exclude it from your definition of sexuality. The only things you are not free to exclude are things that clearly do fall under the banner of "sexualities and genders", which covers the various gender minorities and majorities.

Some topics (sexuality being one of them) are incredibly nuanced and complex, and a formal definition needs to be supported by pages of explanatory statements, caveats and exceptions. Simple definitions such as the one you propose above immediately run into the problem of loopholes and unintended consequences. Unfortunately, the WA has a 5000 character limit on proposals, so including a thorough definition when you want to write on a complex topic would utterly nuke the character count. It is far easier to leave exact definitions up to individual nations and legislate on a macro scale than to rigorously define every last aspect of a proposal. It is a different philosophical approach to writing laws, but it is a highly effective one when done well.

by **The Galactic Supremacy** » Tue Apr 05, 2022 7:59 pm

Xanthorrhoea wrote:I will happily debate sex and science via telegram or some other method if you want, but I feel at this point we're threadjacking a little (probably more my fault in this case for bringing up a previous thread). Rest assured I was not making an accusation, merely pointing out the perception that your pattern of comments creates. That is why I tried to refer to the impression you wish to create. Let me want to know if you want to continue on the topic, it's a fascinating one that I enjoy exploring.

I'm glad to hear, but I wouldn't view it as a debate, more like a mutually-enlightening discussion. If I do voice a view on these matters, it's likely I'm just playing devil's advocate to cut through the grain and understand what you're saying. I think I'll let you initiate the telegrams, considering your interest.

On a separate, less thread-jacking note and as a show of good faith, I'll elaborate on some of my problems with this proposal.

Firstly, I will take it in good faith that you hold no malice against gender minorities. Unfortunately, intent cannot be measured, only words and context, and the words of your proposal as currently written coupled with the context of previous history creates the perception of bias. When you're discussing highly charged issues such as minority rights, it is vital that you have an awareness of the context and history of those topics. There is a long history in many countries of the slippery slope argument being used as a pretext to deny the rights of gender and sexual minorities. You are using a highly similar argument here in an attempted repeal of a resolution that affords protections and rights to these minorities, which at face value appears extremely similar.

What I said regarding the repeal, is most relevant when compared to the resolution it wishes to repeal. I am not making a slippery slope argument, only highlighting the dangers of the lack of rigour provided in GA #457.

Because of the context, and regardless of your actual intentions, you will have to tread extremely carefully and explictly distance yourself from this history to avoid creating the perception of bigotry. Your proposal does not yet do this, therefore the surrounding context creates a very strong impression that it has bigoted motivations. Not addressing the elephant in the room gives the impression that you want it to stay, and not acknowledging the similarites of your proposal to historical queer* persection creates the impression that the similarities are intentional. I humbly suggest that if you wish to proceed, you explicitly affirm your support of the intent behind GAR#457 and reaffirm the importance of minority protections within your proposal. It would also be handy to explicitly address the history and affirm your opposition to it. That would more clearly demonstrate a benign intent, and reassure people that this isn't a poorly disguised attempt at denying queer rights.
(*I'm using queer here as a synonym for gender minorities in general. It's an accepted use of the term where I live, although I do acknowledge that to others it might mean differently. This is how I generally read and use the word, unless the surrounding conext makes it clear it's being used in a narrower sense (e.g. as part of the acronym LGBTQIA+, where is is explicitly separated from other categories of gender, sex and sexual minority)

What I am willing to do is explicitly express support for minority protections, but I will not lend any support to GA #457. It reads like a word salad, demanding ever so much and not giving the WA an enforcement mechanism, making it utterly pointless. This, I think, is highly similar to a lot of WA resolutions.

Another thing I've noticed is that there's been a subtle yet significant change in the manner in which proposal writers approach repeals: they always urge that we at the very least agree with the premise of the resolution. This has not always been the case. And the problem here is that it creates a monolithic judicial tradition, essentially surmising: "Oh yeah, we wrote that? We'll always be right about it, no doubt... What do you mean you don't like it? Listen here you ingrate! If there's an error in there, it's a technicality. If you want to repeal, don't forget to remind everyone how much you agree with me." It also ensures that the body of law maintained is stagnant and non-dynamic — always maintaining a grip over certain issues rather than entertaining the possibility that perhaps the WA should not regulate things on so-and-so matter.

When faced with the choice of regulating a matter at the WA, I tend slightly to not approve of it. But, considering that civil rights legislation regarding this topic is deeply institutionalised and numerous, it should be held to a high enough standard.

I'm willing to emphasise the history of persecution gender and sexual minorities have faced. Do you have any suggestions on how this can be achieved? Considering that I'm a tad tone-deaf on matters of public perception, especially in regards to this issue.

Secondly, I disagree that your main protest against GAR#457 requires a repeal. Specifically, I disagree with the notion that 'any civil rights legislation that defends the rights of a particular group must succeed at clarifying the boundaries of said group'. While this is true for the legal system as a whole, it is not necessarily true for a single resolution.

Yes, it should be like that. But where exactly is it defined appropriately? I see at least 26 resolutions (both enforced and repealed) that explicitly mention a legal category of 'gender', yet only 1 so far has bothered to define it. And that 1 resolution gives a very brief, disingenuous, and imprecise classification that can either leave a reader thinking "hey wait a second, I could have also said there were "majoritarian genders" too" or "so are there, like, an infinite number of 'minoritarian genders'?".

A sincere opinion of mine is that because sex can be relegated to 3 scientific categories (one of which is a broad category defined relative to the two), gender (the perception of one's sex) — while by implication more expansive — can be logically limited relative to the original 3 scientific categories. I am not saying that gender should be partitioned into 3 categories or any particular arrangement, just that whatever definition the WA eventually decides to enforce, it must be limited. There are certain things that can be declared not to be a gender.

One thing I forgot to mention is that by implication of not having an effective working definition of gender, article 4 of GAR #457 becomes meaningless. It offers no guidelines as to what "recognise" should entail, or how this condition can be appropriately satisfied. Does it mean including it in passports? Birth certificates? Additional legal rights such as access to GAPs? etc. If so, does this mean that any citizen of a WA member state can just wish a gender into existence (say his gender identity is "pixie dust") and demand the state cater to their needs?

Leaving gender undefined in an effective sense does not augment the operation of civil rights law, it severely undermines it. It cheapens the needs of a long-persecuted minority, and allows anyone to join this group by means of a simple declaration. The more I explore the resolution the more problems I find.

Not every concept needs a rigid definition at the international level, and leaving nations the freedom to define things how they choose can be advantageous. When discussing resolutions, it is important to remember that WA law is not the only law, and we can take advantage of that fact. When a concept is not formally defined in a resolution, nations are free to select a definition for it under their own national laws, as long as that definition does not contradict other GA resolutions,

Please don't say 'leave the defining bit up to member states'. That makes GAR #457 even more impotent. At this point in time, almost any definition of gender at the national level would fit the WA standard. When you're trying to protect a group from discrimination, it is essential to know who you're protecting.

The arguments you make in this repeal attempt are all based around the specific interpretation of sexuality you put forward, but other nations are free to define it differently, and would be well-supported in doing so (for example, Equal's interpretation of sexuality differs wildly from yours).

Rigidity as you would call it (I'd call it conciseness), is integral to the effective enforcement of a law. Ambiguity in legislation regularly provides cover for criminals everywhere. And in this case, the ambiguity provides cover for actual bigots who are intent on twisting the spirit of the law to their liking. Actually, it provides cover for quite a lot of people. Equal's interpretation is one I accept, and is the one that should be more clearly propagated through said international law.

The problem with your proposed repeal is it assumes that all nations are bound by your specific definition, and therefore must afford protections to paedophiles etc, however this is not so. If a nation's individual definition of sexuality excludes paraphilic disorders, then it would not be obliged to offer such protections. Put more generally, the lack of a definition cannot impose a specific definition on nations. GAR#16 relied heavily on explicit definitions of sex acts and consent, and a logical outcome of those specific definitions was that it imposed legalised incest on all WA nations. GAR#457 offers no such definition, hence avoids the problem of imposing a definition on the WA.

So far yes, I have other justifications that I have not properly worded. Right now, my language and intentions are unclear and I accept that. It's a work in progress and the reason I posted it here is to produce a better repeal.

The 'interpretation' of sexuality I offered was a normative one, i.e. you would be hard-pressed to find someone who actually believed sexuality was not caused by sexual feelings. Pedophilia and I've also seen necrophilia, fit the category because they are by their own definitions entail sexual feelings. The fact that some people want to relegate them to the 'sexuality footnotes' is not consistent.

Employing an assumed normative definition of sexuality/gender — which is what GAR #567 and all other civil rights resolutions on this topic have attempted to do — can also not be sustained at the international level. At the national level, normative definitions may hold tact due to a unifying cultural influence on the matter. In other words, though there isn't a formal legal definition, it is at least grounded in something. And even then, it is on very thin ice. By contrast, an assumed normative definition in a WA resolution cannot work. The only thing holding member states in common is just that — their membership.

GAR#457 offers no such definition, hence avoids the problem of imposing a definition on the WA.

That's right, if you don't see it as a problem. Do you want incest, bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia to be able to derive justification from GAR #457? If you either answered yes or expressed indifference, then it isn't a problem. Regardless, how can you not see that it is a perversion of the intent of #457?

I would argue that the only way to prevent this is by providing a normative definition of sexuality alongside disqualifying categories. No multi-layered sieve-like comprehensive method of classification would be needed. And it's quite clear that these 'sexualities' can and should be discriminated against, the Charter of Rights allows it. If explicitly mentioned, they should fall under a "reductive categorisation" of "compelling practical purpose".

The precedent of GAR#327 repealing GAR#16 does not apply here due to the different approches to defining key terms.

Perhaps so, or perhaps not. The WA has no tradition of judicial precedent. Only that resolutions do not contradict each other. It was introduced for argumentative purpose.

Both cases are quite different, but I would argue that GAR #457 is both similar and worse in comparison. While GAR #16 provides a flawed definition, #457 does not provide any definition. The flood gates are opened much wider.

Such a loose approach to definitions has advantages. It avoids unintended consequences like those of GAR#16, and it promotes national soverignty, as without a single international definition it gives nations the freedom to define the topic themselves. It sacrifices some power in losing specificity, but it can still remain effective. If your nation protests to including things like paedophilia in the definition of sexuality, then I humbly suggest you use a different definition. You could argue that a nation could deliberately choose a definition under GAR#457 that includes paraphilic disorders specifically with the goal of offering such protections, and this would be true if not for pre-existing WA law (namely GAR#222 and GAR#300). If there are multiple possible defintions of an undefined concept, nations are only free to use those that are not illegal.

As far as GA resolutions are concerned, the following is true:

Paraphilia is illegal due to GAR #222 and #300. These are unfortunately also limited circumstance.
Incest is legal.
Necrophilia is legal.
Bestiality is legal.
etc.

Beastiality is not something I am aware is explicitly addressed in WA law, so I suppose you could argue that it is not illegal in the WA. However, nations were just as free to legalise beastialty before GAR#457 as after it, and it's lack of a definition means you are still free to exclude it from your definition of sexuality. The only things you are not free to exclude are things that clearly do fall under the banner of "sexualities and genders", which covers the various gender minorities and majorities.

We both assume a similar operation of GAR #457, but this is not made abundantly clear. May I remind you that the purpose of repeals is to perfect the practice of international law. We both agree that they do not fall under the banner of sexualities and genders but that understanding itself is not spelled out.

Some topics (sexuality being one of them) are incredibly nuanced and complex, and a formal definition needs to be supported by pages of explanatory statements, caveats and exceptions. Simple definitions such as the one you propose above immediately run into the problem of loopholes and unintended consequences. Unfortunately, the WA has a 5000 character limit on proposals, so including a thorough definition when you want to write on a complex topic would utterly nuke the character count. It is far easier to leave exact definitions up to individual nations and legislate on a macro scale than to rigorously define every last aspect of a proposal. It is a different philosophical approach to writing laws, but it is a highly effective one when done well.

There are such things as looped categorical tests and not every detail can be accounted for. But the important ones must be. Character limitations should not be a hindrance to this because: (1) it can be shorter than you think; and (2) vague omnibus-like legislation is not desirable (it gives member states less of a say on every matter addressed).

I suppose its a philosophical difference, but I see it as a "I want the WA to do better than pass word salads" type thing.

by **The Galactic Supremacy** » Tue Apr 05, 2022 8:10 pm

Xanthorrhoea wrote:There are many other poorly written resolutions out there. Why not try your hand at those?

I actually am, but I am still working on them.

by **Xanthorrhoea** » Wed Apr 06, 2022 7:14 am

The Galactic Supremacy wrote:*snip

I can see you've thought a lot about this topic, and for that I applaud you. I'll send you a telegram later when I have time. (Side note, I didn't mean a formal style debate where we declare a winner and a loser. I meant it more as a robust conversation. I agree the purpose of such discussions should be an attempt to explore a different perspective and approach a common understanding)

I think you and I have fundamentally different approaches and expectiations of what the WA should do and how it should act. It looks like you favour a more precise and unified approach, where as I think I value ambiguity more than you and prefer the wiggle room it creates. I'm not sure either of us will change much in that regard, but who knows. I'm also still very acutely of the opinon that GAR#457 does more good than harm, so a repeal without replacement is unlikely to ever sway me personally.

I have a lot more to say, but for now I'll hold off and await your next draft, as I think I should focus on the repeal as it is intended to be enacted, without pages of conversation expanding on and discussing it. Ultimately, it will have to stand on its own, so feedback should be targeted as such.

by **Wallenburg** » Thu Apr 07, 2022 10:01 am

Abhorred then, that the instruction on member states to allow marriages "of all sexualities" has been misconstrued as a justification for pedophilia, incest, and bestiality as a result,

Alarmed that such morally repugnant practices are provided protection at the international level,

This is an Honest Mistake rules violation. The target does not do as you claim it does.

by **Siebeland** » Thu Apr 07, 2022 2:34 pm

Fundamentally, the repeal has reason to be. There is enough ambiguity present in the original for it to merit being replaced by something that more clearly defines sexalities. There is an argument to be made about the spirit of law, and how plenty of WA resolutions have relied on interpretation by context, but I can appreciate and endorse your attempt to add more legal clarity and robustness to the WA legal system.
The possible additions you are considering? Add them, at the very beginning, right below the the commendment, like so:

"Commending the work of this august body in furthering the cause of various civil rights,
"Aware that a more constructive resolution may take its place,
"Assuring member states that the innumerable existing protections shall suffice and,
"Seeking to perfect this valiant tradition,"

I am aware that this sounds repetitive, but it is a repeal. You need to define your intentions with it very clearly, and it must be done at the very top of the document, lest the ones with less interest automatically vote against it. The problem of nations not reading the entirety of the resolutions at vote is an old issue, and one that must unfortunately be circumvented rather than solved. In addition, your recent attempt to repeal LISA - and the endorsement it received from anti-queer nations - might alienate potential supporters, who could dismiss you as a bigot attempting to undermine human rights via legal technicalities.

To legislate is not merely an art in writing, but an exercise in politics and compromise. I recommend you write or seek someone to write a new law which shall immediately replace the original resolution, if the repeal gets passed; that shall further entice those who would otherwise take your actions as disguised homophobia. It is not without precedent, either; plenty of repeals have already been passed with a replacement ready to take their place.

I wish you and your repeal good luck, and - if it is improved - it shall have my support, even if it is meaningless.

by **Ardiveds** » Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:38 am

OOC: I don't buy the arguments regarding the incest, bestiality or pedophilia, here are my reasonings:

Regarding incest : It's not a sexuality. a brother marrying his sister is still a heterosexual marriage. Section 2 of the target reads:

MANDATES that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions. Such conditions may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.

Such condition could include the individuals not being closely related.

Regarding pedophilia: GAR 160 read:

1. Defines forced marriage, for the purposes of this resolution, as the contractual or covenantal union of persons without the informed consent of every person being joined or a similar nonconsensual or coerced union of persons;

2. Prohibits forced marriage

a minor can't provide informed consent.

Regarding bestiality: The target resolution reads:

REQUIRES all member nations which allow civil marriages between individuals of a certain sexuality or gender to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions.

ORDERS all member nations to provide the same civil marriage services for individuals of all sexualities and genders.

COMPELS all member nations to grant the same marriage rights to civilly married individuals of all sexualities and genders.

REQUIRES all member nations to apply legislation of the same scope and effect for the termination of civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders.

Individuals implies personhood. Animals (non-sapient) don't have personhood, thus the target doesn't even touch anything regarding animals.
If we were to suppose a nation gave personhood to non-sapient animals, GAR 160 would step in.

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Fri Apr 08, 2022 2:10 pm

Ardiveds wrote:
OOC: I don't buy the arguments regarding the incest, bestiality or pedophilia, here are my reasonings:

Regarding incest : It's not a sexuality. a brother marrying his sister is still a heterosexual marriage. Section 2 of the target reads:
MANDATES that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions. Such conditions may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.

Such condition could include the individuals not being closely related.

Regarding pedophilia: GAR 160 read:
1. Defines forced marriage, for the purposes of this resolution, as the contractual or covenantal union of persons without the informed consent of every person being joined or a similar nonconsensual or coerced union of persons;

2. Prohibits forced marriage

a minor can't provide informed consent.

Regarding bestiality: The target resolution reads:
REQUIRES all member nations which allow civil marriages between individuals of a certain sexuality or gender to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions.

ORDERS all member nations to provide the same civil marriage services for individuals of all sexualities and genders.

COMPELS all member nations to grant the same marriage rights to civilly married individuals of all sexualities and genders.

REQUIRES all member nations to apply legislation of the same scope and effect for the termination of civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders.

Individuals implies personhood. Animals (non-sapient) don't have personhood, thus the target doesn't even touch anything regarding animals.
If we were to suppose a nation gave personhood to non-sapient animals, GAR 160 would step in.

These are worthwhile arguments that the OP should consider in a timely manner.

by **The Galactic Supremacy** » Sat Apr 09, 2022 6:56 am

I will offer full responses to all relevant replies, and an updated draft. I welcome further contributions.

[DRAFT] Repeal "Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Mi

[DRAFT] Repeal "Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Mi

Who is online