[PASSED] Repeal "LGBTIQA Inclusiveness in Schools Act"

[Macadia]

Maybe a month or two ago I drafted my own version of a repeal, however that has basically died out. A supporter and ally of the LGBT+ community, I do indeed support this draft, I recognize the well-intent of the LISA, but it’s flaws as well.

[West Barack and East Obama]

In my personal opinion: As a strong ally and member of the LGBTQIAA+ community, I would not support a proposal that would get rid of projects to help include everyone in schools. I have witnessed this personally (being left out for my identity), and I don’t want this to happen to anyone else. I don’t care if the legislation is poorly written or not. It is a important topic. Opposed.

this got buried, but I believe is important.

OOC: Nobody is actually going to be "affected" by this, unless you count your virtual citizens as them. Bad legislation gets removed. Just because something is an important topic does not make it suitable for international legislation.

[Lile Ulie Islands]

this got buried, but I believe is important.

OOC: Nobody is actually going to be "affected" by this, unless you count your virtual citizens as them. Bad legislation gets removed. Just because something is an important topic does not make it suitable for international legislation.

OOC: Well, if you actually think about it, people are affected by this. I care about the citizens of my country, and it’s okay if you don’t, but I do. I will not remove protection for members of the LGBTQIAA+ community. Protection for them is needed. In the midst of Pride Month, and as someone who just attended a pride celebration in my home city of DC, this repeal of the bill feels wrong.

[Lile Ulie Islands]

this got buried, but I believe is important.

Have you read the arguments on why the implementation of the policy is bad?

Yes, I did read it. I do not support it.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Have you read the arguments on why the implementation of the policy is bad?

Yes, I did read it. I do not support it.

OOC:

OOC: Nobody is actually going to be "affected" by this, unless you count your virtual citizens as them. Bad legislation gets removed. Just because something is an important topic does not make it suitable for international legislation.

OOC: Well, if you actually think about it, people are affected by this. I care about the citizens of my country, and it’s okay if you don’t, but I do. I will not remove protection for members of the LGBTQIAA+ community. Protection for them is needed. In the midst of Pride Month, and as someone who just attended a pride celebration in my home city of DC, this repeal of the bill feels wrong.

The repeal of this resolution will not stop your own nation from enacting laws to teach LGBT+ topics in school and to prevent discrimination.

[Hannasea]

"Good. Enforcing the madness of gender ideology isn't suitable for international law.

Affirming its stalwart commitment to protecting marginalised communities from discrimination via World Assembly legislation, such as through “Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities”, “Access to Transgender Hormone Therapy”, and “Ending School Segregation”,

"Take this line out and we will support the repeal."

Daniella Russel, MA PhD,
Representing the office of:
Ambassador Brittany Hepburn
Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

[Honeydewistania]

"Good. Enforcing the madness of gender ideology isn't suitable for international law.

Affirming its stalwart commitment to protecting marginalised communities from discrimination via World Assembly legislation, such as through “Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities”, “Access to Transgender Hormone Therapy”, and “Ending School Segregation”,

"Take this line out and we will support the repeal."

Daniella Russel, MA PhD,
Representing the office of:
Ambassador Brittany Hepburn
Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

Agreed. That line does not go into enough detail about the benefits of supporting pro-LGBT+ legislation. We will take that line out and expand it to really hammer home about how great supporting gender "ideology" is in international law.

-Benji

[Lile Ulie Islands]

Yes, I did read it. I do not support it.

OOC: :roll:

OOC: Well, if you actually think about it, people are affected by this. I care about the citizens of my country, and it’s okay if you don’t, but I do. I will not remove protection for members of the LGBTQIAA+ community. Protection for them is needed. In the midst of Pride Month, and as someone who just attended a pride celebration in my home city of DC, this repeal of the bill feels wrong.

The repeal of this resolution will not stop your own nation from enacting laws to teach LGBT+ topics in school and to prevent discrimination.

True, but it is not only important for my nation to do so, but for every nation to do so, especially as we pass middle days of June, a month dedicated to PRIDE. :)

[WayNeacTia]

OOC:


The repeal of this resolution will not stop your own nation from enacting laws to teach LGBT+ topics in school and to prevent discrimination.

True, but it is not only important for my nation to do so, but for every nation to do so, especially as we pass middle days of June, a month dedicated to PRIDE.

Perhaps in the "real world". I really hate to be the one to pop your fantasy bubble, but NationStates is not the "real world"....

[Hannasea]

True, but it is not only important for my nation to do so, but for every nation to do so, especially as we pass middle days of June, a month dedicated to PRIDE. :)

"Then you're shit outta luck, because only a minority of nations are in the WA. There is no mechanism for forcing 'every' nation to do so. If they don't want to, they can simply leave the WA with zero penalty."

Daniella Russel, MA PhD,
Representing the office of:
Ambassador Brittany Hepburn
Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

[Lile Ulie Islands]

True, but it is not only important for my nation to do so, but for every nation to do so, especially as we pass middle days of June, a month dedicated to PRIDE.

"Then you're shit outta luck, because only a minority of nations are in the WA. There is no mechanism for forcing 'every' nation to do so. If they don't want to, they can simply leave the WA with zero penalty."

Daniella Russel, MA PhD,
Representing the office of:
Ambassador Brittany Hepburn
Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

By every nation I mean every WA nation. I understand I could've made that more clear.

[Lile Ulie Islands]

True, but it is not only important for my nation to do so, but for every nation to do so, especially as we pass middle days of June, a month dedicated to PRIDE.

Perhaps in the "real world". I really hate to be the one to pop your fantasy bubble, but NationStates is not the "real world"....

I did not reference anything about the "real world" here. Pride month is an important celebration that keeps our world strong. I don't care if the legislation is poorly structured or written. All of you were like this to my legislation while drafting, so I'm going to be like it to you:

"What a load of claptrap. Opposed."

I know I am being a stinker here. But I don't support this legislation, and nothing will make me.

[Minskiev]

Perhaps in the "real world". I really hate to be the one to pop your fantasy bubble, but NationStates is not the "real world"....

I did not reference anything about the "real world" here. Pride month is an important celebration that keeps our world strong. I don't care if the legislation is poorly structured or written. All of you were like this to my legislation while drafting, so I'm going to be like it to you:

"What a load of claptrap. Opposed."

I know I am being a stinker here. But I don't support this legislation, and nothing will make me.

I hope you do realize that both authors are queer. In fact, I would posit that this *advances* queer rights if the repeal goes through, because it opens the door to quality legislation that protects queer rights while not bankrupting millions of cultural institutions.

[Comfed]

I don't care if the legislation is poorly structured or written.

It is difficult to be taken seriously in the GA if this is your view.

[Refuge Isle]

Strong support for the repeal. A poor resolution with a sunshine and rainbows name should not be protected simply because of its sunshine and rainbows name. I don't put much stock in corporate logos rebranding with rainbows for a month out of the year to sell more merch, and that's the same kind of shallow liberalism that the against arguments have presented thus far. At least, that and "you were mean in my thread" justifications.

It's a good draft, and removing the resolution is a good cause for the reasons Minsk stated.

Sincerely,

A married lesbian.

[WayNeacTia]

Perhaps in the "real world". I really hate to be the one to pop your fantasy bubble, but NationStates is not the "real world"....

I did not reference anything about the "real world" here. Pride month is an important celebration that keeps our world strong. I don't care if the legislation is poorly structured or written. All of you were like this to my legislation while drafting, so I'm going to be like it to you:

"What a load of claptrap. Opposed."

I know I am being a stinker here. But I don't support this legislation, and nothing will make me.

I guess the author will have to get by without your single vote. If it comes down to a single vote, you can come back and gloat....

[Outer Sparta]

Perhaps in the "real world". I really hate to be the one to pop your fantasy bubble, but NationStates is not the "real world"....

I did not reference anything about the "real world" here. Pride month is an important celebration that keeps our world strong. I don't care if the legislation is poorly structured or written. All of you were like this to my legislation while drafting, so I'm going to be like it to you:

"What a load of claptrap. Opposed."

I know I am being a stinker here. But I don't support this legislation, and nothing will make me.

A poorly-written legislation is fundamentally bad for the cause. Besides, the LGBTIQA act really does not do anything constructive nor actually helps the LGBT cause. What you're doing is simply virtue signaling that an act with "LGBT inclusiveness" or something along those lines is inherently good no matter what. Substance matters and the repeal is trying to take out the flawed resolution that's currently on the books.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC:


The repeal of this resolution will not stop your own nation from enacting laws to teach LGBT+ topics in school and to prevent discrimination.

True, but it is not only important for my nation to do so, but for every nation to do so, especially as we pass middle days of June, a month dedicated to PRIDE.

"What is this Pride month? A month for lions?"

[Macadia]

OOC:


The repeal of this resolution will not stop your own nation from enacting laws to teach LGBT+ topics in school and to prevent discrimination.

True, but it is not only important for my nation to do so, but for every nation to do so, especially as we pass middle days of June, a month dedicated to PRIDE.

But is it so important for every WA nation to be forced to take time away from the standard curriculum, (unless it is a nation’s own choice to include that in their school teachings), to focus on issues that while very important, don’t feel entirely necessary for schools, specifically younger classes, to be taught about until their parents/guardians want them to, that was my main issue with GAR#603. (I say this as an ally of the LGBT+ community)

[Lile Ulie Islands]

I did not reference anything about the "real world" here. Pride month is an important celebration that keeps our world strong. I don't care if the legislation is poorly structured or written. All of you were like this to my legislation while drafting, so I'm going to be like it to you:

"What a load of claptrap. Opposed."

I know I am being a stinker here. But I don't support this legislation, and nothing will make me.

A poorly-written legislation is fundamentally bad for the cause. Besides, the LGBTIQA act really does not do anything constructive nor actually helps the LGBT cause. What you're doing is simply virtue signaling that an act with "LGBT inclusiveness" or something along those lines is inherently good no matter what. Substance matters and the repeal is trying to take out the flawed resolution that's currently on the books.

LGBTQIAA+ inclusiveness is important. Period. I am going to leave it at that and not post here in the coming days.

Though, if I don't support the resolution, or in this case the repeal, you, or anyone should not force me to support it. I appreciate your efforts but that's not going to happen.

[Hulldom]

True, but it is not only important for my nation to do so, but for every nation to do so, especially as we pass middle days of June, a month dedicated to PRIDE.

"What is this Pride month? A month for lions?"

RLM: “One can never convince them that they’re the mane attraction. It goes to their heads.”

“As for us, we support this.”

[Outer Sparta]

A poorly-written legislation is fundamentally bad for the cause. Besides, the LGBTIQA act really does not do anything constructive nor actually helps the LGBT cause. What you're doing is simply virtue signaling that an act with "LGBT inclusiveness" or something along those lines is inherently good no matter what. Substance matters and the repeal is trying to take out the flawed resolution that's currently on the books.

LGBTQIAA+ inclusiveness is important. Period. I am going to leave it at that and not post here in the coming days.

Though, if I don't support the resolution, or in this case the repeal, you, or anyone should not force me to support it. I appreciate your efforts but that's not going to happen.

Nobody is forcing you to support the repeal, but they are pointing out the many flaws that are present in the target resolution. I think that flawed resolutions that don't do anything to actually support "LGBT inclusiveness" are actually worse than an openly homophobic resolution (if there is one in place) on the books because while the latter is entirely opposed to inclusiveness, at least it's blatantly open about it whereas the former does nothing and acts only as a hindrance.

[WayNeacTia]

LGBTQIAA+ inclusiveness is important. Period. I am going to leave it at that and not post here in the coming days.

Though, if I don't support the resolution, or in this case the repeal, you, or anyone should not force me to support it. I appreciate your efforts but that's not going to happen.

Nobody is forcing you to support the repeal, but they are pointing out the many flaws that are present in the target resolution. I think that flawed resolutions that don't do anything to actually support "LGBT inclusiveness" are actually worse than an openly homophobic resolution (if there is one in place) on the books because while the latter is entirely opposed to inclusiveness, at least it's blatantly open about it whereas the former does nothing and acts only as a hindrance.

Talking to brick walls a hobby of yours?

[Riviere Renard]

The World Assembly,

Affirming its stalwart commitment to protecting marginalised communities from discrimination via World Assembly legislation, such as through “Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities”, “Access to Transgender Hormone Therapy”, and “Ending School Segregation”,

Embarrassed, however, by the numerous flaws present within General Assembly Resolution #603 “LGBTIQA Inclusiveness in Schools Act”, that disservice gender, sexual, and romantic minorities internationally by leaving them with a shoddy, loophole-filled resolution on such an important topic that undoubtedly warrants a resolute civil rights resolution,

Lambasting the overly broad definition of “school” within GA#603, “an institution designed for the organised education of students by providing learning spaces and environments”, which includes many entities such as junior football academies, martial arts dojos, and online coding courses,

Understanding that these “schools” consequently have to teach, along with its main educational purpose, a plethora of material concerning sexual orientation, romantic orientation, and gender identity, as well as provide resources to help minors question and accept their identities, even if these are already being provided by the main educational institutions that these students attend. This would strain vital resources and almost certainly detract from the primary educational function of these “schools” due to having to provide resources and lessons to all of the minors enrolled in their schools, hindering the holistic development of said students,

Disappointed that GA#603 requires that “schools” “otherwise support the mental health of students with diverse sexual or romantic orientations or gender identity”, which includes students’ mental health issues beyond being unable to cope with their sexual orientation, romantic orientation or gender identity (and “diverse” would easily cover the vast majority of people, leaving no doubt as to what the consequences of this are). These are more inexcusable costs for these “schools”, as they may need to hire full-time counsellors or take less time covering core material and instead set time aside for therapy, not to mention the inefficiency of it, since all of this would be provided in both school and literally every other “school”,

Stressing that these mandates not only detract from the primary educational function of these more specialized institutions, but in some cases also stop them from serving the primary educational purpose entirely. Running the normal operation as well as managing a system to identify minors using the learning space or environment, teaching them gender and sexual or romantic orientation material, and providing and funding resources to help every single user, (which may be thousands or even millions of people) come to terms with their gender identity, sexual orientation, or romantic orientation is simply financially impossible in the overwhelming majority of instances,

Observing that all of the actually beneficial provisions mandated by GA#603, however few, are also being currently enforced by [insert resolution here], leaving GA#603 entirely redundant,

Concluding that GA#603 is an unmistakably flawed and poorly constructed piece of legislation, and that there is little reason for it to continue to be enforced as international law, and

Hoping that in the future, the World Assembly stops passing haphazardly written resolutions on the sole basis that they grant rights to certain marginalised groups, and instead consider the technical merit of a proposal before rushing to vote in favour based on premise alone, hereby:

Repeals General Assembly Resolution #603, “LGBTIQA Inclusiveness in Education Act”.

I am generally biased against repeals in the first place, but I see reason here to repeal. However, I oppose this repeal do to one major flaw. Before that, however, I would also like to criticize some other things.

Firstly, this is clearly not queerphobic in nature. However, that doesn't mean that one shouldn't be concerned about its potential affects on the queer community (who, from here on out, I will call GSRM (Gender, Sexual, and Romantic Minorities).

Secondly, I reject the following point: "(and “diverse” would easily cover the vast majority of people, leaving no doubt as to what the consequences of this are)". I do not believe that the term diverse would encompass more than the GSRM community. The clear majority of people are not less than heterosexual or cisgender. In my opinion, if you are not less than heterosexual or cisgender, it is misleading at best to call you 'diverse' in that regard. Thus, I believe this aside point is false and should be removed.

Thirdly, the rest of that paragraph is also something I disagree with. 'Otherwise support[ing] the mental health of of students with diverse sexual or romantic orientations or gender identity' is not difficult. It does not inherently mean therapy. It merely means that kids who are going through troubling mental health situations can come to their teachers and receive support. It does not specify quantity of support. Merely that students are safe to talk to their teachers about such matters, and I find it more than reasonable to require all services directed at youth to be able to do that. To be able to at least listen. Sometimes, this may mean redirecting students to institutions that can properly deal with the mental health situations, which is not difficult. Furthermore, most schools already have support networks for this (IE counsellors) so this is only relevant under the previously stated interpretation that this resolution applies to more than just default schools. It is thus, in my opinion, that this entire section should be removed, and instead used an a further example of the first point of the resolution.

And finally, my main point. This is a proposal for a replacement, and thus should not only stand on the good reason to repeal, but also on the quality of the proposed replacement. I, begrudgingly, acquiesce that the original resolution's definition of school is highly problematic. However, the proposed replacement is, in my opinion, really, really bad. While it has the benefit of challenging a wider array of bigotry, it has two fatal flaws. Firstly, its use of non-specialized and specialized schools is problematic, as it leaves the door open to loopholes. Secondly, and more importantly, it removes the requirement for schools to teach people about gender and sexuality, instead only teaching about bigotry. I believe that teaching students to understand themselves and others is very important, and, when done correctly, leads to a far, far more inclusive, accepting, and understanding environment than merely teaching about bigotry. I believe it is difficult, for example, to combat acephobia without understanding what asexuality is. And, having at least a surface level exploration of gender and sexuality has a tremendous positive mental health affect on gender and sexuality diverse students; I speak from experience there. Furthermore, teaching about bigotry but not the identities on the receiving ends of that bigotry can result in those identities being perceived by students as defined by suffering. Thus, removing that requirement is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

I hereby oppose this attempt to repeal, unless the proposed replacement is amended to address my above criticism.

---

Pronouns: She/Her at time of posting

[Minskiev]

Secondly, I reject the following point: "(and “diverse” would easily cover the vast majority of people, leaving no doubt as to what the consequences of this are)". I do not believe that the term diverse would encompass more than the GSRM community. The clear majority of people are not less than heterosexual or cisgender. In my opinion, if you are not less than heterosexual or cisgender, it is misleading at best to call you 'diverse' in that regard. Thus, I believe this aside point is false and should be removed.

Diverse means there are many varieties. Common gender/sexuality/romantic orientation "varieties", so to speak, would undoubtedly cover heterosexual or cisgender people, since they're the most common gender identities/sexualities/romantic orientations etc.

Thirdly, the rest of that paragraph is also something I disagree with. 'Otherwise support[ing] the mental health of of students with diverse sexual or romantic orientations or gender identity' is not difficult. It does not inherently mean therapy. It merely means that kids who are going through troubling mental health situations can come to their teachers and receive support. It does not specify quantity of support. Merely that students are safe to talk to their teachers about such matters, and I find it more than reasonable to require all services directed at youth to be able to do that. To be able to at least listen. Sometimes, this may mean redirecting students to institutions that can properly deal with the mental health situations, which is not difficult. Furthermore, most schools already have support networks for this (IE counsellors) so this is only relevant under the previously stated interpretation that this resolution applies to more than just default schools. It is thus, in my opinion, that this entire section should be removed, and instead used an a further example of the first point of the resolution.

We never assert that it inherently means therapy. But I understand your point, and our argument is somewhat weak, yeah.

And finally, my main point. This is a proposal for a replacement, and thus should not only stand on the good reason to repeal, but also on the quality of the proposed replacement. I, begrudgingly, acquiesce that the original resolution's definition of school is highly problematic. However, the proposed replacement is, in my opinion, really, really bad. While it has the benefit of challenging a wider array of bigotry, it has two fatal flaws. Firstly, its use of non-specialized and specialized schools is problematic, as it leaves the door open to loopholes.

Such as? The whole "make every school specialized" thing isn't a loophole, it's an inane scenario that no rational nation would follow.
[quote]Secondly, and more importantly, it removes the requirement for schools to teach people about gender and sexuality, instead only teaching about bigotry. I believe that teaching students to understand themselves and others is very important, and, when done correctly, leads to a far, far more inclusive, accepting, and understanding environment than merely teaching about bigotry. I believe it is difficult, for example, to combat acephobia without understanding what asexuality is. And, having at least a surface level exploration of gender and sexuality has a tremendous positive mental health affect on gender and sexuality diverse students; I speak from experience there. Furthermore, teaching about bigotry but not the identities on the receiving ends of that bigotry can result in those identities being perceived by students as defined by suffering. Thus, removing that requirement is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

Oh, and P.S: you can go here and put

Pronouns: She/Her at time of posting

in that so that you don't have to manually append it to each post