[PASSED] Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy

[Mahrenbach]

We're to announce that the Mahrenbach Federation is going to vote in favor of the resolution.

The Federal Govermnent believes that the resolution is in accordance with already established policies, practices and medical support hitherto existing in the Federation. We have the fullest trust in the medical and professional capabilities of our medical personal and institutions in regard to a careful and responsible application of the therapies mentioned in the resolution within firmly established guidelines.

Klaus Folken,
acting representative to the WA

[Minoa]

Hey there, Charlotte Ryberg returned to the WA to vote in favour of the resolution, because we feel that everyone is a human being, regardless of what they identify themselves as.

While freedom of religion and freedom of expression is important, incitement to hatred or violence against people on the basis of sexual orientation crosses the line.

I understand that some people do not approve of the LGBT community: but that does not give them an excuse to enforce their disapproval on them.

In our case, we are obliged under Articles 9.2, 10.2, 14 and 17 of European Convention on Human Rights to protect the safety and freedoms of everyone, and not just a few.

-- Ms. Sarah Harper.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: You have evidence to the contrary? Provide it then, please. And what are these gender role differences that are biological? And more importantly, whose traditions? Different cultures have different ideas of gender roles, which further proves that they're not biology-based.

Certainly, here is some of the evidence which I have seen:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/ ... stem-grads

I can't explain this, but there's nothing to suggest that there's anything biological at play.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/08/gender-personality-big-five-psychology/568087/

I've read dozens of papers doing the same thing: Take the NEOAC, survey enough people to get a representative sample, find that there are differences between men and women, correlate that with some metric for forwardness, and voila, you get a paper. I don't know how they get published, but it's junk: First, economic development is always a greater factor in the papers I've seen (Other factors vary; women in power seem to decrease the NEOAC gap). Does economic development produce different psychological responses? Personally I'm concerned that they're p-hacking based on their preconceived notions.
Second, they propose the causal mechanism that <some measure> ought to produce greater equality in choice. They don't, for example, test what cultural norms exists and how they push people in different directions. As you see in your link, it's simply "opportunities" for women; IIRC legal access and equality in education. That's not a test of whether society shapes the choice of sexes; nor is the reverse evidence for biological explanations.
Third, their theoretical conceptions of the "nature" vs. "culture" debate is woefully inadequate. You don't see biologists participate, that's because to get it down to biology you can't just take a socially constructed concept like gender, equate it to sex, which is then genetics, and voila, it's all biology and especially evolutionary biology. Why don't you see evolutionary biologists on the teams of evolutionary psychological studies? They know it's.
Fourth, the differences between male and female is nothing compared to the differences inside male and female. To get the results they like, they average out all differences between socially constructed concepts and ascribe it to biology. Had someone tried something like that in my class, I would have given them an F. What might reasonably be inferred is that two categories of genders cannot adequately contain all humans, since we can easily make groupings (Based on purely statistical analysis) that find several. I did a principal factor analysis (Essentially a statistical tool of grouping items so you can construct indeces; here it would be number of genders) on one NEOAC dataset I could find publicly and it gave me 10 different genders (Eigenvalues above 1). It's not my field so I guess it's not valid, but when I as someone doing something completely different can show that their statistics don't hold up, it's a problem.
I honestly don't get how they can publish shit like that. The theories are explained at high-school levels, they can't connect gender with biology, their own models show that other explanations are better and in their own datasets you can show that their two-gender-model is pure BS.

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/the-gender-scandal-part-one-scandinavia-and-part-two-canada/

I was referring to Western traditions, as that is where I live. I acknowledge that there are differences with other cultures, but often many similarities, in terms of gender roles, can be drawn as well, such as in the case of Christianity and Islam.

And the existence of matriarchical societies completely debunks the biological argument: If it's biologically determined, matriarchical societies can't exist. They did historically, and IIRC the Iroquois Confederacy still is.

[Lamebrainia]

OOC: You can make them pay for it. It just has to be accessible and affordable.

No, it doesn't have to. Why should taxpayers be paying for cosmetic surgery? Especially for cosmetic surgery that not only does not reduce the suicide and homicide rates but actually increases the risk for them?

OOC: "Integration harms racial minorities. It doesn't do anyone any good to put all ethnicities in the same classroom. I know because I have black friends..."

Very funny. I assume you have never experienced what happens when people of different cultural backgrounds are put into the same room without any attempts to make them speak a common language and follow the same set of cultural protocols. I have studied in such environments when I was a kid and a young adult (one experience that comes to mind was a multicultural class at a German gymnasium, where people of various German proficiency levels were put to learn German and German customs).

[...] people that feel like their sex (not Gender, science has proven countless times both of these things are different) [...]

I do not think gender studies really qualify as a science. And subjective experiences do not qualify as facts. If I am not Napoleon, but I feel like Napoleon, it does not mean that society has to accept it. If you see a "scientist" claim the existence of a plethora of genders, you should be very sceptical about their research.

That really doesn't matter. They exist. Therefore, sex is not binary.

That's false logic. It's like saying that irregular verbs exist in English, therefore verbs in English are irregular.

[...] Every single drop of legitimate evidence supports transgender existence and transgender rights. This has been reiterated time and time again, in a million places, in a million different ways.

There is no "debate", there's the actually informed people, and the ignorant/bigoted. The former can be fixed; the latter is not worth engaging.

Here's an idea. Do some damn research yourself, and stop spouting nonsense then whining that people are being mean to you when they're explaining basic, easily verifiable facts for the millionth time.

No-one is disputing the fact that transgender people exist. But it doesn't change the fact that this type of surgery is cosmetic surgery. Perhaps, this is not a very good example, but a vast majority of women has self-image issues (for women in their fourties they sometimes run very deep; I know this because I work as a medical professional, and I hear "complaints" from my patients on a daily basis). Should the taxpayers be paying for cosmetic surgeries for those women to decrease suicide and divorce rates? I don't think so.
And the fact that transgender people exist does not necessitate the use of personal pronouns or the invention of a so-called "gender spectrum". Accepting and welcoming people is one thing, but bending reality and science to accomodate them is another. It's a bit like claiming that the Solar System is geocentric in spite of contradicting evidence just to appease the Church.
I am mentally ill, but I do not expect people to treat me in a special way (or pay for my visits to the shrink) or for my workplace to accomodate my condition. I see all other people as my equals, and I expect them to follow this logic as well. Treating transgender people (or minorities) as victim groups does not do them any good.

[West Heisen]

You raise good points, but I still feel as though biology has an impact on gender differences, though I'm not going to find more sources right now.
To return to a relevant topic, as I feel this conversation has strayed from the proposal, I still oppose it, as it requires HRT to be affordable. I do not believe that the government should fund it, nor should the government dictate prices to businesses.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: You can make them pay for it. It just has to be accessible and affordable.

No, it doesn't have to. Why should taxpayers be paying for cosmetic surgery? Especially for cosmetic surgery that not only does not reduce the suicide and homicide rates but actually increases the risk for them?

OOC: Its in the resolution, and you have an obligation to obey resolutions or face the consequences outlined in GAR#440, which far exceed the costs to taxpayers.

No-one is disputing the fact that transgender people exist. But it doesn't change the fact that this type of surgery is cosmetic surgery. Perhaps, this is not a very good example, but a vast majority of women has self-image issues (for women in their fourties they sometimes run very deep; I know this because I work as a medical professional, and I hear "complaints" from my patients on a daily basis). Should the taxpayers be paying for cosmetic surgeries for those women to decrease suicide and divorce rates? I don't think so.

OOC: Ok, so you're an orderly. Taxpayers paying for elective surgery among middle aged women is empirically different because lack of access to the treatment is not objectively used to oppress a vulnerable LGBT+ group.

And the fact that transgender people exist does not necessitate the use of personal pronouns or the invention of a so-called "gender spectrum". Accepting and welcoming people is one thing, but bending reality and science to accomodate them is another. It's a bit like claiming that the Solar System is geocentric in spite of contradicting evidence just to appease the Church.

OOC: Nobody is making you use those pronouns. We just use them because it costs us nothing to be polite.

[Qualvista]

The Royal World Estate proudly votes for the resolution.

[Araraukar]

OOC: You can make them pay for it. It just has to be accessible and affordable.

No, it doesn't have to. Why should taxpayers be paying for cosmetic surgery? Especially for cosmetic surgery that not only does not reduce the suicide and homicide rates but actually increases the risk for them?

OOC: Vote right now is about 75% on the side of you being wrong. And the whole suicide risk thing after transition? One word: bigotry. The people who kill themselves after transition are literally bullied to death.

Also, where are you finding the increased risk post-transition? At least in Finland the research shows that suicide risk is reduced, though it does mention that the ones most likely to commit suicide after transition were at the greatest risk before it as well.

Basically, even a minority like transgender people, are not one single block who are all the same. There are people who are more desperate than others, which is why the evaluation process in use in Finland (where transitioning, including surgeries, is free of cost to the individual) is a deep-probing analysis not just of the gender identity but also the person's mental balance. Because transitioning all on its own is very stressful, so you basically need to find some kind of balance before starting the transitioning. (Being depressed and having anxiety disorder and such because of gender dysphoria, does not make you ineligible, nor does any other mental disorder that's kept in balance with medications/therapy.)

In USA, with no public healthcare to speak of, you're on your own, likely end up in debt because of the treatments being so costly, could get fired (which is insane!) at will, because the unions are nonexistent, and where hatespeech and harassment is practically ignored. If you are out of job (no welfare system), in debt (again, no welfare system) and get hated on by people calling you unnatural and freak to your face (which is a huge no-no in Finnish culture, just like talking about religion with random strangers), with no real way to get help (no public healthcare means no public mental health care either) - people in less desperate circumstances can kill themselves, whether or not they're trans or cis or gay or straight.

tl;dr: Yes, it's a problem, but banning treatment isn't the answer. Rather, you need to weed out the hateful bigotry and offer the people more support, especially after transitioning. Oh and homicide rates? Are you fucking seriously blaming homicide victims for getting killed???

OOC: "Integration harms racial minorities. It doesn't do anyone any good to put all ethnicities in the same classroom. I know because I have black friends..."

Very funny. I assume you have never experienced what happens

I'm fairly sure you've never experienced what it's like to be transgender either, but yet you talk of it as if you knew better than people who do experience it.

I do not think gender studies really qualify as a science.

Why? If you're one of the "psychology isn't a science" people, then you're basically just ignorant. If you're willfully remaining ignorant, despite being given the opportunity to learn, as seems to be the case, then why are you even here? You can go elsewhere and not need to bother with something that you don't want to believe in. I don't go on the Christian thread in NSG to yell about how god doesn't exist. (And don't even try to claim that you're debating ICly here.)

And subjective experiences do not qualify as facts.

...so you're saying you don't actually exist? I mean, your self. The thing that lives in your brain. Being someone is an entirely subjective experience. Existing is a completely subjective experience.

If I am not Napoleon, but I feel like Napoleon, it does not mean that society has to accept it.

Napoleon was a historical real person who died a long time ago. A transgender individual does not claim to be anyone else but who they are.

If you see a "scientist" claim the existence of a plethora of genders, you should be very sceptical about their research.

Why? Because you refuse to believe in it? Do you believe in UV light? You can't see that wavelength. How do you know it's real?

That's false logic. It's like saying that irregular verbs exist in English, therefore verbs in English are irregular.

English is irregular as hell as a language. All living languages are. Also, just because you have faulty grasp of how logical statements work, does not disprove something.

I am mentally ill

I'm just preserving this as a quote here.

Treating transgender people (or minorities) as victim groups does not do them any good.

Victim groups? You realize that for there to be a victim, there has to be an attacker? It has been shown time and again that addressing the problem of the attacker reduces the number of victims, not the other way round. Remove attackers or attacks, and voila, no more victims!

---

You raise good points, but I still feel as though biology has an impact on gender differences, though I'm not going to find more sources right now.

OOC: Biology has a huge effect on emotions, too, yet we don't try to tell people that they can't be sad because their serotonin levels haven't crashed. Biology does not and currently cannot explain the human mind, the self.

To return to a relevant topic, as I feel this conversation has strayed from the proposal, I still oppose it, as it requires HRT to be affordable. I do not believe that the government should fund it, nor should the government dictate prices to businesses.

"You can believe what you want, but you can't do what you want." That's been said by too many famous people to decide who to credit, but for the hell of it I'll go with Stephen Fry.

---

OOC: And lastly, I'll leave this link here; it's a Finnish TV commercial that gives me hope for the human species, even after wading through the comments on this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_cx9ITLZQ8

[Mettaton-EX]

Also, where are you finding the increased risk post-transition? At least in Finland the research shows that suicide risk is reduced, though it does mention that the ones most likely to commit suicide after transition were at the greatest risk before it as well.

s/a ontario: completed transition reduces suicidality by 62%
belgium: transition reduced suicide attempt rate from 29% to 5%
uk: 63% of participants self-harmed less after transition (3% more), 63% of participants thought about or attempted suicide less after transition (3% more)

[Wallenburg]

That really doesn't matter. They exist. Therefore, sex is not binary.

That's false logic. It's like saying that irregular verbs exist in English, therefore verbs in English are irregular.

No, it's like saying that irregular verbs exist in English, therefore you can't conjugate all English verbs as if they are regular.

[Tinfect]

No, it doesn't have to. Why should taxpayers be paying for cosmetic surgery? Especially for cosmetic surgery that not only does not reduce the suicide and homicide rates but actually increases the risk for them?

OOC:
Cosmetic does not mean what you think it does, for one. For two, that's a lie. There is no legitimate evidence that transition-related care increases the suicide risk, and mountains of evidence to the contrary. Here's one:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 2DAB25D177
Here's another:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4261554/
Here's another, and one that specifically takes issue with the so-called 'swedish study' that most reports of increased suicidality after GRS are based upon.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5905855/

Very funny. I assume you have never experienced what happens when people of different cultural backgrounds are put into the same room without any attempts to make them speak a common language and follow the same set of cultural protocols. I have studied in such environments when I was a kid and a young adult (one experience that comes to mind was a multicultural class at a German gymnasium, where people of various German proficiency levels were put to learn German and German customs).

I really don't want to engage this absurd racism, so I'll just stick to calling it out. There is no reasonable interpretation of those events that places the blame on the mere existence of cultural distinctions in proximity.

I do not think gender studies really qualify as a science.

Sociology is legitimate and valuable scientific field. If you don't think it qualifies as science, I don't know what to tell you other than... that you're wrong, it's... literally accepted by scientific consensus. Your random-ass opinion is worthless.

No-one is disputing the fact that transgender people exist. But it doesn't change the fact that this type of surgery is cosmetic surgery.

SRS, or other gender-affirming surgeries are not cosmetic. They have the function of massively improving quality of life of transpeople.

Perhaps, this is not a very good example,

It isn't.

but a vast majority of women has self-image issues (for women in their fourties they sometimes run very deep; I know this because I work as a medical professional, and I hear "complaints" from my patients on a daily basis). Should the taxpayers be paying for cosmetic surgeries for those women to decrease suicide and divorce rates? I don't think so.

This is an entirely different thing from gender dysphoria.

And the fact that transgender people exist does not necessitate the use of personal pronouns or the invention of a so-called "gender spectrum". Accepting and welcoming people is one thing, but bending reality and science to accomodate them is another. It's a bit like claiming that the Solar System is geocentric in spite of contradicting evidence just to appease the Church.

This is gross anti-scientific nonsense. The modern sociological understanding of gender isn't just 'inventing' a gender spectrum; it is the product of immense amounts of research and theory and is the scientific consensus on the matter. You don't get to reject this out of hand; comparing it to geocentrism is absurd and childish.

Also, on pronoun use, have some base level of respect for human fucking beings and their mental health please. It costs you nothing to gender transpeople properly, and can be immensely hurtful to transpeople to misgender us.

I am mentally ill, but I do not expect people to treat me in a special way (or pay for my visits to the shrink) or for my workplace to accomodate my condition.

Why? You're a human fucking being, you shouldn't have to pay out the ass for healthcare or deal with discrimination due to your condition.

Treating transgender people (or minorities) as victim groups does not do them any good.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, this is... just incoherent.

[AaronScythe]

OOC: (All the way)
You were asked to stop.
Labeling everything that you cannot address with facts as "incoherent" is one of the truest forms of irony.
Acting like you're higher than thou and stating you don't have to engage with someone only proves that this is indeed something one cannot address.
To Tinfect, I'm going to be real here. You linked Jordan Peterson yet are going completely opposite to his stances on political correctness leading to the shut down of debate.
Calling anyone else incoherent after that clear display of cognitive dissonance is laughable.

Now to address the Finnish model that's starting to be used in quite the silly manner.

Finland is somewhat gay friendly, but not trans, due to the STERILIZATION OF TRANSGENDER PEOPLE before they're allowed to change their legal gender. (Since 2002)
What makes it only somewhat friendly is the fact that conversion therapy is still not banned for minors.
But even better than that is the process, which only goes to prove they're viewed as mentally ill before anything.
First you need a psychiatric referral from Helsinki or Tampere
Then a full year of appointments with various levels of mental health professionals. This cuts it down to roughly 1/3 at this point to be diagnosed with transsexualism.
Next are multiple tests, including living as the new gender before HRT can even begin (This is often spread as accompanied, but that's not in the beginning stages)
Then after a year of this (2 years+ running total obligatory time) you're able to get your legal gender changed, with referral from an endocrinologist who can confirm whether or not the HRT has rendered you sterile or not.
The actual amount that undergo genital reassignment surgery in the 2nd year is roughly 50%.
So at best model, 1/6 of people who get their first referral through, actually complete the process. (There are little statistics around of how many fail to get the referral)


Now let's ask some obvious questions:

If at maximum 1/6 of people actually go through with it, does that not mean that 5/6 are just deemed mentally ill?
If sterilization is required, is it progress? Or is it just veiled eugenics.
Why does the country touted as having the best schooling system in the world, believe in this many checks and dragging the process out across years?

My conclusion to all of the above is that Finland's views are that trans people shouldn't breed, because eugenics.
So can we move away from using them as a "for" in this argument?

Olen puoliksi suomalainen.
Vaikka minulla puuttui kielitaito ja käytin Googlea kommunikoimaan matkailijoiden kanssa;
Pääsy pääsiäispeleihin ja muihin tapahtumiin Melbournessa osoitti juuri, että homoystävällisyys on poliittinen askel vihaiselle Venäjälle jokaisen suomalaisen matkustajan mukaan.

[Tinfect]

To Tinfect, I'm going to be real here. You linked Jordan Peterson yet are going completely opposite to his stances on political correctness leading to the shut down of debate.

OOC:
What the fuck are you talking about? Jordan Peterson is a racist, misogynistic, and frankly nazi-adjacent piece of shit, I sure as hell didn't link to him. If you're talking about West Heisen, the guy who actually did link to him, I feel that I should remind you that we are not the same person.

[San Felix]

OOC:
What the fuck are you talking about? Jordan Peterson is a racist, misogynistic, and frankly nazi-adjacent piece of shit, I sure as hell didn't link to him. If you're talking about West Heisen, the guy who actually did link to him, I feel that I should remind you that we are not the same person.

OOC: Oh dearest god. Did someone actually used Jordan Peterson to support their argument? I just can't... I... Why?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Now to address the Finnish model that's starting to be used in quite the silly manner.

OOC: I'm a Finn, living in Finland. I'm also transgender. How is it silly for me to use my own experiences and my own nation that I bet I know more about than you do?

Finland is somewhat gay friendly, but not trans, due to the STERILIZATION OF TRANSGENDER PEOPLE before they're allowed to change their legal gender. (Since 2002)

It's not forced sterilization. And also you're wrong - the legal gender can be changed otherwise, it's the genital reconstruction surgery that you need to be unable to breed for. But happily this year, a month ago, the decision was made on governmental level that the law needs to be and will be changed. How long that takes, I don't know (likely at least 2 years like most law changes), but it's coming.

First you need a psychiatric referral from Helsinki or Tampere

No. You need a referral from your own doctor, who can be a psychiatric or a regular medical doctor. You get referred to Helsinki or Tampere university hospital, because the specialists for evaluation and treatment have been focused in those two places. (I went to Tampere, because it's closer than Helsinki.)

Then a full year of appointments with various levels of mental health professionals.

Mental health professionals who have specialized in the treatment of transgender people, and actually 6 months of that is time set aside for you to change your mind. I myself had been talking about it with my therapists for several years in advance, so I got to skip the waiting time.

This cuts it down to roughly 1/3 at this point to be diagnosed with transsexualism.

Not transsexualism the way the word works in English. Law text doesn't translate well when you run it literally through a dictionary. But yes, the word needs changing as part of the change to the law. However, you can also get the diagnosis of "muu sukupuolinen häiriö" which doesn't translate easily with the right nuance, but could be translated as "other gender error (of the body)". That doesn't give you the right to get state-paid genital surgery, but everything else you get (including breast removal).

Next are multiple tests

The multiple tests are part of the ^evaluation, actually.

including living as the new gender before HRT can even begin

Again, false. The living as the new gender is before genital surgeries.

Then after a year of this (2 years+ running total obligatory time) you're able to get your legal gender changed, with referral from an endocrinologist who can confirm whether or not the HRT has rendered you sterile or not.

Again, false. I could walk to the magistrate right now and start the process of legal paper change, without having HRT or any surgeries done. The things you describe all apply to the genital surgery only, because that's kinda irreversible, so they want people to be absolutely certain it is what you want. Also, the endocrinologist's statement (not referral) just means a blood test for you. If you've been taking the hormones for a year, it's a mere formality.

The actual amount that undergo genital reassignment surgery in the 2nd year is roughly 50%.

Because unsurprisingly just plain HRT and non-genital transitioning helps tons.

If at maximum 1/6 of people actually go through with it, does that not mean that 5/6 are just deemed mentally ill?

No.

If sterilization is required, is it progress? Or is it just veiled eugenics.

This is getting changed. And no, it's not eugenics.

Why does the country touted as having the best schooling system in the world, believe in this many checks and dragging the process out across years?

What has the schooling system got anything to do with this? And the long waiting time is only for the genital surgery bit.

My conclusion to all of the above is that Finland's views are that trans people shouldn't breed, because eugenics.

...that's a weird leap, honestly, especially considering the "unable to breed" thing only applies to genital surgery.

Olen puoliksi suomalainen.

Vain puoliksi? Otan osaa.

homoystävällisyys on poliittinen askel vihaiselle Venäjälle jokaisen suomalaisen matkustajan mukaan.

Monenkohan kanssa puhuit? 42% of Finns actively want/demand the trans law changed, and only 20% are actively against it. That's slightly too many people for it for it to be a middle finger at Russia. EDIT: Also, gay-friendliness has practically nothing to do with trans-friendliness. I mean, trans people can be gay too - I am - but that's a whole other issue, not gender-related.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: On an incredibly minor note, the title on the forum post inside the text box is ‘hormonal therapy’, whereas the actual title is ‘hormone therapy’. It’s something I noticed a while ago and has been annoying me since then.)

[Morover]

(OOC: On an incredibly minor note, the title on the forum post inside the text box is ‘hormonal therapy’, whereas the actual title is ‘hormone therapy’. It’s something I noticed a while ago and has been annoying me since then.)

OOC: Don’t know how that slipped by me! Fixed.

[South World]

A Quote from Ambassador Adams

"Why should the World Assembly allow itself to be swayed by a nation that is incapable of adhering to the promise that all members make upon joining: to adhere to international law duly ratified by majority vote? If you refuse to comply, why should we consider your input? You've clearly no stake in the outcome while we do."

And this is why we withdrew from the WA. We wish to rule ourselves, not have laws we disagree with thrust down our throats.

[Kenmoria]

"Why should the World Assembly allow itself to be swayed by a nation that is incapable of adhering to the promise that all members make upon joining: to adhere to international law duly ratified by majority vote? If you refuse to comply, why should we consider your input? You've clearly no stake in the outcome while we do."

And this is why we withdrew from the WA. We wish to rule ourselves, not have laws we disagree with thrust down our throats.

“If, ambassador, human rights legislation is so deplorable that you wish to leave the General Assembly because of it, then that is of course your right to do so. However, I do wonder why you are debating within this chamber given that your nation has already left this organisation. I also do question what you find so deplorable about granting access to medication.”

[P0RTVGAL]

Imagine trying to force nation states to pump citizens full of hormones to mess up their bodies, at their request, when their better judgment is clouded with what is essentially a body integrity dysphoria like mental disorder lmao
Just pass a bill forcing us to glorify every sexual deviation as a full blown lifestyle while you're at it tbh

[Separatist Peoples]

Imagine trying to force nation states to pump citizens full of hormones to mess up their bodies, at their request, when their better judgment is clouded with what is essentially a body integrity dysphoria like mental disorder lmao
Just pass a bill forcing us to glorify every sexual deviation as a full blown lifestyle while you're at it tbh

"You say that as if sexual deviation is a bad thing."

[Regiose]

The Nomadic peoples of Regiose proudly vote in **in favor** of Affordable Transgender Hormone Therspy

[United Massachusetts]

Imagine trying to force nation states to pump citizens full of hormones to mess up their bodies, at their request, when their better judgment is clouded with what is essentially a body integrity dysphoria like mental disorder lmao
Just pass a bill forcing us to glorify every sexual deviation as a full blown lifestyle while you're at it tbh

"You say that as if sexual deviation is a bad thing."

"You all need a lecture on Christian sexual ethics! Our delegation will be happy to host one over in the convention hall. Perhaps the opposing delegations should come as well -- they clearly have a rather poor understanding of the Church's moral teachings."

[Boaclion]

What a strange website. Just out of curiosity, is this a legally binding resolution? (i.e. do I have to put this into law even if I vote in negation?)

[United Massachusetts]

What a strange website. Just out of curiosity, is this a legally binding resolution? (i.e. do I have to put this into law even if I vote in negation?)

(OOC: Yes, you do-ish. Of course, there are some resolutions that people deliberately flout -- I am in infamous non-compliance with one resolution (so-called "Reproductive Freedoms"). But there are RP consequences to that. Because of the passage of another resolution, the Administrative Compliance Act, I will be fined for non-compliance at "no less than will reasonably coerce compliance." We refuse to pay those fines, and are thus subject to the strictest possible embargo that the resolution imposes. In short, the consequences of my non-compliance are tremendous.

Having said that, we think that if a coalition of conservative nations got together to refuse compliance with some resolutions, they could probably mitigate those consequences. Of course, my views are controversial. Some argue that compliance is an absolute necessity, and that failure to comply constitutes some form of godmodding. I think that's ridiculous, but that's just me -- so long as you RP with the consequences, you should be fine.)