[BEST REPEAL DRAFT] Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy

[Cowardly Pacifists]

OOC: If this is a legality discussion thread instead of a repeal thread, please change the thread title and OP to reflect the fact.

Also, not trying to lie in repeals also "would result in fewer, time-consuming calls for the GenSec to wade into disputes about the merits of differing interpretations of a resolution which would be more properly resolved by the WA's democratic voting process".

Why have you chosen this particular hill to die on?

I’m not sure I agree with that characterization but I’m not oblivious to the fact that the deck is a bit stacked against me. I’m vocal for two reasons. First, I don’t like the appearance of impropriety where GenSec members act as rule prosecutors and judges at the same time.

More importantly, I am a firm believer in playing by the rules. The rules explicitly allow exaggeration, embellishment and deceptive language in repeals. I want that language either enforced or removed formally. I don’t like that it’s being applied or ignored on an ad hoc basis.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...I’m vocal for two reasons. First, I don’t like the appearance of impropriety where GenSec members act as rule prosecutors and judges at the same time...

I mean, that's literally our job (although I think and hope you would agree that the London doctors citation is vastly different in scope, if not in kind). This part of the discussion is separate from your factual claim on the application of the HM rule to your repeal proposal.

---

...It is of course true that the Honest Mistake Rules state: "An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution." The question I suppose is how to reconcile that language with the language immediately before it permitting exageration, embellishment, and deception. The rule as applied by GenSec is that the later modifies the former and basically calls for GenSec members to determine, on an ad hoc basis, between when a repeal permissibly exaggerates, embellishes, and deceives verses when it crosses some ephemeral line into the realm of prohibited mischaracterization and factual inaccuracy. The obvious problem with that viewpoint is that it requires GenSec to look for verifiable truth in a context where that is not really possible, because so much of the WA and Nationstates is a text-based role playing game subject to the imaginations of its players. There is another way to conceptualize the rule that does not call on GenSec to do ad hoc "factual balancing" within an imaginary world. That is, to view the embellishment and deception language permitting conduct with respect to a resolution's implications, and to view the "factual inaccuracies" language as directed purely at the resolution's written text and content. With that in mind:

The interpretive rule GenSec should adopt is to look for factual inaccuracies, mischaracterizations and the like strictly in the text of the target resolution and not beyond the text into the law's implications.

For example, if a resolution text says: "All people must be allowed to own a dog," it would be factually inaccurate for a repeal to claim: "The law prohibits owning a dog." That claim is subject to objective verification: it can be determined to be true or not simply by reference to the text of the target. It does not require GenSec members to go beyond the target's text and determine what implications the law has.

On the other hand if the repeal claimed "The law requires permitting dog ownership, which represents an unacceptable risk to public health as all dogs have fleas capable of spreading disease." The GenSec should not pass on whether or not that implication of the law's mandate is strictly factually accurate. There are several reasons for this. For one thing, the GenSec is not in a position to know to what extent the claim is true, an exaggeration, or an outright deception, because there simply isn't a data set available within the context of the game with which to make an objective determination about that. Any determination would be subjective, dependent on the imaginations and prior-accepted premises of the GenSec members.

Moreover, there is a principled reason to adopt such restrain. The WA side of the game is at a fundamental level about member nations establishing by a semi-democratic process (WA delegate weighting notwithstanding) the resolutions and repeals which they will and will not vote to enact. By going beyond a facial check of whether the repeal makes inaccurate statements about the content of a target's text, and instead making conclusions about whether certain implications are "reasonable," GenSec is inappropriately assuming for itself the right of member nations to vote on such matters and determine them for themselves. Going back to the example, member nations should be allowed to decide by vote whether a law requiring that dog ownership be legal is problematic because of (exaggerated) claims about the health risks of permitting dog ownership.

Finally, the rule interpreted this way would simplify the test under the Honest Mistake Rule, leading to fewer non-meritorious claims of violating the rule. An Honest Mistake violation based on a "misrepresentation" or "factual accuracy" issue would be found only where the repeal makes a factually incorrect statement about the plain text of the target resolution and would result in fewer, time-consuming calls for the GenSec to wade into disputes about the merits of differing interpretations of a resolution which would be more properly resolved by the WA's democratic voting process.

I'm glad you brought this up, because as it turns out, the system you're describing is exactly what we already do regarding claims of statistical or scientific fact. For example, a repeal of GAR #286 (Reproductive Freedoms) might claim that abortion causes breast cancer, and despite the fact that this claim is transparently bullshit generated by the most selective handpicking of desired results that can be imagined, we would not (indeed, did not) dock such proposals for Honest Mistakes.

Compare that to what you've claimed, though - by analogy, your "mere exaggeration" about mandatory deportation is analogous to saying that nations have dealt with the massive epidemic of breast cancer triggered by the WA's sweeping abortion legality requirement by performing mandatory preemptive mastectomies on their entire female population, and that preventing that from happening is a great reason to repeal #286. When a statement is that clearly beyond the bounds of anything the target resolution is talking about, it's an Honest Mistake. Just because you can imagine in a feverish nightmare that compliance with GAR #356 could be accomplished by total abolition of military forces, doesn't mean that the resolution is in any way responsible for a national choice to do that. When the claim leveled against a resolution is entirely unrelated to anything the resolution is talking about, to the point where the logical or causal chain between the resolution and the alleged result is this kind of Rube Goldberg machine, that's a misrepresentation and an Honest Mistake.

On further reflection, in fact, that makes the difference between this claim and your other two.

The claim about socialization of healthcare costs [repeal clause 1(a)] can be seen as "mere exaggeration." That it would be "substantial" is false on any reflection of the record, but the exaggeration is based on a seed of fact.

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

There are, TL;dr, ways to salvage these two claims. They are based on actual difficulties, even if ultimately those difficulties are best understood by reference to the Princess and the Pea.

On the other hand, the mandatory deportation claim is completely unrelated to the target resolution, has no causal connection to it other than "Gee, I think a nation with an incompetent dictator might think this up" (which is so easy to find that you could repeal literally any resolution by making some similar argument and therefore can't count as "addressing the contents of the target"), and makes no sense outside of that convoluted thought process. You point out that the repeal doesn't explicitly claim that the target requires deportation; that doesn't change the above facts. Even a simple passing mention in this context is analogous to showing a picture of a guy in a suit snorting a line of cocaine with a $100 bill in the middle of an article about investment banks' role in the 2008 financial collapse - it's entirely out of context with the claims being made and indeed out of the context of any claim that could credibly be made in the scope of the text.

That remains an irreparable Honest Mistake.

[Meddlesome Goblins]

*snip*

A grumpy goblin grunts a short, snorty sigh. He then snatches the repeal draft from the hands of the WA clerk, crumples it aggressively, and throws it to the floor. A goblin stooge brings the grumpy goblin a fresh parchment, which the grumpy goblin marks hastily.

The stooge delivers the new draft to the clerk.

[Kenmoria]

*snip*

A grumpy goblin grunts a short, snorty sigh. He then snatches the repeal draft from the hands of the WA clerk, crumples it aggressively, and throws it to the floor. A goblin stooge brings the grumpy goblin a fresh parchment, which the grumpy goblin marks hastily.

The stooge delivers the new draft to the clerk.

(OOC: 2d isn’t correct, as hormone therapy can be in the form of pills able to be consumed at home and don’t require any physician to be present. As such, it could constitute an HM.)

[Araraukar]

The stooge delivers the new draft to the clerk.[/i]

(d) Noting that, at present, hormone therapy cannot be safely self-administered and requires the assistance of a physician or other qualified health care professional

OOC: What the fuck do you think hormone therapy is? Are you sure you're not mixing it with chemotherapy?

For female hormones, a pill a day. For male hormones (which can't be taken as a pill, because the digestion would destroy testosterone), you spread some testosterone-containing cream on your inner thigh once a day, and it's absorbed through the skin. Possibly both can be taken as a kind of nasal spray as well, but last I read about that, it was still in testing.

Point being, given that in RL they're easy to self-administrate, claiming they cannot, is Bloody Stupid and a lie.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

The stooge delivers the new draft to the clerk.[/i]

(d) Noting that, at present, hormone therapy cannot be safely self-administered and requires the assistance of a physician or other qualified health care professional

OOC: What the fuck do you think hormone therapy is? Are you sure you're not mixing it with chemotherapy?

For female hormones, a pill a day. For male hormones (which can't be taken as a pill, because the digestion would destroy testosterone), you spread some testosterone-containing cream on your inner thigh once a day, and it's absorbed through the skin. Possibly both can be taken as a kind of nasal spray as well, but last I read about that, it was still in testing.

Point being, given that in RL they're easy to self-administrate, claiming they cannot, is Bloody Stupid and a lie.

You are not behaving in a particularly playful or friendly manner, nor have I found any of your comments particularly insightful or helpful. I don't recall treating you with such disrespect. I am going to start ignoring you soon.

The fact that you have an opinion about this doesn't mean I'm lying. Putting aside that what I've written is supported by medical literature, I'll nonetheless soften the language even more to conform to your understanding (and, more importantly, the understanding of Kenmoria), that at least some people can self-administer these medications. But if you expect me to continue playing this game as if you are in it, I expect you to be more polite.

Edit: I also want to point out that the reason factual disagreements about the method for administering HRT (a matter not discussed anywhere in the actual text of the target resolution) is being treated by members of the community as legality problem stems from the GenSec's overbroad application of Honest Mistake rule. If GenSec restrained itself to applying the HM rule only when false claims about the text of the target were made, we would have fewer accusations of rulebreaking based on factual disagreements about matters subject to opinion, interpretation of outside (RL) materials, and persuasion.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: The current draft appears legal. Going roughly clause by clause with a full legality check:

• the preamble has no actual arguments in it, so none of them can be illegal;

• clause 1 is merely a quote and clause 1a a subjective interpretation of the purpose of the legislation so isn’t making a factual claim;

• 1b is true, insofar as at least some of the many WA nations could have misinterpreted the clause, and sending to a helpful country would be compliant with the legislation via creative compliance;

• clause 2 is a quote, whereas clauses 2a and 2b are recognising things that should be uncontroversial;

• 2c relies on the possibility that a term of incarceration may make somebody unable to receive hormone therapy, given the variety of possible punishments that several thousand nations may use, this is probably correct;

• clause 2d is now correct, given the changes you have recently made as to require supervision rather than assistance;

• although clause 2e seems rather extreme, as a physician could probably watch almost all criminals safely via CCTV as a way of supervision, there could be exceptions with equally extreme criminals so this given ‘some’ and ‘may’, this should be fine;

• clause 2f is a logical extension of clause 2 generally;

• and lastly, clause 3 is a mere summation, and the last is just the repealing clause.)

[Araraukar]

You are not behaving in a particularly playful or friendly manner, nor have I found any of your comments particularly insightful or helpful. I don't recall treating you with such disrespect.

OOC: I'm transgender. Most of your claims on this topic sound bigoted and willfully ignorant to me. I'm merely paying it back. Want my respect? Drop the repeal. But I doubt you will, because for some reason you've decided that rules shouldn't apply to you and will fight against the "authority" as you see it, regardless of how futile or silly it was.

The fact that you have an opinion about this doesn't mean I'm lying.

Your draft said cannot. That's a lie, not an opinion.

But if you expect me to continue playing this game as if you are in it, I expect you to be more polite.

I really don't give a shit about whether you want to play with me or not - the Foe list exists for a reason - but you ignoring me won't stop me from giving my opinion on your drafts (is this now a drafting thread again? if yes, change title once more) or from being right. As I've said before, if you stopped lying, you wouldn't have problems.

(a matter not discussed anywhere in the actual text of the target resolution)

That's because it's something that should be left to the individual, not even the nation, to decide.

---

would be compliant with the legislation via creative compliance

OOC: Where is IA and his screaming about the compliance committee? He usually grumps at me when I do any kind of creative compliancs.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

OOC: I'm transgender. Most of your claims on this topic sound bigoted and willfully ignorant to me. I'm merely paying it back. Want my respect? Drop the repeal. But I doubt you will, because for some reason you've decided that rules shouldn't apply to you and will fight against the "authority" as you see it, regardless of how futile or silly it was.

Some RL background about me. As a lawclerk I assisted in a federal habeas corpus lawsuit asserting the right of incarcerated transgender individuals to receive appropriate care to treat their gender dysphoria. My assistance was substantial: I wrote the "replication" (basically translating the person's complaint into a properly presented legal argument), and I wrote the legal brief. I don't doubt that you have a very powerful perspective on this issue from your real life experiences, but accusing me of bigotry and willful ignorance for roleplaying a repeal drafted by a nation of meddlesome goblins is a bit uncalled for. My perspective is informed by my experiences as much as your perspective is informed by yours.

You want to talk about lying? Your impression of my motivations is basic and reflects a lack of understanding or insight into the arguments I've made. I won't respond to allegations that I believe the "rules shouldn't apply" to me when all I've argued for is an even application of the rules as written.

But if you expect me to continue playing this game as if you are in it, I expect you to be more polite.

I really don't give a shit about whether you want to play with me or not - the Foe list exists for a reason - but you ignoring me won't stop me from giving my opinion

You've been framing your communications as directed to me. If you don't care whether I respond to them, I wont. Of course, you remain free to argue whatever you like to the public. But since you were directing your correspondence to me, I assumed you wanted me to respond.

[Kenmoria]

would be compliant with the legislation via creative compliance

OOC: Where is IA and his screaming about the compliance committee? He usually grumps at me when I do any kind of creative compliancs.

(OOC: Luckily, not every single one of the WA members and Gensec are IA. Otherwise, we would surely drown in financial verbosity.)

[Morover]

OOC: I feel it should be pointed out that GAR#467 was initially drafted on the principle that hormone therapy (at least, in the way that it's used real-world) would not fall under the definition of gender-adequation procedures, as defined by GAR#91, seeing how it isn't a procedure. I feel like, taking this into account, 2e is practically irrelevant. In the context of the resolution, one should typically assume that hormone therapy is self-applied. Anything else would continue to be required by GAR#91, which, despite not explicitly prohibiting nations from depriving their citizens of GAPs as a punishment, it does say "No nation can prohibit GAPs to intersex, transgender or intergender persons; nor can they be prohibited to travel to other nations for the sole reason of seeking GAPs in said nations; nor can return be denied for the sole reason of having had GAPs," which essentially does the same thing. If your argument is based around the idea that the imprisoned should not be guaranteed access to GAPs, you'd be better off repealing GAR#91 first.

[Imperium Anglorum]

@Ara. My computer is out for repairs. But since you care so much, I'd like a share an opinion shared by most everyone, at least, on the Discord: RP wank isn't creative compliance. RP wank is damaging to authors and serious discussion of meaningful policy outcomes, but having written so few resolutions, that's perhaps a perspective I can't expect you to take.

Saying that doing what CP describes is impossible because my nation is composed of depleted uranium trees which cannot be moved is the sort of RP wank that I would condemn, not the eminently plausible assertion that 'People can travel for medical care'.

[Marxist Germany]

but having written so few resolutions,

OOC:Correction, none.

"We are in full support of this proposal ambassador, we hope to see this succeed at the vote."

[Tinfect]

OOC:
You people can stop sniping at Ara now. Factual details about HRT are not RP-Wank; I happen know people who self-manage their own HRT. It is possible, and remarkably straightforward with even minimal research.

[Bananaistan]

OOC:
You people can stop sniping at Ara now. Factual details about HRT are not RP-Wank; I happen know people who self-manage their own HRT. It is possible, and remarkably straightforward with even minimal research.

OOC: This. If anything factual details based on RL happenings is the exact opposite of RP wank.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC:

OOC: I'm transgender. Most of your claims on this topic sound bigoted and willfully ignorant to me. I'm merely paying it back. Want my respect? Drop the repeal. But I doubt you will, because for some reason you've decided that rules shouldn't apply to you and will fight against the "authority" as you see it, regardless of how futile or silly it was.

Some RL background about me. As a lawclerk I assisted in a federal habeas corpus lawsuit asserting the right of incarcerated transgender individuals to receive appropriate care to treat their gender dysphoria. My assistance was substantial: I wrote the "replication" (basically translating the person's complaint into a properly presented legal argument), and I wrote the legal brief. I don't doubt that you have a very powerful perspective on this issue from your real life experiences, but accusing me of bigotry and willful ignorance for roleplaying a repeal drafted by a nation of meddlesome goblins is a bit uncalled for. My perspective is informed by my experiences as much as your perspective is informed by yours.

You want to talk about lying? Your impression of my motivations is basic and reflects a lack of understanding or insight into the arguments I've made. I won't respond to allegations that I believe the "rules shouldn't apply" to me when all I've argued for is an even application of the rules as written.

I've kept out so far because I couldn't tell whether this repeal was serious (Rules lawyer? Poe? Disguised transphobe? All were possible interpretations.), but with this explanation I'm assuming you're honestly mistaken about the resolution you're trying to repeal:
1b is simply ludicrous. No reasonable nation would take either stance that you're putting forth, and the argument becomes a non-starter. By what interpretation would you require a nation to provide therapy? None, because the clause that you're citing makes it clear that it needs only be access. As has been argued, price controls, requiring insurance coverance, subsidies or full state funding all provide access. Second, no reasonable nation would equate "easy to access" with "government-assisted relocation". Since hormone treatment is medicine that you can administer yourself, relocation of a person (Compared to drugs) is simply nowhere near "easy to access". Compare to some US states with waiting periods for abortion, which makes abortions uneasy to access.
2c is also a non-starter. Hormone therapy cannot be denied based on conviction, and if incarcerated, the prison must not deny the same access as any free person has. This would likely mean either allowing medicine to be sent to the facility, or having it as part of the regular medical facilities (GAR#161). No reasonable nation would agree with you. As for fines, WA resolutions require a minimum standard of living (GAR#344) and access to medicine (Though for some reason I can't seem to find it right now) - without these issues. Why? Because any punishment can be tailored to fit. As an IRL example, in my home country, fines are lower for people with low incomes, and if a fine makes you unable to pay e.g. medicines, municipal governments are required to provide assistance. The resolution doesn't have the issue you're arguing here.
2e makes no sense to me. If you're in isolation because of danger to others, you can be treated while restrained, if nothing else. Furthermore, an isolated inmate can be given the medicine and an instruction on how to use ("Swallow this one pill that we're giving you, rinse and repeat tomorrow...") without any danger.
2f is false.

From what I see, what you're quoting you're apparently misunderstanding, while what you write yourself is either irrelevant or very much wrong. Your behaviour, with accusing GenSec members trying to help you of bias and your tone towards other users, is generally uncalled for. Your attempts to argue for your particular interpretation of the rules comes across as long-winded, pseudointellectual and unreasonable.
I cannot tell whether you honestly believe there are flaws in the resolution and wishes to fix them, or whether this is an attempt at transphobia under a more legitimate guise. While the former is what you said, the latter cannot be ruled out from your actions. If you want to show your honesty, two things would convince me: Drafting a replacement before submitting this repeal, and ceasing your hostility towards GenSec or other users offering you their input. Reading your mind is beyond me, but if you want your actions to show the same character you say you are, that would convince me.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Nice kick on that straw man over there, Tinfect. It's not RP wank to claim that hormones can be self-administered. My initial prior would be comparisons insulin, which can be self-administered. The discussion of creative compliance doesn't have to do with that, however, it has to do with what the word 'access' means.

MG, correction, Ara was co-author and very significant contributor to Pesticide Regulations, which is a GA resolution. I can't say I recall anything else, but I don't have an eidetic memory.

[Refuge Isle]

Some RL background about me. As a lawclerk I assisted in a federal habeas corpus lawsuit asserting the right of incarcerated transgender individuals to receive appropriate care to treat their gender dysphoria. My assistance was substantial: I wrote the "replication" (basically translating the person's complaint into a properly presented legal argument), and I wrote the legal brief. I don't doubt that you have a very powerful perspective on this issue from your real life experiences, but accusing me of bigotry and willful ignorance for roleplaying a repeal drafted by a nation of meddlesome goblins is a bit uncalled for.

I am entirely unclear about how picking up a case involving a trans person alleviates any concern that a trans person has about you repealing a resolution on a subject which affects them. Most especially lacking a replacement and only vaguely stating that better legislation "[is] possible."

(a) Convinced that such a mandate goes beyond GAR #467's purpose in recognizing a civil right by unduly imposing substantial socialized care obligations on member states and their populations;

I'm entirely unclear about how a proposal to mandate affordable hormone therapy oversteps itself by mandating affordable hormone therapy, it was on the tin.

(c) Recognizing that the imposition of a fine or imprisonment could result in a person effectively being denied access to hormone therapy, if the terms of incarceration renders them physically unable to receive the treatment

Disclaimers to individual cases, etc, if someone is on hormone therapy and it's discontinued abruptly because the state doesn't see fit or find it convenient to allow it to continue, the result isn't the patient just being upsetty, the result is that patient having no sex hormone at all if the original producer was damaged by hormone therapy or removed entirely. That's not as serious as the previously brought up diabetic with insulin, but it's still damaging to your long-term well-being. The purpose of incarceration is supposedly detainment and confinement, not low-key sabotage to a person's health.

By all means, if this draft is no longer a tool to challenge GenSec, submit it as a proposal. Most likely, with the anti-lgbt delegates out there currently, I would imagine you pick up 24 approvals. The remainder of 42 (subject to change) would need to come from anti-establishment types like myself and I'm certainly not going to approve it when some 60% of my region has some manner of lgbt connection. Possibly for similar reasons, proposals to repeal something on this theme usually do very poorly.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Some RL background about me. As a lawclerk I assisted in a federal habeas corpus lawsuit asserting the right of incarcerated transgender individuals to receive appropriate care to treat their gender dysphoria. My assistance was substantial: I wrote the "replication" (basically translating the person's complaint into a properly presented legal argument), and I wrote the legal brief. I don't doubt that you have a very powerful perspective on this issue from your real life experiences, but accusing me of bigotry and willful ignorance for roleplaying a repeal drafted by a nation of meddlesome goblins is a bit uncalled for.

I am entirely unclear about how picking up a case involving a trans person alleviates any concern that a trans person has about you repealing a resolution on a subject which affects them. Most especially lacking a replacement and only vaguely stating that better legislation "[is] possible."

That's fair and I agree it probably doesn't alleviate that concern. I was attempting to respond to the accusation that I am bigoted and willfully ignorant. The fact that I helped litigate this issue on behalf of a trans person hopefully provides at least some evidence that I am not bigoted against that group. And the arguments here made aren't willfully ignorant; they're based on the actual responses to my arguments made by the state as to why the lawsuit should fail (not the exact responses, of course, which were highly fact specific to the case). I hope that clears up what I was trying to communicate.

Your behaviour, with accusing GenSec members trying to help you of bias and your tone towards other users, is generally uncalled for. Your attempts to argue for your particular interpretation of the rules comes across as long-winded, pseudointellectual and unreasonable.
I cannot tell whether you honestly believe there are flaws in the resolution and wishes to fix them, or whether this is an attempt at transphobia under a more legitimate guise.

I've already addressed the bias accusation - the rules allow recusal of GenSec members for bais and I think that in general it would be appropriate for GenSec members to recuse themselves from the ultimate legality determination when they are the principle party challenging a proposal's legality. There is inherent bias in defending one's own position that creates an appearance of institutional unfairness when the person arguing a proposal's illegality also gets to decide the merits of that argument. As a student of political science, you should understand that.

I agree that I am long winded, but as far as making "unreasonable" and "pseudointellectual" arguments I'm not sure where that charge is coming from given that, while I was convinced some parts of the proposal as I originally wrote it went too far and should be changed, SL also acknowledged that at least one of the original alleged "Honest Mistake" violations was indeed a mere exageration permitted by the rules.

As to your other inquiry, I can assure you that I am not transphobic. I'm not at liberty to disclose whether I honestly believe there are flaws meriting repeal, but obviously the goblins wrote what they wrote. In my experience, Nationstates needs a (competent) villain and I'm embracing the role, for now.

By all means, if this draft is no longer a tool to challenge GenSec, submit it as a proposal. Most likely, with the anti-lgbt delegates out there currently, I would imagine you pick up 24 approvals. The remainder of 42 (subject to change) would need to come from anti-establishment types like myself and I'm certainly not going to approve it when some 60% of my region has some manner of lgbt connection. Possibly for similar reasons, proposals to repeal something on this theme usually do very poorly.

I have seen repeals in this vein succeed and I've seen them fail. I assure you, if the meddlesome goblins submit this to the queue it will be after they've already made sufficient diplomatic overtures to have some confidence that it would make it to vote.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC:

Your behaviour, with accusing GenSec members trying to help you of bias and your tone towards other users, is generally uncalled for. Your attempts to argue for your particular interpretation of the rules comes across as long-winded, pseudointellectual and unreasonable.
I cannot tell whether you honestly believe there are flaws in the resolution and wishes to fix them, or whether this is an attempt at transphobia under a more legitimate guise.

I've already addressed the bias accusation - the rules allow recusal of GenSec members for bais and I think that in general it would be appropriate for GenSec members to recuse themselves from the ultimate legality determination when they are the principle party challenging a proposal's legality. There is inherent bias in defending one's own position that creates an appearance of institutional unfairness when the person arguing a proposal's illegality also gets to decide the merits of that argument. As a student of political science, you should understand that.

Back when I studied I was taught the Officialis Principle (At least that's the name in my legal tradition), that a good civil servant must inform people at least to the degree where they can represent their case and know what their rights and duties are. This even covers informing people on how, if at all, they can continue a case against the Government. This is contrary to the Adversaria Principle, or the fact that a lawyer is usually under no obligation whatsoever to help anyone apart from their client.
I have read along, and never saw the alleged bias against you. You were offered help to attain a legal draft by a GenSec member, and then chose to throw a fit that continued for three pages and counting; when I describe your behaviour as "unreasonable", that is in part what I refer to.
If there had been any animosity or you had tried to repeal a resolution by a GenSec member then recusal would be warranted.
If, rather than deciding this was a proper hill to die on, you had taken the advice under consideration, you'd be way past this by now, having spent productive time on your draft rather than arguing the finer points of HM rule.

I agree that I am long winded, but as far as making "unreasonable" and "pseudointellectual" arguments I'm not sure where that charge is coming from given that, while I was convinced some parts of the proposal as I originally wrote it went too far and should be changed, SL also acknowledged that at least one of the original alleged "Honest Mistake" violations was indeed a mere exageration permitted by the rules.

I assume you refer to these lines?

On further reflection, in fact, that makes the difference between this claim and your other two.

The claim about socialization of healthcare costs [repeal clause 1(a)] can be seen as "mere exaggeration." That it would be "substantial" is false on any reflection of the record, but the exaggeration is based on a seed of fact.

I don't think this is the victory you make it out to be. Okay, one of your arguments was merely "false on any reflection of the record" (Whereas the rest were illegal), which rules out the honest mistake, but you're still grasping at straws to repeal a resolution where you have to misrepresent and substantially falsify the legislation. You're trumpeting that as a kind of win?

As to your other inquiry, I can assure you that I am not transphobic. I'm not at liberty to disclose whether I honestly believe there are flaws meriting repeal, but obviously the goblins wrote what they wrote. In my experience, Nationstates needs a (competent) villain and I'm embracing the role, for now.

Well, I told you how you could show you're not transphobic in a way I'll believe. I think there are issues with playing the Devil's¹ advocate, but if you think you do so competently, I won't elaborate except to reiterate that I can't tell for certain whether this entire thread is a thin disguise, Poe or the several other options I mentioned before.



¹And I usually think Lucifer is such a swell character, but then again, I did play Demon the Fallen in my youth...

[Araraukar]

I can assure you that I am not transphobic.

OOC: You just act like one. Which, beyond the power to see into your head for you to prove it other than doing what was already suggested to you, is what you are. And don't try to hide behind the IC curtain, when you've done most of (all, actually) your arguing OOCly and responding to OOC comments.

Also, you're not a competent villain. IA does a much better job at that.

[Grenartia]

[GAR 467] does everything one could possibly reasonably want it to do (unless one hates trans people), and I challenge everyone who supports repealing it to draft a better replacement before even drafting a repeal.

If your best argument for a repeal is "dah criminuls", then your argument might as well be nat-sov only, Ambassador.

[Aclion]

*notes that Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy bars member states from forcing people to transition, but does not require them to prevent private parties from doing so, nor requires them to prevent the trafficking of persons for the purpose of doing so.*

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I can assure you that I am not transphobic.

OOC: You just act like one. Which, beyond the power to see into your head for you to prove it other than doing what was already suggested to you, is what you are. And don't try to hide behind the IC curtain, when you've done most of (all, actually) your arguing OOCly and responding to OOC comments.

Also, you're not a competent villain. IA does a much better job at that.

Your namecalling is unwarranted and does hurt my feelings, especially since I've told you that in real life I have literally (well, figuratively) been in the trenches fighting to advance the cause. My OOC responses have all acknowledged making misleading and deceptive arguments but on the principle that doing so is consistent with the rules.

But I suppose I did post a repeal knowing that I was making charged, misleading arguments of a kind that nations of a certain persuasion could rally around as a pretext for removing protections for a vulnerable group. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised or offended by the namecalling.

I agree, IA is a better villain and perhaps I'm not so suited to the role.

I still believe that this sort of thing is legal, if distasteful, under the rule set. Perhaps, for the time being, the goblins could pursue their other interests and let this one be (for now...).

[Cowardly Pacifists]

*snip*

Briefly: I do consider it a victory that SL acknowledged being mistaken when he accused that clause of rule breaking. I never sought to convince him of the merits or that it was an argument worth accepting; only that it wasn’t illegal to make the argument.

I took that acknowledgment as an opportunity for deescalation and, without altering the thrust of the arguments made in the repeal, moderated the other objectionable clauses and language so they made the same points but with more weasily words and phrases.