[PASSED] Transgender Self-Determination

[Tinhampton]

On the 5th of October 2021, Transgender Self-Determination became GA#578!

---

This proposal has been submitted to the General Assembly Civil Rights Board.
NOTE: at 1824 BST on the 28th of September 2021, this proposal reached quorum with So Pep's approval, the 55th all told.

---

Character count: 1,478
Word count: 230

ICly by Kevin Mitchell, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador.

OOC: Inspiration comes from Article 36d of the UNHRC Special Rapporteur's report on the right to privacy ("States should ensure that: No eligibility criteria, such as surgical, medical or psychological interventions, psychomedical diagnosis, minimum or maximum ages, economic status, civic records, immigration, health, marital or parental status or any other third-party opinion, are prerequisites for or barriers to changing one’s name, legal sex or gender"). Said Article borrows heavily itself from the 31st Yogyakarta Principle.

Yes, I am aware that GA#457.4 "MANDATES that all member nations must allow each of their citizens to choose or change their own gender [and] officially recognise and accept the individual's chosen gender." Allowing all of your citizens to do a particular thing is not the same as imposing no restrictions on that thing unless allowed by prior and standing law: everybody can start a business in some of our more capitalist-leaning member states, but this does not mean that corporate law as we know it does not exist in any of those nations.

Transgender Self-Determination
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Area of Effect: Significant

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Grateful that this august body has amply protected the right to a medical gender transition (see GA#91, 457, 467, and 571), but

Noting that international law does not yet explicitly recognise the right of sapients to legally self-identify as their chosen gender, rather than have to undergo a medical transition which may be unavailable to them, and

Seeking to expand Alternatives to Transgender Hormone Therapy in member states...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. forbids member states from restricting by any means the right of their inhabitants to change their gender (including by requiring those inhabitants to undergo any medical procedure before their new gender can be legally recognised), except as provided in Articles b and c,
2. clarifies that members may, at their discretion, restrict gender changes:
   
   1. where expressly allowed by prior and standing international law, or
   2. to set a reasonable time period immediately after changing one's gender during which further changes thereof cannot occur,
3. requires members to prevent gender changes made without the free and informed consent of the person whose gender is to be changed,
4. demands that no charges be imposed on any application filed for an official gender change made pursuant to Article a, and
5. requires members and their government agencies, including state-funded schools, to respect the preferred name, pronouns and gender identity of those who interact with them.

[Bears Armed]

You already mention "free and informed consent".
The whole thing should apply only to "legally competent individuals".

[Tinhampton]

You already mention "free and informed consent".
The whole thing should apply only to "legally competent individuals".

I envisaged the exemptions in Article a as being able to be applied by member states at their discretion, rather than being WA-mandated exemptions applicable to every gender change request in every member state.

[Tinhampton]

You already mention "free and informed consent".
The whole thing should apply only to "legally competent individuals".

I envisaged the exemptions in Article a as being able to be applied by member states at their discretion, rather than being WA-mandated exemptions applicable to every gender change request in every member state.

This vision is now a reality

[Wallenburg]

Regarding b.i, do you mean "expressly permitted" rather than "allowed"? Because otherwise ii and iii read as allowing member states to restrict gender changes even when those restrictions are currently forbidden under international law.

[Tinhampton]

Regarding b.i, do you mean "expressly permitted" rather than "allowed"? Because otherwise ii and iii read as allowing member states to restrict gender changes even when those restrictions are currently forbidden under international law.

Which resolutions do Articles b(ii) and b(iii) contradict?

[Wallenburg]

Regarding b.i, do you mean "expressly permitted" rather than "allowed"? Because otherwise ii and iii read as allowing member states to restrict gender changes even when those restrictions are currently forbidden under international law.

Which resolutions do Articles b(ii) and b(iii) contradict?

That's not really the issue. The issue is that the word choice in (b) inherently suggests that member states can deny gender changes even if international law forbids it.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Agreed with Wally on the issue of wording in b.

Also, is this really necessary? Is there a resolution that otherwise allows member nations to tell people what gender they are? Or what's the issue you're trying to fix? Passing superfluous (even if for some reason they were not illegal) resolutions on this topic is just going to irritate the transphobic elements in WA more, and we don't really need any more negative attention, thankyouverymuch.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

I fail to see how this does anything not already covered by GA#457?

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

MANDATES that all member nations must allow each of their citizens to choose or change their own gender, and that member nations must officially recognise and accept the individual's chosen gender.

...and similarly in GA#91?

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

5) Full recognition shall be given to gender changes & intersex/gender status in international/national personal documents, if they mention gender;

[Tinhampton]

Am looking to submit this soon, for obvious reasons

OOC: Agreed with Wally on the issue of wording in b.

The word "expressly" has been added onto Article b(i).

Also, is this really necessary? [...]

Yes. As I may have said earlier, resolutions have traditionally focused on gender changes resulting from medical transitions (and their legal recognitions) rather than as a result of self-identification as another gender.

I fail to see how this does anything not already covered by GA#457?

See OP.

...and similarly in GA#91?

Article d is binding upon all "members and their government agencies" in all interactions, not merely in those interactions relevant to the issuing of "international/national personal documents [which] mention gender."

[Tinhampton]

Any more thoughts on this before I submit it?

[Wormfodder Delivery]

What about the fact that it will cause useless paperwork to species which never have developed the genetic requisites to be transgender?

[Tinhampton]

What about the fact that it will cause useless paperwork to species which never have developed the genetic requisites to be transgender?

Individuals need not "have... the genetic requisites to be transgender" to benefit from the provisions of this proposal.

[Wormfodder Delivery]

What about the fact that it will cause useless paperwork to species which never have developed the genetic requisites to be transgender?

Individuals need not "have... the genetic requisites to be transgender" to benefit from the provisions of this proposal.

What benefits exactly? All I see is just a ban on banning the specific topic of changing ones gender legally.
That only really applies if one is of a species that would have such desires.

[Tinhampton]

"Ban genocide, unless you already did it" - IA, yesterday

Will submit on 27th September (or maybe 28th September) if nobody else has anything to say about it that I can act on.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'd appreciate it if you didn't make up quotes and attribute them to me.

[Tinhampton]

Sorry about that! I haven't been the best at remembering stuff recently >_<

[The Python]

At a first glance, looks good and I look forward to voting for this.

[Concrete Slab]

I want to do one!

*clears throat*

This proposal has been submitted.

[Concrete Slab]

https://tenor.com/view/this-is-getting- ... f-11488732

[Tinhampton]

This proposal has been submitted.

Very much.

You will note a new Article c. This used to be Article b(ii); Bearded Dragones, the WA Delegate of Cape of Good Hope, suggested that this provision be a requirement, rather than a suggestion, for member states.. Thanks, BD!

[Tsaivao]

Individuals need not "have... the genetic requisites to be transgender" to benefit from the provisions of this proposal.

What benefits exactly? All I see is just a ban on banning the specific topic of changing ones gender legally.
That only really applies if one is of a species that would have such desires.

OOC: This same sort of topic keeps coming up a lot in all sorts of proposals so I'm just going to paraphrase what many others before me have said.

Just because the legislation does not apply to you does not mean it doesn't benefit you, or that the legislation shouldn't be followed. A lack of possessing the conditions does not mean you are in malcompliance for whatever reason.

If an international law is passed mandating that all nations build massive lava flow channels and earthquake sensors around volcanoes, then both Ireland and Hawaii are required to abide by the legislation; it's just that in the case of Ireland, they would find that they have no volcanoes, and thus they would have already built the necessary number of lava channels (which is zero). Hawaii would of course have a lot more work ahead of itself, but both nations are still in compliance of the law, with no problematic contradictions due to the obvious fact that one of them is far more geologically active than the other.

It would be the same way with your nation. If your species for whatever reason is incapable of being transgender (something which I would heavily debate but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt), then you are in compliance of the resolution so long as you don't prevent them from being transgender if they have the ability to. You are only in malcompliance or contradiction if and only if your citizens are capable of being transgender and you prevent them from doing so. Your government would be required to do the same thing whether or not your citizens could actually do it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

to set a reasonable time period immediately after changing one's gender during which further changes thereof cannot occur,

Bad!

[Gesmagro]

A counter-counter campaign was sent out a moment ago, and it looks like this will make quorum as a result. For transparency, I will post the original counter campaign I sent to approving delegates below:

Hi there,

I see you've approved the GA proposal "Transgender Self-Determination".

I'd like to ask you to consider removing your approval, please: page=UN_view_proposal/id=tinhampton_1632763236

This probably isn't the reasoning you were expecting, and I want to state unequivocally I don't ask this out of any opposition to transgender rights.

I myself am a transgender woman, and I ask this for a combination of two reasons: this proposal is ineffective and doesn't actually accomplish anything, and further, that every time a trans-positive proposal passes, we see the transphobes come out of the woodwork spreading transphobic views and trying to repeal it. The recent passage of GA#571 "Access To Transgender Hormone Therapy" is a perfect example - transphobic voices were heard sitewide, and even though in this case GA#571 was an excellent proposal mandating cruicial protections that passed with a healthy margin, dozens of repeal attempts were made against it over the next month.

In this case, the proposal makes a weak argument to start with, with the main purpose already covered by an existing resolution, GA#457 "Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities" which mandates the following:

"MANDATES that all member nations must allow each of their citizens to choose or change their own gender, and that member nations must officially recognise and accept the individual's chosen gender."

If this proposal passes, it will only serve as a springboard for transphobic voices to argue for a repeal. There is also the following concerning cause present, which may actually act to forbid individuals from being allowed to self-determine their gender, and such exemptions should not exist in a trans-positive proposal endorsed by the General Assembly: "Clarifies that members may, at their discretion, restrict gender changes: where expressly allowed by prior and standing international law"

Again, I ask you to please consider removing your approval here: page=UN_view_proposal/id=tinhampton_1632763236

Thanks!

Someone else may post the counter-counter telegram to this if they wish. I do however appreciate that they didn't actually address any of the points or criticisms I made, and instead made some sensationalised and largely irrelevant argument about interference and anonymity.

[Greater Cesnica]

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote FOR the General Assembly Resolution, "Transgender Self-Determination".
Its reasoning may be found here.

---