[DRAFT] Repeal: "Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy"

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Drafting this given "Access to Transgender Hormone Therapy" is currently next in queue to be voted on by the General Assembly and, if it is to pass, makes GA#467 entirely redundant.

Commending GA#467 "Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy" and the rights it affords transgender individuals regarding their medical transition.

Acknowledging that the recent passage of GA#571 ""Access to Transgender Hormone Therapy" effectively acts a replacement for GA#467, rendering these provisions redundant:

• Understanding that the primary objective of the target, to provide affordable hormone therapy to transgender individuals, is achieved with greater effect by the replacement which mandates "hormone therapy cost no more than the fees absolutely necessary for the manufacturing and distribution".
  
• Asserting that GA#571 offers a more complete and inclusive definition of "hormone therapy".
  
• Believing that GA#571 provides more comprehensive protections regarding access to hormone therapy.
  
• Clarifying that protections against the denial of hormone therapy as a form of punishment are strengthened by GA#571, which forbids any entity from denying hormone therapy "except where a legitimate danger to their health would arise as a result".
  
• Acknowledging that GA#571 effectively outlaws individuals being required to take, or coerced into taking, hormone therapy against their will.

Believing there is no reason to retain redundant legislation.

Hereby repeals GA#467 "Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy".

Previous draft:

Commending GA#467 "Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy" and the rights it affords transgender individuals regarding their medical transition.

Acknowledging that the recent passage of GA#XXX ""Access to Transgender Hormone Therapy" effectively acts a replacement for GA#467, rendering these provisions redundant.

Believing there is no reason to retain redundant legislation.

Hereby repeals GA#467 "Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy".

GA#467: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

Access to Transgender Hormone Therapy (currently in queue): viewtopic.php?f=9&t=508021

[Araraukar]

"Making claims like "this is redundant" means you need to actually show why it is redundant."

OOC: Also, links to resolutions/proposals you refer to, will help.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Links to relevant resolutions added in the bottom spoiler.

"Making claims like "this is redundant" means you need to actually show why it is redundant."

Fair point, I will elaborate here. Relevant portions of GA#467 are quoted and the replacement resolution is linked as above.

The first half of the resolution is a superfluous preamble, much of which does not relate to transgender HRT itself but to transgender individuals in general (and these are covered, although admittedly poorly, by GA#91 "A Convention On Gender").

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "hormone therapy" as a medical treatment involving the use of naturally occurring hormones for the purpose of altering one's secondary sex characteristics to more accurately reflect their gender identity,

An improved definition is provided in the replacement (1).

Requires all member-states to legalize hormone therapy for all consenting individuals,

Again, legislated with greater effect by the replacement (2).

Requires all member-states to have an affordable, easy-to-access way for its transgender population to access hormone therapy,

Covered by the replacement, and importantly the ambiguity of this clause is addressed (3).

Forbids any member-state from denying a transgender person access to hormone therapy as a punishment or as part of a punishment for a crime,

Forbids any member-state from forcing an individual to undergo hormone therapy.

Again, these provisions are repeated in the replacement (4a,b,c).

[Outer Sparta]

I think you should add some more evidence in your repeal that shows that if "Access to Transgender Hormone Therapy" passes, it would render GA467 moot, such as specific clauses and such.

[Altai Almas]

There are important protections in GA#467 Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy (https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1) which are not duplicated in the Queued Proposal "Access to Transgender Hormone Therapy" which makes a repeal based entirely on redundancy moot.

Particularly the protection against hormone treatments being taken away as a punishment, as GA#467 "Forbids any member-state from denying a transgender person access to hormone therapy as a punishment or as part of a punishment for a crime", is an important element that is not explicitly protected in the "Access" proposal.

Another important element is even though the "Access" proposal requires nations to allow (and cannot deny) hormone therapy, it does not explicitly require hormone therapy to be legalized as GA#467 does. By removing this legality provision, it is possibly opening the door to regulatory incursion and barriers under the pretense of 'non-legal' status.

Altai Almas does not support the repeal of GA#467 on the basis of redundancy alone.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

I think you should add some more evidence in your repeal that shows that if "Access to Transgender Hormone Therapy" passes, it would render GA467 moot, such as specific clauses and such.

I will consider this, although I personally prefer a short and concise proposal - I don't want to end up just listing every point stated in both the target and replacement proposal

There are important protections in GA#467 Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy (https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1) which are not duplicated in the Queued Proposal "Access to Transgender Hormone Therapy" which makes a repeal based entirely on redundancy moot.

Particularly the protection against hormone treatments being taken away as a punishment, as GA#467 "Forbids any member-state from denying a transgender person access to hormone therapy as a punishment or as part of a punishment for a crime", is an important element that is not explicitly protected in the "Access" proposal.

Another important element is even though the "Access" proposal requires nations to allow (and cannot deny) hormone therapy, it does not explicitly require hormone therapy to be legalized as GA#467 does. By removing this legality provision, it is possibly opening the door to regulatory incursion and barriers under the pretense of 'non-legal' status.

Altai Almas does not support the repeal of GA#467 on the basis of redundancy alone.

While these two points are not explicitly repeated, they are clearly covered by the replacement proposal.

The crimes point is covered by the following clause of the replacement ("any entity" includes judicial systems):

Forbids any entity from:

• denying hormone therapy to any person, except where a legitimate danger to their health would arise as a result,

The second concern is addressed by GA#91:

3) 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;

(n.b. "GAP is defined as a "medical procedure", which would include hormone therapy)

...and also addressed by the replacement, both in the above section and specifically relating to barriers below:

Requires member nations to allow their inhabitants to seek and obtain hormone therapy with their free and informed consent, and ensure that those inhabitants face as few barriers as possible when seeking hormone therapy,

[Isle of Farore]

As the proposed and queued resolution, Access to Transgender Hormone Therapy (hereby referred to as "the proposal"), states within its own contents, the stance of "[totally] believing that a supplementary resolution is required", it is the opinion of Queen Zelda that that this proposal is not in any way intended to replace the existing General Assembly Resolution # 467, Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy (hereby referred to as the resolution), but rather to expand on an incomplete definition present in said resolution. The proposal also fundamentally relies on facts stated in the resolution, namely the fact of the concept of gender identity, and how it relates to an individual's lived experiences, for the purposes of its own definition of hormone therapy, as well as its stated protections and forbiddences related to hormone therapy.

The insistence of the proposal having been proposed for the purposes of replacing the existing resolution, despite both the author's own repeatedly stated intent, and the actual contents of the proposal directly stating an intent counter to this insistence, is at most an act of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the member nation proposing this repeal draft, or at the very least a reductive, misinformed, or misinterpreted understanding of the existing and proposed resolutions in not only their letter, but also in their own respective intentions for legislation, and by extension their effective facts, definitions, protections, and forbiddences.

To repeal the existing resolution would not only remove those facts from this governing body's legislative understanding and authority, but would also not allow the proposal to effectively be used in legal proceedings regarding this issue, which could lead to systemic mistreatment of individuals seeking hormone therapy. The stated fact that "[any] distress arising from this real disconnect between sex and gender is referred to as gender dysphoria -- like any mental condition, it ought to be treated" would be removed, meaning an entire justification for why an individual might seek hormone therapy will be omitted.

The facts of the matter here are that the proposal was never intended to replace the existing resolution, and the repeal of the resolution would leave a gap in the understanding of this legislative body regarding gender identity, and would as well remove the entire concept of gender dysphoria. This is a worrisome and dangerous course of action that Queen Zelda and by proxy our nation vehemently oppose. This is not a matter of eliminating redundancy, it is a matter of removing protections for individuals under the guise of streamlining legislation.

An alternative we would find suitable would be to comprehensively combine both resolution and proposal to actually replace them effectively and without removing necessary fact already present within both of them.

[The Python]

Okay, I'd support this or something similar if the queued proposal does pass. However, this needs a lot of more content. For example, you could show that all protections granted by GA#467 are in fact duplicated by the proposal in detail.

[Tinhampton]

snip

Preambles do not bind member states into taking particular action, only operative clauses. Simply because there are no WA resolutions mentioning the existence of football does not mean that football is not a sport that is played in WA member states.

[Isle of Farore]

snip

Preambles do not bind member states into taking particular action, only operative clauses. Simply because there are no WA resolutions mentioning the existence of football does not mean that football is not a sport that is played in WA member states.

The "preamble" in this case gives context and standing for the operative clauses. Relevant background information does tend to be useful for the sake of laying foundational groundwork for actual legislation. And to your second point, it is quite atypical for recreational sports to fall under the purview of a large multinational legislative body such as the General Assembly, and frankly, the brazen dismissal of the importance of the concept of gender identity by likening it to something so frivolous is intensely repugnant.

[Bears Armed]

Preambles do not bind member states into taking particular action, only operative clauses. Simply because there are no WA resolutions mentioning the existence of football does not mean that football is not a sport that is played in WA member states.

The "preamble" in this case gives context and standing for the operative clauses. Relevant background information does tend to be useful for the sake of laying foundational groundwork for actual legislation. And to your second point, it is quite atypical for recreational sports to fall under the purview of a large multinational legislative body such as the General Assembly, and frankly, the brazen dismissal of the importance of the concept of gender identity by likening it to something so frivolous is intensely repugnant.

OOC: Frivolous?

"Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that."

[Greater Cesnica]

Acknowledging that the recent passage of GA#XXX ""Access to Transgender Hormone Therapy" effectively acts a replacement for GA#467, rendering these provisions redundant.

"Ambassador, you need to back this claim up with evidence contained within your draft. I have listened to your responses to my fellow Ambassadors, and I am unconvinced."

[Isle of Farore]

The "preamble" in this case gives context and standing for the operative clauses. Relevant background information does tend to be useful for the sake of laying foundational groundwork for actual legislation. And to your second point, it is quite atypical for recreational sports to fall under the purview of a large multinational legislative body such as the General Assembly, and frankly, the brazen dismissal of the importance of the concept of gender identity by likening it to something so frivolous is intensely repugnant.

OOC: Frivolous?

"Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that."

OOC: I said what I said

[Morover]

Darin Perise.

"Your haste in trying to repeal this shows ulterior motives. There may be some iteration in which I support an endeavor such as this, assuming the passage of the Honeydewistanian proposal, but it shall not be this one."

[Greater Cesnica]

Darin Perise.

"Your haste in trying to repeal this so soon shows ulterior motives. There may be some iteration in which I support an endeavor such as this, assuming the passage of the Honeydewistanian proposal, but it shall not be this one."

"I do concur."

[Separatist Peoples]

Darin Perise.

"Your haste in trying to repeal this so soon shows ulterior motives. There may be some iteration in which I support an endeavor such as this, assuming the passage of the Honeydewistanian proposal, but it shall not be this one."

"I do concur."

"Fortunately, CCD strategy in the GA is about as subtle as the dulcet tones of a foghorn. It's an opportunity to pass something that has a negative impact on transgendered persons under cover of aiding their struggle. The CCD efforts to seek legislative legitimacy in the GA would be less transparent if they didn't hang their golden eagle fez on a repeal of this nature."

[Outer Sparta]

"I do concur."

"Fortunately, CCD strategy in the GA is about as subtle as the dulcet tones of a foghorn. It's an opportunity to pass something that has a negative impact on transgendered persons under cover of aiding their struggle. The CCD efforts to seek legislative legitimacy in the GA would be less transparent if they didn't hang their golden eagle fez on a repeal of this nature."

Ambassador Tav: Besides that, the lack of repeal content to definitively show why it's redundant is another reason to be opposed.

[Wallenburg]

Ogenbond stretches a leg out from under his desk. "Yes, very redundant. Let's get it repealed. My only concern is the first clause, which fundamentally misunderstands the value, or lack thereof, of the upcoming proposal."

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Believe it or not this isn't some hidden CCD agenda (...I haven't even discussed this with the region, if you must know), and last I checked the entire point of posting a draft early was to receive feedback and avoid the submission of a rushed proposal.

I also do listen to that feedback, and the overwhelming opinion is that the target should be repealed if its replacement passes, but that my repeal draft needs to elaborate on why the target is redundant. I will amend this draft later when I have the time.

I'll address some outstanding comments, as well as some of the more ludicrous claims below:

-snip-

I second Tinhampton's comments on this matter.

I will add, however, that some of your statements are incorrect - legislative understanding of transgender issues is provided by GA#91 "A Convention On Gender": https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

I will note that I also believe GA#91 is horrendously outdated and in need of a replacement, but this is a separate issue (one I have previously tried to address, and will likely return to, here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=485551)

Darin Perise.

"Your haste in trying to repeal this shows ulterior motives. There may be some iteration in which I support an endeavor such as this, assuming the passage of the Honeydewistanian proposal, but it shall not be this one."

I have no such ulterior motives. Would you like to elaborate on these supposed motives here so I can dismiss them?

"I do concur."

"Fortunately, CCD strategy in the GA is about as subtle as the dulcet tones of a foghorn. It's an opportunity to pass something that has a negative impact on transgendered persons under cover of aiding their struggle. The CCD efforts to seek legislative legitimacy in the GA would be less transparent if they didn't hang their golden eagle fez on a repeal of this nature."

You're really going to try and dismiss this proposal by making claims about "a negative impact on transgendered persons"? Really?

[Separatist Peoples]

Believe it or not this isn't some hidden CCD agenda (...I haven't even discussed this with the region, if you must know), and last I checked the entire point of posting a draft early was to receive feedback and avoid the submission of a rushed proposal.

I also do listen to that feedback, and the overwhelming opinion is that the target should be repealed if its replacement passes, but that my repeal draft needs to elaborate on why the target is redundant. I will amend this draft later when I have the time.

I'll address some outstanding comments, as well as some of the more ludicrous claims below:

-snip-

I second Tinhampton's comments on this matter.

I will add, however, that some of your statements are incorrect - legislative understanding of transgender issues is provided by GA#91 "A Convention On Gender": https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

I will note that I also believe GA#91 is horrendously outdated and in need of a replacement, but this is a separate issue (one I have previously tried to address, and will likely return to, here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=485551)

Darin Perise.

"Your haste in trying to repeal this shows ulterior motives. There may be some iteration in which I support an endeavor such as this, assuming the passage of the Honeydewistanian proposal, but it shall not be this one."

I have no such ulterior motives. Would you like to elaborate on these supposed motives here so I can dismiss them?

"Fortunately, CCD strategy in the GA is about as subtle as the dulcet tones of a foghorn. It's an opportunity to pass something that has a negative impact on transgendered persons under cover of aiding their struggle. The CCD efforts to seek legislative legitimacy in the GA would be less transparent if they didn't hang their golden eagle fez on a repeal of this nature."

You're really going to try and dismiss this proposal by making claims about "a negative impact on transgendered persons"? Really?

"The CCD is a known quantity, ambassador. We aren't buying."

[Isle of Farore]

I second Tinhampton's comments on this matter.

I will add, however, that some of your statements are incorrect - legislative understanding of transgender issues is provided by GA#91 "A Convention On Gender": https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

I will note that I also believe GA#91 is horrendously outdated and in need of a replacement, but this is a separate issue (one I have previously tried to address, and will likely return to, here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=485551)

We have reviewed the existing relevant resolutions that are currently in place and have determined that GA # 91 does not sufficiently provide the necessary understanding for the purposes of outlining the subject matter at hand. You yourself have admitted repeatedly that GA # 91 is outdated both in its understanding and its scope, why then does this make it capable of filling the gaps? There is also the insistence that the proposed resolution makes the existing resolution GA # 467 entirely redundant and that the proposed resolution was made as a replacement for GA # 467. Such an argument is neither based in fact nor in principle. The proposed resolution is both self identified and presented as such by the author as a supplementary resolution as there is a gap in the existing legislation. Your lack of acknowledgement of this logical disconnect between what has been said regarding the resolutions and what you insist is the reality of what the resolutions actually cover is striking and worrisome. You have been continuously misrepresenting the proposed resolution to a degree that can have real impact on the lives of those affected and such is not something we will stand idly by and let proliferate.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

-snip-

Again, you have a misunderstanding of the functional difference between a preamble and an operative clause.

The objective of GA#467 is to provide affordable access to transgender hormone replacement therapy. Its replacement, which is now at vote and looks likely to pass, achieves this objective with greater effect.

I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way regarding whether or not it's important to have such an understanding as you describe included within legislation, but if you do it is very important to note that GA#91 defines these terms as active clauses, while GA#467 is an inactive preamble. As I said, I agree that GA#91 is outdated and should be replaced (and I have tried to include an updated definition within the draft proposal I linked above - if you have any feedback please include it there as I will very likely come back to it), but it's not really a valid reason that GA#467 should be retained.

Anyway - I have updated the draft in my OP. Any more feedback would be very welcome.

[Reich Hungary]

I would give a Genetically Changing Cells tablet by mouth and not hurt through a syringe through a needle. Oral tablets as genetic gummies or other administered through a three-syringe, not a needle, but orally through a bottle, as ordered by a doctor. And without plastic surgery. I vote for. Insert this design my fix here.

[Isle of Farore]

The objective of GA#467 is to provide affordable access to transgender hormone replacement therapy. Its replacement, which is now at vote and looks likely to pass, achieves this objective with greater effect...

One again with the insistence that the proposal at vote is definitively intended to replace GA # 467, which it isn't. It never was, and never will be. This persistent dishonesty makes us wary of any sort of assertation you might present.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

The objective of GA#467 is to provide affordable access to transgender hormone replacement therapy. Its replacement, which is now at vote and looks likely to pass, achieves this objective with greater effect...

One again with the insistence that the proposal at vote is definitively intended to replace GA # 467, which it isn't. It never was, and never will be. This persistent dishonesty makes us wary of any sort of assertation you might present.

I have made no such claim regarding the author's intentions of repealing GA#467 - they seemed reluctant to do so despite many, including myself, stating that a prior repeal and replace would have been preferred.

The use of the world "replacement" is my own, given the proposal acts as a functional replacement for GA#467 (regardless of the author's original intentions). As I stated above and now demonstrate in the proposal itself, all provisions provided by the active clauses of GA#467 will be repeated or strengthened by GA#571.