[DEFEATED] Repeal "LGBTIQA Inclusiveness In Schools Act"

[Luna Amore]

Repeal "LGBTIQA Inclusiveness In Schools Act"

---

---

Category: Repeal || Resolution: GAR #603 || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing the capacity of international legislation to establish in law the rights of gender and sexual minorities, such as through GAR #91 "A Convention on Gender", GAR #457 "Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities", GAR #467 "Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy", GAR #542 "Gay Panic Defense Ban", GAR #559 "End Conversion Therapy", GAR #571 "Access to Transgender Hormone Therapy", GAR #578 "Transgender Self-Determination", and many other resolutions which do so as a secondary matter or as part of broader anti-discrimination law,

Regretting the unfortunate side effects of overlooked flaws within the target's text,

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #603, LGBTIQA Inclusiveness In Schools Act, for the following causes:

1. The target requires all schools to give their students a broad suite of educational, health, and counseling resources.
   
   
   1. Specialized institutions, such as youth performing arts groups, martial arts and military academies, culinary schools, online coding academies, educational tour programs, and junior sports leagues, are each required to implement an educational unit concerning sexual and romantic orientation and gender identity and provide ongoing supporting resources. In total, these requirements may partially or entirely eclipse the specialized function of these institutions, preventing them from serving their primary educational goal and, in many cases, rendering their operations financially untenable as they must fulfill the dual roles of education and gender and sexuality counseling.
      
      
   2. Those member states which commonly use distinct institutions for various degrees of childhood education—preschool, primary, secondary, and postsecondary education, for example—must provide redundant education and counseling on matters of sexual and romantic orientation and gender identity, regardless of any utility—or lack thereof—repeated educational material may have.
2. The target falls back on language often made to excuse the perceived abnormality of gender and sexual minorities, such as the idea that these factors are "beyond their conscious control" or are "natural".
   
   
   1. These arguments lack concrete scientific merit across the breadth of World Assembly member states.
      
      
   2. This assumes that the morality of gender or sexual characteristics is dependent on their natural status or the inability of an individual to alter these characteristics. It justifies anti-hate law on the basis that individuals belonging to gender or sexual minorities cannot help but belong to those categories, rather than on the basis that hate toward gender and sexual minorities causes undue harm and creates an unsafe and uncivil society. Proper anti-hate law does not buy into the thought processes of the bigots it stands against.

[Wallenburg]

Repeal "LGBTIQA Inclusiveness In Schools Act"

---

Recognizing the capacity of international legislation to establish in law the rights of gender and sexual minorities, such as through GAR #91 "A Convention on Gender", GAR #457 "Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities", GAR #467 "Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy", GAR #542 "Gay Panic Defense Ban", GAR #559 "End Conversion Therapy", GAR #571 "Access to Transgender Hormone Therapy", GAR #578 "Transgender Self-Determination", as well as through many other resolutions which do so as a secondary matter or as part of broader anti-discrimination law,

Observing the unfortunate side effects of overlooked flaws within the target's text,

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #603, LGBTIQA Inclusiveness In Schools Act, for the following causes:

1. The target requires all schools to give their students a broad suite of educational, health, and counseling resources.
   
   
   1. Specialized institutions, such as youth performing arts groups, martial arts and military academies, culinary schools, online coding academies, educational tour programs, and junior sports leagues, are each required to implement an educational unit concerning sexual and romantic orientation and gender identity and provide ongoing supporting resources. In total, these requirements may partially or entirely eclipse the specialized function of these institutions, preventing them from serving their primary educational goal and, in many cases, rendering their operations financially untenable as they must fulfill the dual roles of education and gender and sexuality counseling.
      
      
   2. Those member states which commonly use distinct institutions for various degrees of childhood education—preschool, primary, secondary, and postsecondary education, for example—must provide redundant education and counseling on matters of sexual and romantic orientation and gender identity, regardless of any utility—or lack thereof—repeated educational material may have.
2. The target falls back on language often made to excuse the perceived abnormality of gender and sexual minorities, such as the idea that these factors are "beyond their conscious control" or are "natural".
   
   
   1. These arguments lack concrete scientific merit across the breadth of World Assembly member states.
      
      
   2. This assumes that the morality of gender or sexual characteristics is dependent on their natural status or the inability of an individual to alter these characteristics. It justifies anti-hate law on the basis that individuals belonging to gender or sexual minorities cannot help but belong to those categories, rather than on the basis that hate toward gender and sexual minorities causes undue harm and creates an unsafe and uncivil society. Proper anti-hate law does not buy into the thought processes of the bigots it stands against.

[Attempted Socialism]

1a and 1b feel like misreadings to me. 1b because schools where pupils are different ages will surely adopt the mandated age appropriate material, and 1a because most of those aren't schools, or don't include minors.
2a feels like RP wank, to be honest, and 2b, while perhaps true, is a bad reason to repeal, let alone nowhere near grievous enough for an insta-repeal.

This is some incredibly weak tea.

[Fachumonn]

I'm not seeing your arguments for repealing this.

[Ishankh]

It's too far reaching. It should not be a school's duty to help students figure out their orientation or identity. I voted "no" despite leading an egalitarian nation. The students of my country have sexual education, and our citizens have marriage equality. We are a cheerful and nice nation, and this legislation is redundant for us.

As well I don't know how many extra letters they are going to tack on to the LGBT acronym. It's quite silly. I don't even know what the "I" and the "A" stand for. I'm gay myself and I think this is ridiculous.

[Fachumonn]

It's too far reaching. It should not be a school's duty to help students figure out their orientation or identity. I voted "no" despite leading an egalitarian nation. The students of my country have sexual education, and our citizens have marriage equality. We are a cheerful and nice nation, and this legislation is redundant for us.

As well I don't know how many extra letters they are going to tack on to the LGBT acronym. It's quite silly. I don't even know what the "I" and the "A" stand for. I'm gay myself and I think this is ridiculous.

They mean "intersex", and "asexual".

[Ishankh]

It's too far reaching. It should not be a school's duty to help students figure out their orientation or identity. I voted "no" despite leading an egalitarian nation. The students of my country have sexual education, and our citizens have marriage equality. We are a cheerful and nice nation, and this legislation is redundant for us.

As well I don't know how many extra letters they are going to tack on to the LGBT acronym. It's quite silly. I don't even know what the "I" and the "A" stand for. I'm gay myself and I think this is ridiculous.

They mean "intersex", and "asexual".

Well they forgot two-spirit. Here in Canada where I live IRL the acronym is usually LGBTQ2+ these days. So I guess it should be LGBTQIA2+ now at least. But you know, I'm a kinky person, and kink is an important aspect of my sexual identity, I want to be represented too, and I'm not the only one who feels this way. Kink-shaming is far too common these days, so let's make it LGBTQIA2K+ for next time. There's probably many more that still need to be added.

[Xanthorrhoea]

They mean "intersex", and "asexual".

Well they forgot two-spirit. Here in Canada where I live IRL the acronym is usually LGBTQ2+ these days. So I guess it should be LGBTQIA2+ now at least. But you know, I'm a kinky person, and kink is an important aspect of my sexual identity, I want to be represented too, and I'm not the only one who feels this way. Kink-shaming is far too common these days, so let's make it LGBTQIA2K+ for next time. There's probably many more that still need to be added.

I believe that’s the point of the “+” in LGBTQIA+. It’s there as an acknowledgement of the enormous multitude of diversity. It is a well known flaw of the acronym that it’s an unwieldy ‘alphabet soup,’ in addition to the fact that it cannot ever be an exhaustive list of all gender and sexual minorities, and the fact that the term has an order means it places more prominence and importance on some groups (lesbian and gay for example) over others (intersex, asexual etc). These are old arguments that have been discussed extensively for an extremely long time in the community. It is not a perfect term by any means. In academic circles, the term ‘diverse genders, sexes and sexualities’ is an attempt to remedy this, but the term has not (yet?) gained common usage in the queer community.

The fact remains that ‘LGBTQIA+ and it’s variations remain the most commonly used term to describe gender minorities, including by people who identify as gender minorities. A fundamental right of any group is self determination, the right to define who they are, and as such, if a community wants to call itself LGBTQIA+ (which is currently the most widely accepted term) then we should respect that.

I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make here? Are you protesting about any particular part of the term, or is your disagreement more that it’s slightly different to what you mostly hear (or something else)?

Unfortunately, there will never be a term that fully satisfies every member of a community, so for practicality’s sake we try our best to use the most widely accepted term and be forgiving of mistakes. It sometimes ends up sounding a little silly yes, but we acknowledge that and move on. Not everyone lives in Canada.

[Honeydewistania]

Full support. I do however question the necessity of part two of the repeal. It seems like a much weaker point than the first one, and could potentially lose votes, especially since this repeal doesn’t look like it will be an easy one to pass.

[Hulldom]

Full support. I do however question the necessity of part two of the repeal. It seems like a much weaker point than the first one, and could potentially lose votes, especially since this repeal doesn’t look like it will be an easy one to pass.

Concur here. I’d at least like to know what the argument is for having 2(a) especially.

[Wallenburg]

Full support. I do however question the necessity of part two of the repeal. It seems like a much weaker point than the first one, and could potentially lose votes, especially since this repeal doesn’t look like it will be an easy one to pass.

Concur here. I’d at least like to know what the argument is for having 2(a) especially.

The argument is that the target mandates the teaching of unscientific hypotheses about the nature of orientation and identity.

[Xanthorrhoea]

Concur here. I’d at least like to know what the argument is for having 2(a) especially.

The argument is that the target mandates the teaching of unscientific hypotheses about the nature of orientation and identity.

Is it based on the technicality that all nations aren’t human and we shouldn’t assume they function in a human-like manor, or is it based on the claim that sexuality is under conscious control or unnatural in humans? (acknowledging that the term ‘natural’ when applied to human -or indeed any other sentient entity’s- behaviour is essentially meaningless)

[El Lazaro]

You lost me the moment when I realized this wasn’t about correcting a minor spelling mistake.

1. This might be a problem, would you consider the problem fixed if the definition was similar to the US DoE’s for an educational institution?

(a) Educational institution means a school (including a technical, trade, or vocational school), junior college, college or university that is: operated or directly supported by the United States; operated or directly supported by any State or local government or by a political subdivision of any State or local government; or approved by a State agency or subdivision of the State, or accredited by a State-recognized or nationally recognized accrediting body.

2. That claim is pretty bizarre and unconvincing.
A. This one is provably untrue, the lack of a discovered “gay gene” doesn’t prove that sexual orientation and gender identity are choices. It would be most scientifically accurate to say that the two are broadly deterministic, but the exact mechanism is not entirely understood yet.

B. The author’s intent doesn’t effect how this specific bill will be implemented and passing bills into law not necessarily a confirmation of one argument the author makes. For example, a bill banning political internment camps which uses alleviating an undue tax burden as one argument, if passed, does not mean the entire WA is only against human rights abuses for fiscal reasons. I doubt this is sincere disgust and not an attempt to pad the bill’s length.


Despite 2A, this looks more like good-faith GA repeal clout-scoring than an actual desire to stop LGBTQ education, but it could be more constructive and less uncharitably critical.

EDIT: a distinction could be made between higher ed and primary/secondary educational institutions to remove ambiguity and possible repetition (i.e. the requirement could be one per each education system segment). Possibly nation-specific, but it would save time. I don’t recall why the author opted not to tack this onto sex ed, which might be significant for changing the bill.

[Federation of Anterica]

Why should we teach about sexuality and romantic orientation when we’re supposed to be teaching about mathematics and science and actual academic subjects on schools? It’s not something that should even be considered, considering it’s immoral and gets in the way of instructional time for students. Sure the whole “social-emotional learning” aspect of it isn’t all bad, actually that part can possibly do some good for students mental health, but it definitely shouldn’t be so focused on LGBT+ or gender, sexuality, or anything of that sort. I don’t believe the bill clarifies if it applies to a certain age group and above, I would feel bad for those kindergartners who are going to be taught about homosexuality. We’re also ditching science in part iv. of 2a… I support an instant repeal of this act.

[Federation of Anterica]

If a repeal doesn’t pass I’m leaving the WA

[Untecna]

If a repeal doesn’t pass I’m leaving the WA

Oh, it's you again. Surprised you haven't done so already, considering your last adventure with us showed that you have no care about LGBT students.

[Untecna]

Why should we teach about sexuality and romantic orientation when we’re supposed to be teaching about mathematics and science and actual academic subjects on schools? It’s not something that should even be considered, considering it’s immoral and gets in the way of instructional time for students. Sure the whole “social-emotional learning” aspect of it isn’t all bad, actually that part can possibly do some good for students mental health, but it definitely shouldn’t be so focused on LGBT+ or gender, sexuality, or anything of that sort. I don’t believe the bill clarifies if it applies to a certain age group and above, I would feel bad for those kindergartners who are going to be taught about homosexuality. We’re also ditching science in part iv. of 2a… I support an instant repeal of this act.

We get it, you're a homophobe, move on, bud.

[Federation of Anterica]

I don’t think a repeal will pass anyway, I’m just staying positive.

[Federation of Anterica]

Also, please do not attack me for my beliefs, I just wanted to emphasize that it hardly seems appropriate in schools. I’m a supporter of the LGBT+ community.

[Untecna]

I don’t think a repeal will pass anyway, I’m just staying positive.

"Positive" is hardly a word if you are deciding to leave because a proposal hurts your backwards beliefs.

Also, please do not attack me for my beliefs, I just wanted to emphasize that it hardly seems appropriate in schools. I’m a supporter of the LGBT+ community.

Sure, sure, and I'm a unicorn disguised as a human.

You literally called it immoral in your post lmao

[Federation of Anterica]

Yes because to me, it is. It goes too far, that’s what I’m saying now:

[El Lazaro]

They mean "intersex", and "asexual".

Well they forgot two-spirit. Here in Canada where I live IRL the acronym is usually LGBTQ2+ these days. So I guess it should be LGBTQIA2+ now at least. But you know, I'm a kinky person, and kink is an important aspect of my sexual identity, I want to be represented too, and I'm not the only one who feels this way. Kink-shaming is far too common these days, so let's make it LGBTQIA2K+ for next time. There's probably many more that still need to be added.

The point is to include groups that are discriminated against for birth identities while not being too unwieldy. I would argue against including the asexual part for the former reason because it’s not really comparable to the other ones beyond being inherent and a statistical minority, but 15 unnecessary seconds of stating the obvious doesn’t really detract from the point of the bill.

[Untecna]

Yes because to me, it is. It goes too far, that’s what I’m saying now:

So... you admit to homophobia? Good, I thought you were denying it for a second there.

[Federation of Anterica]

I don’t think a repeal will pass anyway, I’m just staying positive.

"Positive" is hardly a word if you are deciding to leave because a proposal hurts your backwards beliefs.

Also, please do not attack me for my beliefs, I just wanted to emphasize that it hardly seems appropriate in schools. I’m a supporter of the LGBT+ community.

Sure, sure, and I'm a unicorn disguised as a human.

You literally called it immoral in your post lmao

I don’t want to have to argue with you just to prove I support a group, I wouldn’t lie about something like that either, if I was indeed homophobic I’d probably explicitly say so, and I’m not.

[Federation of Anterica]

It feels like if someone says something even remotely opposing the bill, you’ll just (unfairly) label them a homophobe.