To reply to some specific comments:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Exactly what does this do that GA #91, A Convention on Gender doesn't do? Mandate nations to cover gender reassignment costs? Good luck getting that to pass. The antidiscrimination bit is already covered by CoCR, so it should probably be a "reaffirms" or similar.
You need to separate your preamble from your active clauses, they're currently muddled, with an "understanding" clause suddenly having a "requires" in the middle. And then number your active clauses.
Given that this seems to be more about healthcare costs, it should probably be recategorized to Health - Healthcare. And your preamble clauses give no reasons why the active clauses are a good idea (hint: they should do that).
Cheers, that's a good bit of feedback. We were originally intending a proposal without a distinct preamble, like many SC proposals, with any clarification for a clause given within in the clause itself.
That said, several comments here say this same thing, and convention is that a GA proposal has a preamble, so we'll likely separate the two in the next draft.
Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: I have never been so suspicious of a draft.
That's honestly fair, although this time around it is sincere.
Aclion wrote:I can't help but think that the authors idea of "adequate psychological assistance to transgender people" would involve electroshock therapy >.>
Not at all. We may reword that phrase to make it less ambiguous.
Hijlistan Arg wrote:"We agree with the sentiment on its own, but we find it suspicious that the region proposing this is associated with the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators. It is against our principles to support any potential advancements of nations we suspect of fascism."
The region proposing this is the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators.
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Sorry, I am more than happy to take a position on Legislation based on where it comes from; I have absolutely no reason to believe that this is a genuine, good faith effort by the CCD. Opposed.
I can understand this take on it, but this time around I assure you it is a genuine proposal.
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
So, we should trust a pro-choice resolution coming out of Right to Life then? Or a resolution restricting religious discrimination from Auralia? Or a Free Trade resolution coming from me?
I personally would have no issues supporting any proposal if I agree with the content.
To use a real-life example, would you be against an actual trans rights proposal just because it came from a traditionally right wing party?