[DRAFT] Right to Transition

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Thank you all for your feedback on the proposal. Jocospor and I are going to re-draft the proposal and should have an updated version up in the next few days - we're not in a particular rush this time around.

To reply to some specific comments:

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.

Ooc: I have never been so suspicious of a draft.

That's honestly fair, although this time around it is sincere.

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.

"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.

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.

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?

[Maowi]

Thank you all for your feedback on the proposal. Jocospor and I are going to re-draft the proposal and should have an updated version up in the next few days - we're not in a particular rush this time around.

To reply to some specific comments:
-snip-

OOC: That's all well and good, but none of your response addresses the main problem, which is the duplication issue:

---

requires that all member nations allow transgender people the right to medically transition

This is covered by GAR 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;

(GAPs - Gender-adequation procedures - are defined as 'Medical procedures seeking to assign to intersex, transgender or intergender persons gender-related anatomical and/or genetic features needed to fit in a person-centered adequate gender.')

---

Orders all member nations provide adequate psychological assistance to transgender people, in particular transgender children, with resources determined on a case-by-case basis.

Also covered by GAR 91:

7) Intersex, transgender & intergender persons shall be:
a) Provided access to a list of expert GAP providers, as well as peer support, before & after GAPs. Said support shall also be provided to intersex, transgender & intergender persons who choose not to have GAPs;

---

Mandates that nations operating subsidised medicine schemes do not discriminate against transgender people, and must cover treatments including but not limited to hormone replacement therapy and gender reassignment surgery if similarly classed procedures would be covered for non-transgender citizens.

This is basically reasserting the CoCR in the context of gender reassignment surgery. You're not mandating that all nations cover hormone replacement therapy and gender reassignment surgery: you're saying that nations have to provide equivalent services for transgender people and non-transgender people.

---

I don't know whether this proposal would be illegal for duplication, but given that you're not really doing anything except, at most, clarifying a right already granted in WA law, you should at least change the strength from 'Significant' to 'Mild'.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

OOC: That's all well and good, but none of your response addresses the main problem, which is the duplication issue:

You're right, we don't have a whole lot of new content at this stage. Jocospor and I have discussed a couple of other clauses we may add into the next draft, along with some reformatting.

I would, however, like to know from a Mod if this is legal in its current state?

I'm personally not a huge fan of GA#91, a lot of the terminology it uses is non-standard or outdated, e.g. "Majoritarian genders", "Intergender persons" and "Gender-adequation procedure". Of course we'll try to work around it regardless.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: That's all well and good, but none of your response addresses the main problem, which is the duplication issue:

You're right, we don't have a whole lot of new content at this stage. Jocospor and I have discussed a couple of other clauses we may add into the next draft, along with some reformatting.

I would, however, like to know from a Mod if this is legal in its current state?

I'm personally not a huge fan of GA#91, a lot of the terminology it uses is non-standard or outdated, e.g. "Majoritarian genders", "Intergender persons" and "Gender-adequation procedure". Of course we'll try to work around it regardless.

OOC: Mods don't handle legality. GenSec does.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

You're right, we don't have a whole lot of new content at this stage. Jocospor and I have discussed a couple of other clauses we may add into the next draft, along with some reformatting.

I would, however, like to know from a Mod if this is legal in its current state?

I'm personally not a huge fan of GA#91, a lot of the terminology it uses is non-standard or outdated, e.g. "Majoritarian genders", "Intergender persons" and "Gender-adequation procedure". Of course we'll try to work around it regardless.

OOC: Mods don't handle legality. GenSec does.

My bad again, meant GenSec - used to SC terminology where Mods do handle legality.

[Araraukar]

used to SC

OOC: This is a problem for you, as GA and SC are so unlike that the only single thing they have in common is that you need to be in the WA to vote on the proposals of both.

Read through the last 100 passed GA resolutions (there's a nifty thread on this forum), though ignore repeals as they have a specific structure of their own, and you'll have a better idea of what kind of beast you're dealing with.