[DRAFT] Repeal: Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy

[Tic Cove]

OOC: I know that the forum and GA has been flooded as of late with repeals of this resolution for a variety of justifications, but fear not weary user! This repeal is neither aimed at disallowing transgender people from access to hormone therapy nor at debating their existence/validity.

Rather, it's out of concern for the actual bill itself - the vague text, difficult to understand arguments, and limited "new material" (much of it, if not all of it, is covered in the Convention on Gender). Given that this is my first time trying my hand at WA legislation (I've played NS for about four years now, on and off, through different countries without ever bothering to actually try and create resolutions or really involve myself in the greater community), I would really appreciate some help in making sure that this proposal is both legal, valuable, and well written.

Without further ado, this is the legislation as it stands:

The World Assembly, by the advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof, and by the authority of the same,

APPLAUDS any and all efforts to further human and civil rights protections, and measures against discrimination,

COMMENDS the efforts taken by the “Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy” resolution, hereafter referred to as GAR#467,

APPRECIATES the good intentions of the composers of GAR#467, and

RECOGNIZES the significant overlap between the aforementioned resolution and the “Convention on Gender Therapy” (hereafter referred to as GAR#97) which allows both for the continued protection of transgender and gender non-binary people in the interim and makes much of GAR#467 unnecessary.

The World Assembly,

PERPLEXED by undefined, contradictory, or otherwise ambiguous language in the offending resolution (GAR#467), particularly with regard to what constitutes “affordable” transgender healthcare and how such would be implemented without any standards or details set by the legislation,

TROUBLED by the precedent set by GAR#467, in which the World Assembly does not just protect and advocate for human and civil rights, but mandates member states to provide for healthcare that they may not be able to afford, or for which there are too few recipients, and

CONCERNED by the duplicated nature of much of the legislation, with limited difference and/or additional regulation from the previous GAR#97,

HEREBY REPEALS Resolution #467, “Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy.”

Any help and discussion would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

[Morover]

Once again, it's Jonathan Jer who stands in the chamber, as opposed to the usual Darin Perise. With his usual eye twitching, he coughs and says "As I've made clear in the past, I will not support any repeal without a replacement. That is not to say I will support any repeal with a replacement, though. I am only responding to this because you seem to actually care about the rights of transgender individuals, despite the fact that the majority of your arguments seem to indicate that you do not intend to give a replacement. That being said, I have left my critiques in red." Jonathan Jer hands you the draft, crinkled and covered in red ink.

The World Assembly, by the advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof, and by the authority of the same,

APPLAUDS any and all efforts to further human and civil rights protections, and measures against discrimination, As you very well should.

COMMENDS the efforts taken by the “Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy” resolution, hereafter referred to as GAR#467, You can honestly just call it "the target resolution." You may use the name, if you must, but it seems redundant to call the resolution by its full name when it is just easier to call it "the target resolution." That is a stylistic choice, I suppose.

APPRECIATES the good intentions of the composers of GAR#467, and As opposed to bad intentions? This sounds like you believe that the resolution has done more harm than good, which I vehemently disagree with.

RECOGNIZES the significant overlap between the aforementioned resolution and the “Convention on Gender Therapy” (hereafter referred to as GAR#97) which allows both for the continued protection of transgender and gender non-binary people in the interim and makes much of GAR#467 unnecessary. GAR#97 is "Quality in Health Services" - not "Convention on Gender Therapy." In fact, there is no "Convention on Gender Therapy." Perhaps you are referring to the similarly named "Convention on Gender" - GAR#91.

The World Assembly, What? You already had this at the beginning of the resolution.

PERPLEXED by undefined, contradictory, or otherwise ambiguous language in the offending resolution (GAR#467), particularly with regard to what constitutes “affordable” transgender healthcare and how such would be implemented without any standards or details set by the legislation, "Affordable" is fairly straightforward, is it not? I refuse to accept a lack of clarity as to what affordability is as an argument.

TROUBLED by the precedent set by GAR#467, in which the World Assembly does not just protect and advocate for human and civil rights, but mandates member states to provide for healthcare that they may not be able to afford, or for which there are too few recipients, and This is not a precedent set by my resolution, ambassador. I suggest you do some reading to avoid making inaccurate claims. Additionally, there being fewer recipients for this should mean that the government can afford it easier.

CONCERNED by the duplicated nature of much of the legislation, with limited difference and/or additional regulation from the previous GAR#97, Again, I presume you mean GAR#91. If you are, indeed, then I must refer you to the reason that the resolution was first drafted - it can be argued that hormone therapy does not fall under the definition of "Gender-adequation procedures," as defined by GAR#91. It was created to patch a loophole in the target text, and I believe you will find that, upon closer inspection, it duplicates much less than you may think.

HEREBY REPEALS Resolution #467, “Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy.” I am fundamentally opposed to this.

"I must say, it discourages me when authors come to these hallowed halls simply to undo what I put my blood, sweat, and tears into. I can only hope that these authors see the error in their ways, and stick around to create more necessarily resolutions."

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I appreciate the fact that you have put actual effort into this, rather than going with the standard style of debate on this issue. However, I disagree with your reasoning. Morover has addressed most of what I would say, but I wish to add that this is an exceptionally difficult piece of legislation to repeal, especially for a first time author, and your writing is very good.)

[Tic Cove]

. quote

Having read the draft, the Tic Cove ambassador turns to Mr Jer. "I thank you for this. I'll revisit the repeal. I do hope to see a replacement of the target resolution (hinted at with "the continued protection of transgender and gender non-binary people in the interim"), however I first wanted to see the repeal's feedback before reaching out to you - in the hopes that we could collaborate on such a replacement. I would be a much lesser man if I stole fine ideas such as these and rewrote them whenever I pleased, without the valued consultation of the original author. Thank you, as well, for catching my error with GAR#91."

He pauses briefly.

"I should hope to make clear that my issue is not with the word affordable itself, but moreso with the variety of options that could constitute affordability - I fear that the vague standard and lack of other details, such as the access to such therapy, would allow nations to continue to effectively block access to HRT. In a replacement legislation such affordability would hopefully be better outlined and detailed, detailing a clear standard of affordable care, as well as the accessibility of such care and the ability of nations (or lack thereof) to mandate wait times or evaluations. If it weren't for the period in which gender minorities would be left unprotected, I would rather repeal GAR#91 and replace it with a considerably more detailed resolution to cover this and the other loopholes."

Clearing his throat, he continues: "I have one question for you though, regarding formatting. I had originally broken the proposed repeal in to two parts - the first, applauding the target resolution, and the second, making arguments for its repeal, hence the two 'The World Assemblies.' Would you have an alternate suggestion I could use?"

[Tic Cove]

(OOC: I appreciate the fact that you have put actual effort into this, rather than going with the standard style of debate on this issue. However, I disagree with your reasoning. Morover has addressed most of what I would say, but I wish to add that this is an exceptionally difficult piece of legislation to repeal, especially for a first time author, and your writing is very good.)

(OOC: Thanks for the feedback! I might not go forward with the repeal, but it certainly has given me the opportunity to get back into writing legal pieces, roleplaying, and generally interacting with the NS community.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: The preamble-and-then-the-active-clauses thing is the usual way of constructing proposals that actually have an effect. For repeals the only possible active clause is the "repeals [resolution]", and even that isn't technically needed as the submission thing code adds that when you submit a repeal. So basically repeal is all preamble; that is, reasoning why it's a good idea.

I think this is the only drafted repeal attempt that doesn't try to say transgender people are not real or that they shouldn't have rights because of religious intolerance of them, so good on you for that.

However, the "troubled" clause is a bit odd, because nations are already required to provide affordable healthcare to everyone. "Full coverage", the resolution in question says.

And the duplication thing - there's some duplication, but that's allowed when you're focusing on a more specialized area of something that was generally speaking legislated upon. That's why we have different antidiscrimination resolutions that were passed since CoCR. Also, GenSec didn't mark it illegal after submission.

[Tic Cove]

OOC: The preamble-and-then-the-active-clauses thing is the usual way of constructing proposals that actually have an effect. For repeals the only possible active clause is the "repeals [resolution]", and even that isn't technically needed as the submission thing code adds that when you submit a repeal. So basically repeal is all preamble; that is, reasoning why it's a good idea.

I think this is the only drafted repeal attempt that doesn't try to say transgender people are not real or that they shouldn't have rights because of religious intolerance of them, so good on you for that.

However, the "troubled" clause is a bit odd, because nations are already required to provide affordable healthcare to everyone. "Full coverage", the resolution in question says.

And the duplication thing - there's some duplication, but that's allowed when you're focusing on a more specialized area of something that was generally speaking legislated upon. That's why we have different antidiscrimination resolutions that were passed since CoCR. Also, GenSec didn't mark it illegal after submission.

(OOC: The feedback is greatly appreciated, thank you. A later version (which I'll post momentarily) which takes into consideration the feedback of Mr Jen removes that clause. The duplication part has also been changed. Thanks again!)

[Morover]

. quote

Having read the draft, the Tic Cove ambassador turns to Mr Jer. "I thank you for this. I'll revisit the repeal. I do hope to see a replacement of the target resolution (hinted at with "the continued protection of transgender and gender non-binary people in the interim"), however I first wanted to see the repeal's feedback before reaching out to you - in the hopes that we could collaborate on such a replacement. I would be a much lesser man if I stole fine ideas such as these and rewrote them whenever I pleased, without the valued consultation of the original author. Thank you, as well, for catching my error with GAR#91."

He pauses briefly.

"I should hope to make clear that my issue is not with the word affordable itself, but moreso with the variety of options that could constitute affordability - I fear that the vague standard and lack of other details, such as the access to such therapy, would allow nations to continue to effectively block access to HRT. In a replacement legislation such affordability would hopefully be better outlined and detailed, detailing a clear standard of affordable care, as well as the accessibility of such care and the ability of nations (or lack thereof) to mandate wait times or evaluations. If it weren't for the period in which gender minorities would be left unprotected, I would rather repeal GAR#91 and replace it with a considerably more detailed resolution to cover this and the other loopholes."

Clearing his throat, he continues: "I have one question for you though, regarding formatting. I had originally broken the proposed repeal in to two parts - the first, applauding the target resolution, and the second, making arguments for its repeal, hence the two 'The World Assemblies.' Would you have an alternate suggestion I could use?"

"Your argument is, quite frankly, utterly irrelevant. Give me one instance where your concerns can reasonable come into play without utterly going into bad faith territory or just flat out noncompliance. Then I will give a more formulated response, but I can't even imagine a scenario as-is that even warrants concern."

After completely ignoring the Tic Cove's delegations question regarding formatting, Darin Perise slips him a hastily drawn note that said "You can use 'However' when transitioning from applauding to the arguments for the repeal."

[The Unfounded]

“If I understand correctly, attempting to repeal a resolution because it overlaps or duplicates other resolutions is an insufficient basis to repeal something. If it made it to vote at all, it cleared those hurdles.”

[Kenmoria]

“If I understand correctly, attempting to repeal a resolution because it overlaps or duplicates other resolutions is an insufficient basis to repeal something. If it made it to vote at all, it cleared those hurdles.”

(OOC: Something being marked as legal only means that the duplication wasn’t so much that Gensec had to strike it down, but there could still be some redundancy, so the argument that the topic argument was already covered could make sense.)

[Grenartia]

I challenge everyone who supports repealing it to draft a better replacement before even drafting a repeal.

[Tic Cove]

"Your argument is, quite frankly, utterly irrelevant. Give me one instance where your concerns can reasonable come into play without utterly going into bad faith territory or just flat out noncompliance. Then I will give a more formulated response, but I can't even imagine a scenario as-is that even warrants concern."

After completely ignoring the Tic Cove's delegations question regarding formatting, Darin Perise slips him a hastily drawn note that said "You can use 'However' when transitioning from applauding to the arguments for the repeal."

The ambassador acknowledges the note from Mr Perise and slips it into his jacket pocket. Turning to Mr Jen, he says, "I cannot see how a sizeable loophole is irrelevant, so you'll forgive me if I press on.

"While I understand your desire to defend your legislation, it is important to recognize that there is a spectrum of affordability, and the loose definition could allow nations to leave HRT largely unaffordable to the poorer masses. Perhaps it isn't an issue in your country, but there are a wide variety of member states with a wide variety of positions and intentions. The other loophole, which I had just pointed out, regards accessibility. Now a nation can provide all the free HRT in the world, but if it can park it in a faraway, difficult to access, or otherwise awful hospital, we're back at square one. Affordability certainly doesn't connote accessibility, unless you take the most liberal definition - but since affordability (of which there is a spectrum) is undefined in the resolution as it stands, then there is no liberal definition that can cover accessibility. If this legislation is aimed covering loopholes in the original GAR#91, then should it not itself cover its own loopholes? Now obviously if the implementation is in good faith and to the spirit of the law, the legislation is fine! But if we only look at good faith cases, then there is no need for this resolution, because GAR#91 already covered it."

(OOC: Here's the latest draft for repeal:

The World Assembly, by the advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof, and by the authority of the same,

APPLAUDS any and all efforts to further human and civil rights protections, and measures against discrimination,

COMMENDS the efforts taken by the target resolution, hereafter referred to as GAR#467, and

RECOGNIZES the significant overlap between the aforementioned resolution and the “Convention on Gender” (hereafter referred to as GAR#91) which allows both for the continued protection of transgender and gender non-binary people in the interim and makes much of GAR#467 unnecessary.

However,

PERPLEXED by undefined, contradictory, or otherwise ambiguous language in GAR#467, particularly with regard to what constitutes “affordable” transgender healthcare and how such would be implemented without any standards or details set by the legislation,

TROUBLED by the lack of regulation with regard to the access of "affordable" HRT, with this forming a sizeable loophole in the target resolution,

HEREBY REPEALS Resolution #467, “Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy.”

I'll have a draft up shortly for a replacement piece of legislation, but I'm busy at the moment. The new draft will focus less on defining transgender and non-binary people's experiences and more on the actual dispensation of affordable HRT and what standard it must meet. I'm probably going to use the abortion resolution as my benchmark because, rather annoyingly for me, the loopholes are quite well covered and the standard of care is quite well detailed. I want to stress again that the only reason I'm repealing this is because the legislation could be a lot stronger, not from a writing or critical perspective, but from an enforcement and standards perspective, and because I know that GAR#91 will protect trans and GNB people in the interim between the repeal and replacement legislation. I may yet drop the repeal if convinced, but I'd like to first submit a replacement for peer review, so I still get the learning opportunity.

I want to thank everyone who's participated thus far, it's been great getting back into the site! )

[Kenmoria]

“You now have more clauses commending the target resolution than criticising it, which is rather strange for a repeal.”

[Araraukar]

OOC: Put the latest draft in the first post. You can spoiler the older drafts, but if you do so in the first post, please put the newest draft above the older ones - that way when quoting it to give feedback, you don't need to wade through lots of old text first. (You can also move them, spoilered, into another one of your posts on this thread.)

[Morover]

"Your argument is, quite frankly, utterly irrelevant. Give me one instance where your concerns can reasonable come into play without utterly going into bad faith territory or just flat out noncompliance. Then I will give a more formulated response, but I can't even imagine a scenario as-is that even warrants concern."

After completely ignoring the Tic Cove's delegations question regarding formatting, Darin Perise slips him a hastily drawn note that said "You can use 'However' when transitioning from applauding to the arguments for the repeal."

The ambassador acknowledges the note from Mr Perise and slips it into his jacket pocket. Turning to Mr Jen, he says, "I cannot see how a sizeable loophole is irrelevant, so you'll forgive me if I press on.

"While I understand your desire to defend your legislation, it is important to recognize that there is a spectrum of affordability, and the loose definition could allow nations to leave HRT largely unaffordable to the poorer masses. Perhaps it isn't an issue in your country, but there are a wide variety of member states with a wide variety of positions and intentions. The other loophole, which I had just pointed out, regards accessibility. Now a nation can provide all the free HRT in the world, but if it can park it in a faraway, difficult to access, or otherwise awful hospital, we're back at square one. Affordability certainly doesn't connote accessibility, unless you take the most liberal definition - but since affordability (of which there is a spectrum) is undefined in the resolution as it stands, then there is no liberal definition that can cover accessibility. If this legislation is aimed covering loopholes in the original GAR#91, then should it not itself cover its own loopholes? Now obviously if the implementation is in good faith and to the spirit of the law, the legislation is fine! But if we only look at good faith cases, then there is no need for this resolution, because GAR#91 already covered it."

(OOC: Here's the latest draft for repeal:

The World Assembly, by the advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof, and by the authority of the same,

APPLAUDS any and all efforts to further human and civil rights protections, and measures against discrimination,

COMMENDS the efforts taken by the target resolution, hereafter referred to as GAR#467, and

RECOGNIZES the significant overlap between the aforementioned resolution and the “Convention on Gender” (hereafter referred to as GAR#91) which allows both for the continued protection of transgender and gender non-binary people in the interim and makes much of GAR#467 unnecessary.

However,

PERPLEXED by undefined, contradictory, or otherwise ambiguous language in GAR#467, particularly with regard to what constitutes “affordable” transgender healthcare and how such would be implemented without any standards or details set by the legislation,

TROUBLED by the lack of regulation with regard to the access of "affordable" HRT, with this forming a sizeable loophole in the target resolution,

HEREBY REPEALS Resolution #467, “Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy.”

I'll have a draft up shortly for a replacement piece of legislation, but I'm busy at the moment. The new draft will focus less on defining transgender and non-binary people's experiences and more on the actual dispensation of affordable HRT and what standard it must meet. I'm probably going to use the abortion resolution as my benchmark because, rather annoyingly for me, the loopholes are quite well covered and the standard of care is quite well detailed. I want to stress again that the only reason I'm repealing this is because the legislation could be a lot stronger, not from a writing or critical perspective, but from an enforcement and standards perspective, and because I know that GAR#91 will protect trans and GNB people in the interim between the repeal and replacement legislation. I may yet drop the repeal if convinced, but I'd like to first submit a replacement for peer review, so I still get the learning opportunity.

I want to thank everyone who's participated thus far, it's been great getting back into the site! )

OOC: Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I meant you should do "Perplexed, however, by the undefined, contradictory, or otherwise ambiguous..." Of course, this works, too, but it's not typical for a repeal from my knowledge, nor was it what I meant.

IC: "Ambassador, you cannot gouge prices in good faith. And all nations must interpret all resolutions in good faith, according to GAR#2. With the passage of various resolutions to help keep nations to a high standard of compliance (such as the Administrative Compliance Act and the World Assembly Justice Accord), it is relatively simple for any resident of any member nation to report member-nations for noncompliance and bring them to trial. I have no doubt in my mind that the judges from the Independent Adjudicative Office and the World Assembly Judicial Committee would not interpret any price gouging to be a good-faith interpretation of the target resolution."

"Furthermore, if you believe that the term 'easy-to-access' does not provide enough accessibility, I urge you to try and elaborate on that. It's not that I will dismiss sizeable loopholes - it's just that there are none here."

[Tic Cove]

OOC: Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I meant you should do "Perplexed, however, by the undefined, contradictory, or otherwise ambiguous..." Of course, this works, too, but it's not typical for a repeal from my knowledge, nor was it what I meant.

IC: "Ambassador, you cannot gouge prices in good faith. And all nations must interpret all resolutions in good faith, according to GAR#2. With the passage of various resolutions to help keep nations to a high standard of compliance (such as the Administrative Compliance Act and the World Assembly Justice Accord), it is relatively simple for any resident of any member nation to report member-nations for noncompliance and bring them to trial. I have no doubt in my mind that the judges from the Independent Adjudicative Office and the World Assembly Judicial Committee would not interpret any price gouging to be a good-faith interpretation of the target resolution."

"Furthermore, if you believe that the term 'easy-to-access' does not provide enough accessibility, I urge you to try and elaborate on that. It's not that I will dismiss sizeable loopholes - it's just that there are none here."

OOC: thanks for the heads up

IC: "If, then, a nation must act in good faith, avoiding loopholes, then I must ask why such legislation was necessary, if HRT is a commonly accepted form and facet of gender conversion therapy? But I digress, because I must admit my folly - I missed the key words 'easy-to-access'. I doubt that I'll be furthering the repeal, but I'll need to check with Tic Cove before I can say that with any finality. Thanks for your patience, and I apologize for this repeal on unstable grounds."

[Kenmoria]

IC: "If, then, a nation must act in good faith, avoiding loopholes, then I must ask why such legislation was necessary, if HRT is a commonly accepted form and facet of gender conversion therapy? But I digress, because I must admit my folly - I missed the key words 'easy-to-access'. I doubt that I'll be furthering the repeal, but I'll need to check with Tic Cove before I can say that with any finality. Thanks for your patience, and I apologize for this repeal on unstable grounds."

“A nation’s good faith requirement only works so far, and is very subjective. It is easier to claim that HRT doesn’t fall under existing legislation than it is to rework the meaning of the word ‘affordable’.”

[Araraukar]

gender conversion therapy

OOC: I know what you meant to say, but the wording you used does not refer to transitioning, but instead brainwashing and torture to force someone to conform with what some authority figure considers to be more acceptable. And such "therapies" have been banned by the WA.

For future reference, I would suggest using the word "transitioning" instead of the three words I quoted.

[Tic Cove]

gender conversion therapy

OOC: I know what you meant to say, but the wording you used does not refer to transitioning, but instead brainwashing and torture to force someone to conform with what some authority figure considers to be more acceptable. And such "therapies" have been banned by the WA.

For future reference, I would suggest using the word "transitioning" instead of the three words I quoted.

OOC: noted

“A nation’s good faith requirement only works so far, and is very subjective. It is easier to claim that HRT doesn’t fall under existing legislation than it is to rework the meaning of the word ‘affordable’.”

"Yeah, I can see the argument for that, but I'm not sure that I can agree. Nonetheless, the legislation was found to be legal, so it isn't worth pursuing further in my opinion."