NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Repeal: A Convention On Gender

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
ShrewLlamaLand
Diplomat
 
Posts: 747
Founded: Nov 30, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

[DRAFT] Repeal: A Convention On Gender

Postby ShrewLlamaLand » Sun Jul 05, 2020 4:50 am

The following is a repeal of GA#91 "A Convention On Gender", and is intended so that a more comprehensive, updated proposal covering transgender rights can be enacted as a replacement, which is currently in drafting here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=485551

GA#91 covers transgender legislation broadly, and unfortunately, not in a particuarly correct way. The proposal is now over a decade old, and uses several outdated terms in addition to several more terms I don't think were ever widely accepted: "Majoritarian genders (MG)", "Intergender persons", and "Gender-adequation procedure (GAP)".

The proposal also includes several phrases that could be interpreted poorly, for example:

4) No intersex, transgender or intergender person shall be forced to choose to fit in any gender; persons are free to keep whatever life-compatible features Nature gave them. They shall be recognized as “intersex” (or culturally equivalent gender terms) if documents require gender identification;


The above seems to imply that transgender people must be recognised as "intersex" if they do not wish to undergo surgical intervention to externally match their identified gender.

6) No intersex, transgender or intergender persons of any age shall have GAPs until they are mature enough to make an informed decision regarding their own future;


This clause is vague and seems to imply that people with, for example, some unrelated mental deficiency would not be "mature enough" and hence never permitted to undergo "GAPs".

7 c) Allowed to have GAPs after they have been informed of the risks & benefits (plus evidence, or lack thereof, for both).


This clause does not set out what "informed of the risks & benefits" entails, and potentially allows for cherry picked statistics to mislead transgender people against their own interests.

The current plan is that this repeal of GA#91 (when drafting is complete) is sufficient enough to allow the replacement legislation to be deemed legal under the duplication rule. Additionally, the replacement proposal does duplicate some of GA#467, however it is my hope that this repeal is not required to be deemed legal (if it is, I will likely submit a modified version of a previous draft viewtopic.php?f=9&t=483436).

Any feedback on the following is welcome.

The World Assembly,

Recognising the honourable intentions of GA#91 in attempting to minimise the many horrors experienced by transgender people;

Noting, however, that previously passed legislation may not be amended or otherwise modified by this Assembly, only repealed, and thus correction of such legislation first requires a repeal to be passed;

Observing that the target resolution is now over a decade old, and uses various outdated terms that are not accepted among medical professionals:
  • "Majoritarian genders (MG)" referring to the genders "male" and "female";
  • "Intergender persons", more commonly referred to as "non binary"; and
  • "Gender-adequation procedure (GAP)", now referred to as "Gender Confirmation Surgery (GCS)";

Alarmed that clause 4) requires binary transgender people to be recognised as "intersex", rather than as their identified gender, if they do not wish to undergo surgical intervention to physically match their identified gender;

Concerned that clause 6) is too vague, and may be interpreted in a way that prevents responsible individuals from making their own decisions regarding their personal health;

Troubled that the wording of clause 7 c) may allow those opposed to medical intervention to mislead transgender people against their own interests;

Believing that the repeal of this resolution would allow its replacement by a more comprehensive proposal;

Hereby repeals GA#91: A Convention On Gender.
ShrewLlamaLand
Confederation of Corrupt Dictators | Commission to the World Assembly

"The flag once raised will never fall!"

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1241
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Sun Jul 05, 2020 4:55 am

Let me see the replacement first

Edit: whoops, I’m a dumbass. Need new glasses :geek:
Last edited by Honeydewistania on Sun Jul 05, 2020 4:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Honeydewistania

Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Hepperle

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 "Regulating Desalination"
GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"

SC#315 "Commend Vippertooth33"

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6231
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Jul 05, 2020 4:56 am

Honeydewistania wrote:Let me see the replacement first

(OOC: ShrewLlamaLand is currently drafting one here.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15144
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Jul 05, 2020 4:57 am

Honeydewistania wrote:Let me see the replacement first

OOC: Seconded.

The target is not perfect, but it - coupled with the later trans-rights resolutions - works well enough.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1241
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Sun Jul 05, 2020 4:59 am

Kenmoria wrote:
Honeydewistania wrote:Let me see the replacement first

(OOC: ShrewLlamaLand is currently drafting one here.)

:oops:

Anyways, I don’t really see the need (like what Araraukar said). It is supplemented adequately by later resolutions.

Also, it’s common practise to include a link to the target in the OP.
Last edited by Honeydewistania on Sun Jul 05, 2020 5:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Honeydewistania

Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Hepperle

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 "Regulating Desalination"
GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"

SC#315 "Commend Vippertooth33"

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1046
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Maowi » Sun Jul 05, 2020 3:42 pm

OOC: While you're right that some of those terms used are outdated, changing that would have virtually no practical effect; I think that point only really detracts from your main arguments.

I think you could flesh out your main points better. What effect does it have on binary transgender people to have to be recognised as "intersex"? What's the exact way in which clause 6 has the effect you claim it does? What could transgender people be misled towards doing as a result of 7c? Expanding on some of that might benefit the proposal.

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1048
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Sun Jul 05, 2020 4:02 pm

OOC:

Just some thoughts:
  • If I were you, I'd take out the "observing" clause - it's not relevant and not grounds for repeal.
  • It's totally stylistic preference, but in repeals, I feel that commas work better for repeals - the same way I feel they work better for preambles and for the Security Council.
  • A bit of advice that was given to me on my recently-passed repeal that I'll carry on to you - for each issue you bring up, explain why that's an issue.
  • The latter part of clause four in the target resolution appears to be talking about individuals who do not subscribe to any specific gender or set of gender roles - though I do agree with you that the wording is poor.
  • I think that your interpretation of clause six is made in bad faith - that's not to say remove it, I'd just be more cautious when wording it. Your explanation in OP kinda makes sense, but the way it's worded in the draft makes it sound like an honest mistake to me (GenSec can probably weigh in on this in a more meaningful way).
  • Another stylistic thing, but when referencing clauses, there's no need to include the close parentheses. It may just be me, but it kinda interrupts the flow of the proposal, aesthetically (which is a weird thing to say, I know).
  • Your "troubled" clause is ignoring clause three (and partly clause four) of the target resolution, which means that transgender individuals should be able to undergo any procedure to more accurately correlate themselves with their gender as opposed to biological sex, regardless of the information they have been given. When taken in tandem with clauses 7a and 7b (which by themselves should negate your complaint, given their points about being upfront and honest), which implies in every way that feedback is completely optional, and I don't think you have a case here. This looks like another HM to me.

For the record, I'm generally opposed to a repeal of the target, though I can appreciate your replacement. I do have a feeling that you'll submit this regardless, though, so I decided to leave my thoughts. Hope they helped in some way.

User avatar
Qhevak
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 59
Founded: Jul 22, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Qhevak » Sun Jul 05, 2020 4:40 pm

Article 6) of WA #91 seems like a clear cut reason to repeal. Hormone therapy is much more likely to result passing characteristics if begun before puberty, and restricting it's use to people older than 18 is likely to have the exact opposite result to "eliminating those horrors".
Semi-Hard SF Mutualist Anarchotransbaseline association of Oort cloud space habitats - basically all of these ideologies living together. Does not use NS stats.

Tier 9, Level 0, Type 7 on this index.
Aerospace Engineering student in UK. Georgist Market Socialist short term, anarchotranshumanist long term.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15144
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:25 am

Qhevak wrote:Article 6) of WA #91 seems like a clear cut reason to repeal. Hormone therapy is much more likely to result passing characteristics if begun before puberty, and restricting it's use to people older than 18 is likely to have the exact opposite result to "eliminating those horrors".

OOC: Yeah, but you need to think of the realism of what can be passed and what can't. People who don't understand transgender issues, have kneejerk reactions to anything done to minors, so restricting things to usual age of adulthood (your mileage may vary depending on RP) was likely the only way to pass it, especially given it was passed 10 years ago, when these issues were not as well-known by the general public as they are now.

Link to target.
Last edited by Araraukar on Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads