[Draft] Repeal: "A Convention On Gender"

[Servilis]

If Prioratus enters the boneyard again, I'll probably have to ask a Moderator for permission.

That won't work. Please, just write something original. It'd be easier for everyone.

Well, until Prioratus does give permission, that is what I'm trying to do at the moment

[Honeydewistania]

That won't work. Please, just write something original. It'd be easier for everyone.

Well, until Prioratus does give permission, that is what I'm trying to do at the moment

Sionis Prioratus will probably never give their permission, since they're basically retired from NationStates.

[Servilis]

Well, until Prioratus does give permission, that is what I'm trying to do at the moment

Sionis Prioratus will probably never give their permission, since they're basically retired from NationStates.

We'll see, they were active 16 days ago, and did refound after a short hiatus of being in the boneyard some few days before that, if they don't give permission before they enter the boneyard again, or before the legislation finally becomes unique, it's off to the Moderators to ask for permission, and if that is not possible or if they reject it, well then it's off to the drawing board of having to make it as unique as possible.

Even then, across that time, in the meanwhile work will be done on making the replacement less plagiarized to the point where it is no longer a plagiarization,

[Honeydewistania]

Sionis Prioratus will probably never give their permission, since they're basically retired from NationStates.

We'll see, they were active 16 days ago, and did refound after a short hiatus of being in the boneyard some few days before that, if they don't give permission before they enter the boneyard again, or before the legislation finally becomes unique, it's off to the Moderators to ask for permission, and if that is not possible or if they reject it, well then it's off to the drawing board of having to make it as unique as possible.

Even then, across that time, in the meanwhile work will be done on making the replacement less plagiarized to the point where it is no longer a plagiarization,

Moderators can't give permission on behalf of other players, so back to the drawing board.

It's much easier to start from scratch rather than to take someone else's work and water it down until it becomes 'original'.

[Attempted Socialism]

Sionis Prioratus will probably never give their permission, since they're basically retired from NationStates.

We'll see, they were active 16 days ago, and did refound after a short hiatus of being in the boneyard some few days before that, if they don't give permission before they enter the boneyard again, or before the legislation finally becomes unique, it's off to the Moderators to ask for permission, and if that is not possible or if they reject it, well then it's off to the drawing board of having to make it as unique as possible.

Even then, across that time, in the meanwhile work will be done on making the replacement less plagiarized to the point where it is no longer a plagiarization,

Moderation won't allow it.

Instead, just delete everything that you didn't write yourself, and actually write a replacement. This attempt-not-to-plagiarise is still plagiarism.

[Servilis]

We'll see, they were active 16 days ago, and did refound after a short hiatus of being in the boneyard some few days before that, if they don't give permission before they enter the boneyard again, or before the legislation finally becomes unique, it's off to the Moderators to ask for permission, and if that is not possible or if they reject it, well then it's off to the drawing board of having to make it as unique as possible.

Even then, across that time, in the meanwhile work will be done on making the replacement less plagiarized to the point where it is no longer a plagiarization,

Moderation won't allow it.

Instead, just delete everything that you didn't write yourself, and actually write a replacement. This attempt-not-to-plagiarise is still plagiarism.

I guess...
Although this repeal mostly serves as a way of correcting mistakes made in the Original Proposal.
So I guess I would have to delete it, but for now, until Prioratus either enters the boneyard again or gives me a response, it'll mostly be just editing and such.
Although when I have the time, I'll probably make my own legislation on the side.

[Grenartia]

A few thoughts.

1. How is the proposed legislation actually better than the one its trying to replace?

2. Do you have any solid guarantees that the proposed legislation will pass after this repeal?

3. Are you absolutely sure there's no other WA legislation that fixes the problem you're trying to address here? I seem to recall the 'no hormones for kids' thing being brought up constantly during the original proposal, and it was constantly argued that then-current WA legislation (and I'm unaware of any repeals of the relevant legislation) already addressed healthcare decision making for minors, both assuring 2 year olds couldn't get SRS, and that people who were old enough to make decisions about their own healthcare could actually legally do so.

4.

g. that age that Hormone Replacement Therapy should be administered must either be 2-5 years before that of the age of adulthood or the age of adulthood itself.

How are years being defined here? There are certain nations in the WA that have populations on other planets, and/or have species with short lifespans. It could easily be the case that 2-5 years could be at the end of those peoples' lives, instead of young adulthood.

[Servilis]

A few thoughts.

1. How is the proposed legislation actually better than the one its trying to replace?

2. Do you have any solid guarantees that the proposed legislation will pass after this repeal?

3. Are you absolutely sure there's no other WA legislation that fixes the problem you're trying to address here? I seem to recall the 'no hormones for kids' thing being brought up constantly during the original proposal, and it was constantly argued that then-current WA legislation (and I'm unaware of any repeals of the relevant legislation) already addressed healthcare decision making for minors, both assuring 2 year olds couldn't get SRS, and that people who were old enough to make decisions about their own healthcare could actually legally do so.

4.

g. that age that Hormone Replacement Therapy should be administered must either be 2-5 years before that of the age of adulthood or the age of adulthood itself.

How are years being defined here? There are certain nations in the WA that have populations on other planets, and/or have species with short lifespans. It could easily be the case that 2-5 years could be at the end of those peoples' lives, instead of young adulthood.

1. The original one is a bit outdated and contains loopholes,

2. A mild guarantee, yes, the first reason I decided to repeal was because noticed the 6th line had a massive loophole as it did not state how the level of maturity was determined or what level of maturity was to be reached,

3. Possibly the recent one regarding Affordable Transgender Healthcare,

4. That I would probably need to look into, I'm currently editing the draft right now, and so your question made me do a quick change, so temporarily, I'll just say "usually before the age of adulthood" rather than a few years before the age of adulthood,

[Servilis]

Made some major edits to the Replacement Legislation.

[Grenartia]

A few thoughts.

1. How is the proposed legislation actually better than the one its trying to replace?

2. Do you have any solid guarantees that the proposed legislation will pass after this repeal?

3. Are you absolutely sure there's no other WA legislation that fixes the problem you're trying to address here? I seem to recall the 'no hormones for kids' thing being brought up constantly during the original proposal, and it was constantly argued that then-current WA legislation (and I'm unaware of any repeals of the relevant legislation) already addressed healthcare decision making for minors, both assuring 2 year olds couldn't get SRS, and that people who were old enough to make decisions about their own healthcare could actually legally do so.

4.

How are years being defined here? There are certain nations in the WA that have populations on other planets, and/or have species with short lifespans. It could easily be the case that 2-5 years could be at the end of those peoples' lives, instead of young adulthood.

1. The original one is a bit outdated and contains loopholes,

2. A mild guarantee, yes, the first reason I decided to repeal was because noticed the 6th line had a massive loophole as it did not state how the level of maturity was determined or what level of maturity was to be reached,

3. Possibly the recent one regarding Affordable Transgender Healthcare,

4. That I would probably need to look into, I'm currently editing the draft right now, and so your question made me do a quick change, so temporarily, I'll just say "usually before the age of adulthood" rather than a few years before the age of adulthood,

1. Loopholes such as...?

2. As I stated in 3, I'm pretty sure that 'loophole' doesn't actually exist. And a vague 'mild guarantee' doesn't really mean anything to me. I want to see open endorsement from a majority of the GCRs.

3. Could be, but the point still remains that current WA legislation almost certainly already addresses the problem more than adequately.

4. That would be sufficient.

[Servilis]

1. The original one is a bit outdated and contains loopholes,

2. A mild guarantee, yes, the first reason I decided to repeal was because noticed the 6th line had a massive loophole as it did not state how the level of maturity was determined or what level of maturity was to be reached,

3. Possibly the recent one regarding Affordable Transgender Healthcare,

4. That I would probably need to look into, I'm currently editing the draft right now, and so your question made me do a quick change, so temporarily, I'll just say "usually before the age of adulthood" rather than a few years before the age of adulthood,

1. Loopholes such as...?

2. As I stated in 3, I'm pretty sure that 'loophole' doesn't actually exist. And a vague 'mild guarantee' doesn't really mean anything to me. I want to see open endorsement from a majority of the GCRs.

3. Could be, but the point still remains that current WA legislation almost certainly already addresses the problem more than adequately.

4. That would be sufficient.

1. On line 6 it says that (paraphrasing) "no intersex, transgender or intergender persons of any age may obtain a gap until they are of a high enough level of maturity", because it is not stated what the level of maturity is or even how it is determined, who determines it, etc. it basically makes the line invalid, basically, this means that because there is no definition of this level of maturity or any other ways to define how it is determined, alongside the fact that it says that nobody of any age can get a GAP, this means that nobody can get a GAP.

2. If the Repeal were to pass (which i think is a realistic goal here), then that means that the Replacement Legislation would also be likely to pass unless somebody makes a better replacement legislation.
Given the fact that well written Leftist resolutions usually always pass, the only thing stopping this from passing are any mistakes that people would notice when voting, just like how we saw in that Police Accountability Act, where a mistake regarding Cameras caused people to vote against the proposal.

3. You are right, but then again, I'm repealing a piece of legislation and then replacing it with an improved version, and not much is different from the original aside from some relevancy updates and difference of format and writing, as well as fixing some errors, so I don't think there will be many contradictions. Besides, the resolution was made in 2010, so it's more likely that the later resolutions I'm contradicting would be contradicting #91.

4. Thank you

[Grenartia]

1. Loopholes such as...?

2. As I stated in 3, I'm pretty sure that 'loophole' doesn't actually exist. And a vague 'mild guarantee' doesn't really mean anything to me. I want to see open endorsement from a majority of the GCRs.

3. Could be, but the point still remains that current WA legislation almost certainly already addresses the problem more than adequately.

4. That would be sufficient.

1. On line 6 it says that (paraphrasing) "no intersex, transgender or intergender persons of any age may obtain a gap until they are of a high enough level of maturity", because it is not stated what the level of maturity is or even how it is determined, who determines it, etc.

Because other WA legislation handles that.

it basically makes the line invalid, basically, this means that because there is no definition of this level of maturity or any other ways to define how it is determined, alongside the fact that it says that nobody of any age can get a GAP, this means that nobody can get a GAP.

Again, the loophole doesn't exist because of other WA legislation.

2. If the Repeal were to pass (which i think is a realistic goal here), then that means that the Replacement Legislation would also be likely to pass unless somebody makes a better replacement legislation.
Given the fact that well written Leftist resolutions usually always pass, the only thing stopping this from passing are any mistakes that people would notice when voting, just like how we saw in that Police Accountability Act, where a mistake regarding Cameras caused people to vote against the proposal.

Unlike you, I remember not too long ago when the ban on Capital Punishment got repealed with the promise of a new and even better proposal to replace it. Said new and even better proposal got BTFO'd when it was voted on. Never underestimate the anti-progressive block of the WA. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

3. You are right, but then again, I'm repealing a piece of legislation and then replacing it with an improved version, and not much is different from the original aside from some relevancy updates and difference of format and writing, as well as fixing some errors, so I don't think there will be many contradictions. Besides, the resolution was made in 2010, so it's more likely that the later resolutions I'm contradicting would be contradicting #91.

If I'm right, then the replacement legislation isn't needed, and could even be judged illegal by GenSec, which will be particularly bad if that happens after you've already successfully gone through with this repeal. And then you'll have repealed a perfectly good law in favor of an illegal proposal that wasn't even needed in the first place.

[Honeydewistania]

Still don't think any of this is necessary. 91 works well with supplementary legislation.

[Grenartia]

Still don't think any of this is necessary. 91 works well with supplementary legislation.

Honestly, that is the best fix here, if one is in fact, actually necessary.

[Servilis]

Still don't think any of this is necessary. 91 works well with supplementary legislation.

Honestly, that is the best fix here, if one is in fact, actually necessary.

91 is still outdated though.

[Grenartia]

Honestly, that is the best fix here, if one is in fact, actually necessary.

91 is still outdated though.

Other than the one thing you've pointed out, that we don't even necessarily need to repeal it over, in what way is it so outdated it needs to be scrapped entirely?