NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the offical discussion thread of the resolution "The Transgender Equality Act." A poll is set up on this thread as suggested by Mikitivity.
So I will take this opportunity to thank Mikitivity. I also hope that this thread will allow us to have a constructive debate on this resolution. A past discussion on this resolution can be found here..

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=435671


Thank you!

Sincerely,
Dee Marx, Prime Minister of ROADP.

The Transgender Equality Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Agnostic Deeishpeople

Description: Description: We, the United Nation, recognize the basic human rights of all individuals, including the transgender people. The Transgender Equality Act seeks to extend civil rights and fair treatment to members of the transgender community.

Believing that Human right is a rooted in belief in human dignity, and that everyone, including members of the transgender community, deserves to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of gender identities or expression

Defining a transgender person to be any person who has a gender that is different than the sex that he or she is assigned at birth ; any intersexes person; anyone who expresses their genders in a way that contravenes societal expectations

Definning Gender Identity as a person’s innate sense of self while gender expression constitutes one’s presentation of his or her gender.

Taking into account that everyone has the freedom of choice as outlined in the resolution of Universal Freedom of Choice to act in a way that might or might not fit with conventional gender stereotype as long as it does not infringe on the freedom of another person.

Recognizes that biological factors, such as one’s brain receptor for hormones, plays a role in the determination of one’s “brain sex” as opposed to one’s “physical sex.”

Acknowledges than that Gender Identity Disorder is a recognized health issue that
involves a person’s brain sex being different than his or her biological sex.

Convinced than that sex reassignment surgeries and its related medical procedures should be legal and allowed in order to alleviate the psychological pain and suffering caused people with GID.

Acknowledging that many transgender people are discriminated against in all area of life, including in employments and health care.

Noting with satisfaction that a significant number of human right laws have already been approved by the United Nation.

Noting with Regrets, however, that none of the past human rights resolutions made any mention on the right of the transgender person.

Be it resolved that the Transgender Equality Act be recognized and declared by the United Nation.

Article one: One’s gender identity or expression shall be included as a prohibited ground of discrimination; any transgender person should receive the same right as everyone else residing in all U.N member countries.

Article two: Considering that a transgender person is much more likely to be targeted for hate violence, law enforcement authorities should be encouraged to access anti-transgender training so they can adequately and sufficiently deliver justice to members of the transgender community.

Article 3: All Anti transgender discrimination in hiring, promotion, training and dismissal will be illegal in all U.N countries.

Article 4: Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally therefore; Sex Reassignment Surgeries and Hormonal treatments should be legal and reasonably accessible to people who have GID. Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse treatments to a transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people.

Article 5: Transsexuals who had undergone sex reassignment surgeries will have his or her new gender be legally recognized. Other transgender people, including cross dressers, feminine men, and masculine women will continue to be legally defined by their biological sex at birth.

Even though we strongly believe in Civil Rights, we feel that this topic has been covered before.


We wish the resolution well and will abstain unless the vote is extremely close.

Even though we strongly believe in civil rights, we squirted milk out of our nose when we read this mindless piece of fluff, and nearly choked on a chicken bone when we learned it was an official U.N. vote topic. We would thus charge the ambassador from Agnostic Deeishpeople with abuse and reckless disregard, but we figure that a nation great enough to have installed a powerful underage witch as its director of communications and a multiplantinum singer as its U.N. ambassador wouldn't care at all what we think.

Refer back to the submission thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=435671). We are in total agreement with the excellent delegate from the Eternal Kawaii.

I never thought it possible, but this is worse than the Protection of Dolphins Act. Congratulations.

Believing strongly in civil rights and personal liberties as we do, we find ourselves in a bind. On the one hand, unjustified discrimination in any form should not be encouraged and in fact should be discouraged by any means necessary. On the other, does government truly have a place in telling each and every one of the people that make up our nation not so much what they should do, but what they should think?

And is it truly a concern of an international body such as the United Nations?

We actually find ourselves sympathising with the intent of the writer in many ways, but we find ourselves unable to support this legislation because of a single article:

Article 5: Transsexuals who had undergone sex reassignment surgeries will have his or her new gender be legally recognized. Other transgender people, including cross dressers, feminine men, and masculine women will continue to be legally defined by their biological sex at birth.

If this is such a prominent and crucial issue, then why be so picky? Propose a resolution that prohibits gender-based discrimination in all directions instead of suggesting a "patch" measure that - while it may answer the immediate need for the moment - will only find itself being repealed and rewritten as soon as the larger issue comes into view?

While we sympathise with the author's intent, we vote with regret against the measure.

Dear members,

This sounds just like a bill I tryed to pass in my own parlament! We voted in favor of the Resolution!

P.M. James Kent
I am smart

I vote against this proposal. I agree with the general goal of the Transgender Equality Act, but I completely dissagree with Article 2. Canada6 will not invest funds to train police to enforce tolerance on it's citizens. I will much rather invest funds in awareness programs and in providing information so that tolerance may be a natural stance towards any minority.

How dare the author of this resolution to propose such a thing.

I vehemently oppose this resolution. :mad:

Can I quote that 'sex' can be quite confusing when relating to gender. 'Gender' could be a better word.

If this doesn't pass, I would balme it on article 2. The whole point of this bill is to make them completely equal. There should be no extras given out, nor anything taken away. As far as I know, none of the other equality acts have dedicated extra funds.

Other than that, it's fine.

While I believe the rights of Transgendered people should be recognized ... I disagree with articles 3 and 4 as they may affect a nations economic policies.

We dont recognize discrimination in hiring and health care at this time is primarily market driven.

For that reason I will vote no at this time.

My nation cannot vote in favor of this bill. We agree with many of the reasons previously stated, and have one other problem with the resolution:

Article 4: Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally therefore; Sex Reassignment Surgeries and Hormonal treatments should be legal and reasonably accessible to people who have GID. Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse treatments to a transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people.

While our government fully recognizes and agrees that there are cases when these treatments are necessery, as outlined earlier in the resolution, we feel that not enough safeguards are put in place in the resolution. These treatments are not something to be taken likely, and can have serious risks to health. They are also not fully reversible.
We feel that safeguards need to be added that require a patient to have approval from either a MD or a psychiatrist/psychologist, saying that this treatment is necessery and warranted. This is not unprecedented, as similar permission is needed for other treatments, like having an appendix removed. It should not be only up to the patient.

I vote against this proposal. I agree with the general goal of the Transgender Equality Act, but I completely dissagree with Article 2. Canada6 will not invest funds to train police to enforce tolerance on it's citizens. I will much rather invest funds in awareness programs and in providing information so that tolerance may be a natural stance towards any minority.

How dare the author of this resolution to propose such a thing.

I vehemently oppose this resolution. :mad:

Normally I tend to agree with you, but I fail to see the problem here. Certainly, a long term solution in terms of educating our youth to be tolerant to others needs to be put in, however, those that are already beyond the education system are difficult to reach. Article 2 doesn't create a situation where officers enforce tolerance any more than "black" or "gay" tolerance is enforced (though I admit, blacks are given a few extra priveledges......), but instead addresses the much greater concern of police discrimination - something that is well heard of - particularly the US, but most urban centers.

For example, my uncle (Jamacan - sp?) was arrested at the trunk of his car because two police officers thought that, since he was Jamacan, he couldn't afford that car and must be stealing something out of that trunk. I'm sure similar problems have happened to flamboyant people being mistreated by police. Why shouldn't there be (especially as a short term solution) training to try and prevent police discrimination against a minority

While I believe the rights of Transgendered people should be recognized ... I disagree with articles 3 and 4 as they may affect a nations economic policies.

4 I can understand, but 3 has been legislated on with womens rights, race rights, sexual preference rights, etc. We are effectively just extending them to another group

We dont recognize discrimination in hiring

By UN law you're supposed to - though if you believe it unprovable, then you will find that article 3 does nothing for your nation - in which case it STILL isn't something to oppose

and health care at this time is primarily market driven.

For that reason I will vote no at this time.

I must vote against this resolution mainly because of all the extra baggage. If it was only compiled of article 3 then their would be no problem.

Article 3: All Anti transgender discrimination in hiring, promotion, training and dismissal will be illegal in all U.N countries.

But since it is not I must decline this resolution.

Article two: Considering that a transgender person is much more likely to be targeted for hate violence, law enforcement authorities should be encouraged to access anti-transgender training so they can adequately and sufficiently deliver justice to members of the transgender community.I vote against this resolution due to the suggestions of this article. I do not believe in using law enforcement power to influence my citizens. Moreover, I feel that it is reverse discrimination to apply this sort of force to protect one group while not leaving this as an option to other groups.
Article 3: All Anti transgender discrimination in hiring, promotion, training and dismissal will be illegal in all U.N countries.If your resolution only included this article, I would approve it.

I like to note that the anti-transgender discrimination trainning is NOT mandatory/

A study shows that a transgender individual has one in 12 chance of being murdered, while the average person has about one in 18,000 of being murdered.

and maybe some of you will understand why we should encourage police officers to access anti-transgender discrimination trainning after reading this story..


In the hate crime on which the film “Boys Don’t Cry” was based, 21-year-old Brandon Teena was raped and later killed by two friends after they discovered he was biologically female. Teena had been living as a male and preparing for gender-reassignment surgery when he moved to Falls City, Neb., and befriended John Lotter and Tom Nissen. Upon discovering that Teena was biologically female, Lotter and Nissen became enraged and raped and beat him. Teena reported the crime to the police, but Richardson County Sheriff Richard Laux, who referred to Teena as “it,” did not allow his deputies to arrest the two men. Five days latter, on Christmas Day 1993, Lotter and Nissen found Teena in a farmhouse where he was staying with a friend, Lisa Lambert. They shot and stabbed him to death, then killed Lambert – in front of her 9-month-old son – and Philip DeVine, another friend in the home. JoAnn Brandon, Teena’s mother, filed a civil suit against Laux, claiming that he was negligent in failing to arrest Lotter and Nissen immediately after the rape. The court found that the county was at least partially responsible for Teena’s death and characterized Laux’s behavior as “extreme and outrageous.” [4] (Omaha World-Herald, April 21, 2001; The Associated Press, Oct. 5, 2001; The New York Times, April 21, 2001; Chicago Tribune, April 21, 2001.)


http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Issues/Transgender_Issues1/Transgender_Basics/Transgender_Basics.htm#2

:headbang: :mp5:
we have the right to discriminate in our own country as much as we like, if the resident of the country dont like it, the we can tell them to follow us and jump off a cliff too, and if the dont jump we can push them , ank them if they would radther bumjy jump, or make them leave.

P.S. 74I am NOT on dope!!! :headbang:

We understand that people are having identity crises however Death Drinkers will not allow my citizens to remove there reproductive organs and replace them with a reconstructed ones that will not work. Not only did you want me to officially change there legal gender but this will also cause problems in public. Unfertile females will mate with perfectly healthy males of Death Drinkers or vice versa and in turn will not produce any offspring. We need a larger population! Death Drinkers is willing to document this as a mental disease and will allow "mental treatment" but Death Drinkers will not allow the facilities of our country to be used to mutilate genitals. It is a waste of facilities and occupies an area that could be saving lives. Death Drinkers will send out a memo to my police task force informing them that transgender people have a mental disease and to treat them as such. However this is not a form of insanity and will not be a legal excuse to hide behind any sentence will be enacted with out leniency. I Vote Against This Submission!

Hmm....can't remember the exact quote:

"Insanity is when you are the majority of one" -1984

Just here to say that I vote Yea for this preposal. Gratned, it may have a few flaws, but I beleive that it would be best to get an imprefrect piece of legeslation in there immediately rather than sitting around for eons waiting for a perfect piece of legeslation. So, seeing as how it, in my personal opinion, only has a few flaws, it may as well be passed and perfected later when the Transgenders have jobs.

We would like to make an appearance here just to show our support for this resolution amidst all the regrettable negativity.

The Fassist government, on behalf of the people of Fass, who already enjoy fuller protection than this resolution attempts to grant to other, less fortunate peoples, congratulates Agnostic Deeishpeople for having ushered this to quorum and sincerely hope that this will pass, so that at least a lower level of recognition be created in this important, but unfortunately often overlooked, matter.

The Government of Sonnett also oppose this legislation. It is legislation such as this that removes all of the power from the hands of our people and places it into a larger body that does not represent our intrests. The people of Sonnett oppose this legislation and refuse to be bound by what voters in other countries might wish to do. If a people wish to pass such legislation, let them do it in their own governments and capitals. Social legislation has no place on the world stage. We, as a country would like to strongly encourage other countries to vote against this invasive legislation.

I'm having issues with this bill.

I believe firmly in personal and civil liberties, however, I am a religious man. I am in every and all ways against discrimination of any sort, and don't believe that Transgender people should be discriminated against. However, it seems wasteful to train police so they may specifically cater to Transgender people, or to make any special adjustments in my government for them, other then making the discrimination illegal. For that reason alone I am voting against it, I'm trying to leave my religious beliefs out of this, and so it came down to how this would effect my government. Quite Frankly I refuse to subject my economy to a drop, or to raise my people's taxes because you believe Transgender people deserve special treatment.

The Republic of Valori regrettfully votes Against the Transgender Equality Bill.

I'm having issues with this bill.

I believe firmly in personal and civil liberties, however, I am a religious man. I am in every and all ways against discrimination of any sort, and don't believe that Transgender people should be discriminated against. However, it seems wasteful to train police so they may specifically cater to Transgender people, or to make any special adjustments in my government for them, other then making the discrimination illegal. For that reason alone I am voting against it, I'm trying to leave my religious beliefs out of this, and so it came down to how this would effect my government. Quite Frankly I refuse to subject my economy to a drop, or to raise my people's taxes because you believe Transgender people deserve special treatment.

The Republic of Valori regrettfully votes Against the Transgender Equality Bill.

Did you see my response to Canada6 on page 1?

I agree why should I train my police force just to serve one single group of people I have better ways to spend my money and those ways will actually help my citizens

Did you see my response to Canada6 on page 1?

Yes I did, however I'd rather hire men for my police force that don't make ignorant and foolish assumptions. And hiring smart men, will cost much less then training a whole police force to specialize in certain areas.

And I hate to say it, but sometimes, criminal profiling is correct. I'm a 6'10 Italian, and I fit the Mafia profile perfectly, you know how many times I've been stopped or questioned? However, I feel much safer knowing that the cops are concerned about what some huge Italian is doing, then letting a walking stereotype do whatever he wants.

Greetings.

The Holy Empire of Gravlen, while sympathetic to the ideals of this resolution and in general supportive of measures strenghtening human rights, have some concerns regarding the current proposal.

The Universal Bill of Rights Article 4 state that "All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation." Combined with article 5 of The Sexes Rights Law wich states that "The Nation States United Nations recognises that gender is not just a physical manifestation but also a mental manifestation, and recognises that people of self proclaimed gender are also equally protected by the regulations and recommendations bound here in", we fail to see the need for this resolution at the current time as transgender people, as far as we understand the previous resolutions, are already granted the same amount of protection under international law as everyone else. As such, article 1 and 3 of the resolution at vote does not create any further protection of transgender people than they already experience.

We also refer to both the previously passed Discrimination Accord and the Definition of Marriage in regard to this matter.

Another objection we have to this resolution concerns its failure to define or explain what it describes as “brain sex”. We are further troubled as this resolution, with all due respect to the author, gives the impression of being a work of haste. As an example we would like to point out that article 2 literally would not improve the situation of transgender people, since we feel that giving law enforcement authorities "anti-transgender training" would be a step in the wrong directon and would actually be directly opposite of the intentions of this resolution.

In view of these objections, we cannot support this resolution at the present time.

All Hail!

Vlad T. Hindenschmidt
Deputy ambassador to the UN
for the Holy Empire of Gravlen

No, just god no. not at all. im not votin on this one, i abstain. i will not be totally against it, but i am not for it.

:fluffle: :sniper:

/\___ just a side joke, yea kinda mean, just a joke

Greetings,

The Allied States of Greater Mactopia has voted against this resolution. G.M. voted against this because:

1. Every person in every nation does not have free rights. The UN cannot force a nation to make everyone equal and semed highly unlikely that this would ever happen.

2. While G.M. Supports Civil rights and whose people are free, we do not support it. The G.M. population sees Transgenderization as unreal and disturbing.God created every person and that is the way they were meant to be. Not to take hormone pills and shots to change their sex. That is just plain wrong.

3. G.M. also sees this issue for every nation to decide upon. Not the UN. Even if the UN passes this Resolution, Nations will not agree with it. Therefore every nation should decide by themselves, within their own governing bodies wether to allow this to happen or not.

Thank You.

:headbang: The seniments in this resolution are admirable. However there is already a UN Bill of Rights plus other anti discrimination legislation passed. Thus this is redundant. Some of my fellow esteemed representatives have a problem with article 2. I am in agreement with those senements. However article 4 really(pardon my french) frosts my nuts. What the Hell is resonable access to hormone therepy and medical treatments. Sniff sniff! Smells like socialized medicine. Why should one group get something my citizens don't get. In the Palentine all citizens have reasonable access to medical help. Its called insurance and cash. The Palentine does not believe in subsidized medicine and will not start here. If a transexual wants treatment then he/she can pay for it themselves or go without. This is another case of something the government needs to stay out. Furthermore, in the Palentine even though crime is an problem, we believe in law and order. If any stupid git would commit a crime against a transexual( or any other citizen for that matter), the esteemed officers of Law and order would crack the git's skull like a nut when caught. And when sentenced the sorry SOB would have a long free vacation in the hellholes my nation calls prison. Besides in the Palentine all citizens have a right to own and carry guns. A perp is likely to be shot during the attack. :mp5:

Excelsior,
Senator Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador
Holy Empire of the Palentine

:headbang: The seniments in this resolution are admirable. However there is already a UN Bill of Rights plus other anti discrimination legislation passed. Thus this is redundant. Some of my fellow esteemed representatives have a problem with article 2. I am in agreement with those senements. However article 4 really(pardon my french) frosts my nuts. What the Hell is resonable access to hormone therepy and medical treatments. Sniff sniff! Smells like socialized medicine. Why should one group get something my citizens don't get. In the Palentine all citizens have reasonable access to medical help. Its called insurance and cash. The Palentine does not believe in subsidized medicine and will not start here. If a transexual wants treatment then he/she can pay for it themselves or go without. This is another case of something the government needs to stay out. Furthermore, in the Palentine even though crime is an problem, we believe in law and order. If any stupid git would commit a crime against a transexual( or any other citizen for that matter), the esteemed officers of Law and order would crack the git's skull like a nut when caught. And when sentenced the sorry SOB would have a long free vacation in the hellholes my nation calls prison. Besides in the Palentine all citizens have a right to own and carry guns. A perp is likely to be shot during the attack. :mp5:

Excelsior,
Senator Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador
Holy Empire of the Palentine

Article 4 is not socialized medicine. It's just saying you can't ban these treatments in law - but it is the governments choice on how to fund this treatment (or fail to, if that be the case)

Article 2 just doesn't want the police to shoot the person because he/she is transgender (I point to the article that was brought forth about the transgender who wasn't able to get charges filed after being raped and ended up being one of the victims and primary target of a double murder...by the people he was trying to get charges filed against)

The Darvainian government has responded to this pending resolution by releasing the following statement...

"That's Gross..."

The Free Land of Mjollniria has found this resolution to be irresponsible and foolish. No business ought to fear legal action for not hiring one who may not have been qualified in the first place. Mjollniria has voted nay.

Article 4 is not socialized medicine. It's just saying you can't ban these treatments in law - but it is the governments choice on how to fund this treatment (or fail to, if that be the case)


I am sorry, but this is just not the case, at least not in the current language of article 4. All it does is not allow doctors to refuse this treatment. If a government makes this treatment illegal, then a doctor is not the one refusing it, the government is. Therefore, this article provides no legal protection for the right to have this treatment.

In addition, doctors NEED to have the ability to refuse treatment, any treatment. If the treatment is unduly harmful, or unnecessery (for example, if someone who did not suffer from brain-sex disorder, etc. tried to have this trandsgender treatment) the doctor would be criminally negligent to carry out the treatment. This article forces doctors into a bad corner.

I understand the spirit of the article, but you cannot just go on spirit. If UN resolutions are not written correctly, then we allow loopholes to be exploited, or do not even achieve the goal of the resolutions. We cannot pass an improperly stated resolution.

I am sorry, but this is just not the case, at least not in the current language of article 4. All it does is not allow doctors to refuse this treatment. If a government makes this treatment illegal, then a doctor is not the one refusing it, the government is. Therefore, this article provides no legal protection for the right to have this treatment.

In addition, doctors NEED to have the ability to refuse treatment, any treatment. If the treatment is unduly harmful, or unnecessery (for example, if someone who did not suffer from brain-sex disorder, etc. tried to have this trandsgender treatment) the doctor would be criminally negligent to carry out the treatment. This article forces doctors into a bad corner.




Article 4 is about making sex reassignment surgery a legal medical operation. And I want to thank ForgottenLand for informing the U.N that making sex reassignment surgery accessible is not the same as making it free. No government has to provide free surgery to people who have GID if it is not capable of doing so.

And i also like to thank Fass and everyone else who have supported this resolution. I believe that this resolution is necessary; it confronts the particular discrimination and prejudices that transgender individuals have to face everyday in many countries. And Ultimately, I think it will make lives a bit more tolerable and better for members of the transgender community.
.

We the government of Fleecedom have some severe misgivings about this issue. Our government does not recognize marriage of any kind. Neither do we recognize a persons sex or sexual inclination. It is quite frankly none of the governments business. The UN does not have the right to step into our country and demand what amounts to special treatment for a minority. The main cause of most minority imposed problems is the recognition of the condition. For example, school shootings in the US did not become a national problem until they were highly publicized.
To sum this up, this resolution is the duty of a government to decide on not the business of the UN.

On a some what different note. Did you consider the side issues this would spawn? By recognizing legally that their is a difference between a male and a female brain you destroy close to 50 years of feminist work. I personally don't care to much about that issue but i imagine you do. Please in the future consider the damage that can be caused by sloppy wording in a resolution.

Representative of Fleecedom
The Right Honorable Andrew Chekhov
Ambassador to the United Nations

I'm afraid the theocracies in my region do not support this kind of legislation. Gender is assigned to us at birth. To require nations to allow their citizens to change gender would be appalling to any theocracy. So would a requirement to assign rights and benefits according to new gender. Does this mean that a woman in an Islamic state now has the right to say she should have been born a man? What's next, saying God made a mistake and you should have been English nobility?

What I see in this proposal is that it does more than any other I've ever seen to encroach upon the rights of individual nations. It's a simple enough matter for transsexuals to move to Sweden if they aren't comfortable enough in Egypt. Why make everyone else in Egypt uncomfortable for the sake of one transsexual?

I don’t consider this resolution to be giving any special treatment or rights to transgender individuals. It is actually about equal right and equal justice. And i beleive there is more than 1 trannsexual in Egypt but even one person deserves right and protection so it is irrelevant.

The Royal Commonwealth has laws preventing transgender operations from occuring within our country...we will be forced to withdraw from the UN if this resolution is passed. It goes against all recognized religions in the Royal Commonwealth. 99.7% of Litzkrieg alone is vehemently opposed to this Act.

On a some what different note. Did you consider the side issues this would spawn? By recognizing legally that their is a difference between a male and a female brain you destroy close to 50 years of feminist work. I personally don't care to much about that issue but i imagine you do. Please in the future consider the damage that can be caused by sloppy wording in a resolution.

Representative of Fleecedom
The Right Honorable Andrew Chekhov
Ambassador to the United Nations


There are differences between men and women, and there also differences within men and within women. Just because there are differences, it does not mean it would destroy feminisim. In fact, this resolution supports feminism as well because it also gives protection to people who have non-conventional gender roles but do not have a problem with their biological sexes.

I still have questions about article 4, and I especially have a problem with the word reasonable. What is reasonable for one person may not be reasonable for another. The Palentine's medical establishments would not refuse to perform these procedures, for a paying citizen . Am I right in thinking that these surgeries and treatments are expensive. Furthermore all passed resolutions are binding. Which means the government must comply with and supply these procedures. If it walks and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. As for whether or not a goverment can or can't afford to make these available, seems to give poor countries a free pass while forcing richer counties to pony up. As I have stated before in a previous post, my veiw of reasonalbe is this, you have insurance or cash to pay for the procedure then you may have it, if not then come back when you can pay. Granted the Palentine could sudsidize the procedure as I don't believe that there is going to be a large amount of procedures prefomed in a fiscal year. However that violates my countries core value system, plus it begins the slippery slope of giving other minoirty groups a handout, or subsudy.

Excelsior,
Senator Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador
The Palentine

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel support this resolution, we agree it's all about equal rights and equal justice

Article 4 is about making sex reassignment surgery a legal medical operation. And I want to thank ForgottenLand for informing the U.N that making sex reassignment surgery accessible is not the same as making it free. No government has to provide free surgery to people who have GID if it is not capable of doing so.

And i also like to thank Fass and everyone else who have supported this resolution. I believe that this resolution is necessary; it confronts the particular discrimination and prejudices that transgender individuals have to face everyday in many countries. And Ultimately, I think it will make lives a bit more tolerable and better for members of the transgender community.
.


OOC: I think the question is are you transgendered, or do you just have alot of time to sit around and think of cases of how the world is evil to minorities??? :confused:
I believe that there are more relevant issues like equality for women and men. AIDS and STD's in Africa. Hunger, starvation around the world. And keeping peacedul negotiations b/w N. and S. Korea. But that many just be me...

There are differences between men and women, and there also differences within men and within women. Just because there are differences, it does not mean it would destroy feminisim. In fact, this resolution supports feminism as well because it also gives protection to people who have non-conventional gender roles but do not have a problem with their biological sexes.


We the people of Fleecdom consider your less than average and rather boorish attempt at dancing around the issue appalling. A tree is not a bush because you would have it so.
The feminist community has been claiming for years that their is no difference between male and females. It is upon this precept that the entire bid for equality rests. To admit difference one invites discrimination. Only by ignoring differences can one truly have equality. In the governments view everyone must be a citizen! Nothing less and nothing more. One can accept diversity happily on a state or county level but the government must not become the sole intermediary on civil matters. To do otherwise is to invite the stain of favoritism. To be seen as having a favorite, not necessarily to actually have one but to be seen as such, is to invite the deterioration of trust in said government. Without trust there is no government.

Representative of Fleecedom
The Right Honorable Andrew Chekhov
Ambassador to the United Nations

Sheesh - take two hours off and get your arguments slaughtered....incorrectly too. Sorry if I sound a bit grumpy

I am sorry, but this is just not the case, at least not in the current language of article 4. All it does is not allow doctors to refuse this treatment. If a government makes this treatment illegal, then a doctor is not the one refusing it, the government is. Therefore, this article provides no legal protection for the right to have this treatment.

In addition, doctors NEED to have the ability to refuse treatment, any treatment. If the treatment is unduly harmful, or unnecessery (for example, if someone who did not suffer from brain-sex disorder, etc. tried to have this trandsgender treatment) the doctor would be criminally negligent to carry out the treatment. This article forces doctors into a bad corner.

First - it doesn't let the government refuse the procedure:
Article 4: Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally therefore; Sex Reassignment Surgeries and Hormonal treatments should be legal and reasonably accessible to people who have GID.

See that highlighted word? That means that the surgeries are legal (well....with exception to a loophole that was left in making it possible for anyone who objects to this to decide to ban all of these surgeries - so no one has reason to leave the UN if this passes)

Second: It doesn't say medical personnel can't refuse to perform the procedure
Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse treatments to a transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people.

If you use any of the following reasons:
1) You can't pay for it
2) The operation is legal
3) We don't feel you are mentally capable of making this decision (no loophole here - don't try it)
4) Anything else that isn't an attempt to be discrimatory
you can deny surgery

Therefore, it does not require you to fund the surgery

----------------------------------------------

We the government of Fleecedom have some severe misgivings about this issue. Our government does not recognize marriage of any kind.

You might want to check out some past UN resolutions - Resolution 12: Gay rights comes to mind (I agree with you, but that's part of my "minority rights needs to be thrown out and rewritten" spiel which I don't want to get into. For the time being, this is what we're given)

Neither do we recognize a persons sex or sexual inclination. It is quite frankly none of the governments business.

Again....I think you might want to check out past resolutions..... - though this time, the sex of a person I think is relevant to the government's consideration.....so I don't quite agree with you as much

The UN does not have the right to step into our country and demand what amounts to special treatment for a minority.

Precedent would claim otherwise - I suggest you check out things like:
-Gay Rights
-Rights of Minorities and Women
-Discrimination Accord
-Definition of Marriage (not so much)
-Fair Treatment of the mentally ill (or something like that)
-Something regarding Native peoples

The main cause of most minority imposed problems is the recognition of the condition.

Because we all know that women and blacks were not mistreated or abused in any way, shape or form or considered inferior citizens 100 years ago before this "minority rights" thing started actually becoming something for people to think about. Please, try again

For example, school shootings in the US did not become a national problem until they were highly publicized.

Um.....no. They weren't highly publicized until Columbine - but school shootings had already been on a significant and astonishing rise throughout the US. Certainly, after the major shootings, there was a spike, but the major shootings are rarely (if ever) about publicity. On the same note, Canada which is fed US news regularly and has a population of 1/10 that of America AND reports as much about American school shootings as the US does but doesn't have a single guard sitting at the door searching for weapons - has had a total of.....1 shooting....with one death - about AS highly publicized as any shooting in the US (except Columbine).

I'd argue that the bigger problem is publicity about murders went up significantly. Apparently, one year, the number of murders decreased 20%. The amount of air time given to these murders increased 600%. However, we can go into massive arguments about American gun culture on and on and blah blah blah - but the fact of the matter is discrimination is real, and it happens whether we recognize it or not.

To sum this up, this resolution is the duty of a government to decide on not the business of the UN.

Well, just as some governments don't trust their voters to make smart choices, I don't trust the governments to make smart choices so.....

On a some what different note. Did you consider the side issues this would spawn?

There is not a person in this world that could possibly see the full rammifications of every single problem that is created by doing one thing over another. Obviously the answer is "I know there are side issues, but they'll happen anyways so if none jump out at me, I don't care"

By recognizing legally that their is a difference between a male and a female brain

Which has been scientifically proven and now feminazis are the only ones that continue to refute it

you destroy close to 50 years of feminist work.

No, the women never claimed they were the same as men, they claimed they were equal. Note the important difference.

I personally don't care to much about that issue but i imagine you do. Please in the future consider the damage that can be caused by sloppy wording in a resolution.

Nope, still don't care

==========================

Kiloran]I'm afraid the theocracies in my region do not support this kind of legislation. Gender is assigned to us at birth.

And still is - but so is a name. Your point?

To require nations to allow their citizens to change gender would be appalling to any theocracy. So would a requirement to assign rights and benefits according to new gender. Does this mean that a woman in an Islamic state now has the right to say she should have been born a man?

No - she has a right to claim she IS a man.

What's next, saying God made a mistake and you should have been English nobility?

No.....but if a person of English nobility adopted you, then you would be English nobility.

What I see in this proposal is that it does more than any other I've ever seen to encroach upon the rights of individual nations.

Yeah - check out some of the past resolutions. Heck - check out the proposal that was floating through the forums saying we need to throw all of our guns into the trash compactor.

It's a simple enough matter for transsexuals to move to Sweden if they aren't comfortable enough in Egypt.

Because their chances of getting into Sweden are pretty freaking close to zip. Their chances of getting into the US or Canada if they don't have a post-secondary degree are pretty freaking close to zip. Because immigration is one heck of a heavily regulated area.

Why make everyone else in Egypt uncomfortable for the sake of one transsexual?

Why would they be uncomfortable if the only people that may know or care are those that are lazily flipping through the record books - and the doctor and significant other....but that's about it.

=====================

The Royal Commonwealth has laws preventing transgender operations from occuring within our country...we will be forced to withdraw from the UN if this resolution is passed. It goes against all recognized religions in the Royal Commonwealth. 99.7% of Litzkrieg alone is vehemently opposed to this Act.

*notes loophole mentioned above

I'm not even going to try to claim I can change your mind (at least not before the vote is over - it took me a week to change the mind of one person on same sex marriage). However, I ask you to reconsider after the loophole I pointed out

==========================
I still have questions about article 4, and I especially have a problem with the word reasonable. What is reasonable for one person may not be reasonable for another. The Palentine's medical establishments would not refuse to perform these procedures, for a paying citizen .

Basically - if you have one doctor out of a nation of a billion people who's got the training or knowledge to perform such a surgery and a waiting list of a few thousand individuals......that's not exactly reasonable. Accessability needs to be reasonable, not affordability. Additionally....the vagueness of reasonable would mean your nation gets to determine the "level" or reasonability in your country - or even determine reasonability (as long as your determination of reasonable is reasonable :p)

Am I right in thinking that these surgeries and treatments are expensive. Furthermore all passed resolutions are binding. Which means the government must comply with and supply these procedures.

If by supply you mean "Government must guarantee existance of", yes.

If it walks and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.

You haven't seen the duck robots down at Forgottenlands U, have you?

As for whether or not a goverment can or can't afford to make these available, seems to give poor countries a free pass while forcing richer counties to pony up.

No funding is diverted in any way from any country to any other country by this UN in this resolution. If you see any clause that states otherwise, please bring it to my attention - but I can't see it. Each Nation is required to decide if and how it will fund these procedures

As I have stated before in a previous post, my veiw of reasonalbe is this, you have insurance or cash to pay for the procedure then you may have it, if not then come back when you can pay.

Reasonable to you and this resolution. My nation and region would tend to disagree....but that is irrelevant to the debate

Granted the Palentine could sudsidize the procedure as I don't believe that there is going to be a large amount of procedures prefomed in a fiscal year. However that violates my countries core value system, plus it begins the slippery slope of giving other minoirty groups a handout, or subsudy.

Well....I've already argued as much as needs to be argued here so...

=====================
OOC: I think the question is are you transgendered, or do you just have alot of time to sit around and think of cases of how the world is evil to minorities???

I don't know about the proposer - but I spend a lot of time drooling at my computer screen hoping someone SOMEWHERE will post SOMETHING on ANY of the boards I'm monitoring

I believe that there are more relevant issues like equality for women and men.

I refer you to passed resolutions:
-Rights of Minorities and Women
-The Discrimination Accord
-(amazingly)Gay Rights
-The sexes rights laws

AIDS and STD's in Africa.


Passed resolutions:
-Global AIDS Initiative
-Keep the World Disease free
-No Embargos on Medicine
-Increased Access to Medicine
-NS HIV AIDS Act

Also note that as far as NS is concerned, there is no Africa as we know it in the real world (there is, but it isn't rampant with AIDS or anything similar, nor is it a bunch of tribes ruled by dictators who are constantly in a civil war or....)

Hunger, starvation around the world.

IIRC, we were debating such a resolution just last week. I think it ended up getting scrapped or something.

And keeping peacedul negotiations b/w N. and S. Korea. But that many just be me...

NS!=RL.

As you can see, several resolutions have already addressed your concerns significantly - or have been debated. We are not just focused on transsexuals....just read the forum and you'll see that

Oh - and I'm pretty sure I missed a LOT of resolutions in my lists

========================

We the people of Fleecdom consider your less than average and rather boorish attempt at dancing around the issue appalling. A tree is not a bush because you would have it so.

Actually, a tree is not a bush if the scientific community proves it otherwise......which I think was his point.

A slippery slope argument does not exist just because you claim it does (my favorite is the one used for same sex marriage - to which I give an answer that makes some of those people think for a VERY long time - or are just too confused to respond...)

The feminist community has been claiming for years that their is no difference between male and females.

No - they've been claiming equality. They claim that they can do whatever a man can do. The problem is that some think that means they are the same - but the fact that they have breast and men have a penis is the first sign that's total crap - especially since most men (note: I say this as a man) are thinking with their dick and end up staring at the breasts instead of using their brain to look at the face of the women (and therefore, the brain that sits behind it).

It is upon this precept that the entire bid for equality rests.

Bull**** - otherwise a bunch of scientists would've stopped it 50 years ago

To admit difference one invites discrimination. Only by ignoring differences can one truly have equality.

No, fail to admit the difference is to be ignorant. You aren't discriminating against a black person because you recognize that he's black. You discriminate against him when you start talking like you're from the ghetto because he must've been from there (since he's black). Yes you ignore them, but that doesn't mean you don't acknowledge their existance.

In the governments view everyone must be a citizen! Nothing less and nothing more.

Agreed

One can accept diversity happily on a state or county level but the government must not become the sole intermediary on civil matters.

However, to not give that power means that those who are racist can do whatever the heck they want....if those in the executive (aka police force) are also racist. If everyone treated everyone else like a number, we wouldn't have to worry about it - but THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN

To do otherwise is to invite the stain of favoritism.

To exist invites the stain of favoritism

To be seen as having a favorite, not necessarily to actually have one but to be seen as such, is to invite the deterioration of trust in said government.

There's trust in government? When did that happen?

Without trust there is no government.

No, there's no government of value

Sheesh - take two hours off and get your arguments slaughtered....incorrectly too. <snip>

Longest
Post
Ever.
<and yes, I read all of it. Good points.>

well....it beat my last insanely long post by a screen....which had (at the time) been declared longest post ever by a few people.....

I stayed out of the debate thread on this resolution because I just wasn't sure about whether or not it is really necessary, so am very unsure whether to support it or abstain. I won't vote against it because there is nothing in the resolution I dislike enough to do that. So far it seems a lot of the arguements against it in this thread are either "its icky, and our religion doesn't like it", or "its icky and we don't want to pay for it".

We in Waterana are civil rights junkies and have no problems bypassing a nations government if it means individuals of that nation get more freedoms and their government has a harder time discriminating against them or ignoring their problems. In this case though, I just aren't sure whether this resolution is really needed. At the moment, I'm leaning towards abstaining, but will watch this thread and see what sort of pro-resolution points come out of it.

Sheesh - take two hours off and get your arguments slaughtered....incorrectly too. Sorry if I sound a bit grumpy



First - it doesn't let the government refuse the procedure:


See that highlighted word? That means that the surgeries are legal (well....with exception to a loophole that was left in making it possible for anyone who objects to this to decide to ban all of these surgeries - [b]so no one has reason to leave the UN if this passes)

Second: It doesn't say medical personnel can't refuse to perform the procedure


If you use any of the following reasons:
1) You can't pay for it
2) The operation is legal
3) We don't feel you are mentally capable of making this decision (no loophole here - don't try it)
4) Anything else that isn't an attempt to be discrimatory
you can deny surgery

Therefore, it does not require you to fund the surgery

The people of Hunting Eagles were not concerned about the funding issue, we never felt this resolution required governments to fund transgender surgery (as a matter of fact, the people of Hunting Eagles have found the whole discussion on the "funding" issue rather humerous, since we cannot find any language in the resolution that would even imply this). We still have some concern regarding doctors choice in the surgery, as the wording leaves them open to a large number of lawsuits should they choose not to perform the surgery for the correct reasons. We would feel better if the resolution included language explaining that doctors can refuse the surgery, just not for discrimination against transgender. We understand that this is implied, but would feel better if it were stated. We are willing to put this issue aside in the interest of protecting peoples rights now, rather than later. We may consider proposing a future resolution to help protect doctors if they refuse to carry treatments of any kind, when done for the right reason.

As for our other concerns, Hunting Eagles would like to thank Forgottenlands, as they cleared up our fears. We now see how this resolution prevents governments from making this surgery illegal.

Hunting Eagles will now vote in favor of this resolution. Thank you again Forgottenlands.

The great and powerful Holy Emperor of Rathanan has ruled against this bill. The entire idea of Transgender is among the many frivilous disorders in society.... Transgenderism is a slap in the face to God, as it is he who has made you in his image... As our empire is entirely devoted to the Lord our God, we shall never support such legisilation, and we encourge all other nations to do the same. To add to that, we are forcing nations around the world to use tax dollars in unbenifical ways..... You cannot rob from the majority to cater to a minority that doesn't even reach 1% of most populations! If this is to be done, it should be done at the national level and not the international level. If frivilous bills like these keep getting past in the U.N. our Holy Emperor will have no choice but to resign our nation from it.

For the record, your nation can go above and beyond this resolution and in its own legislature, pass laws that protect the doctor's right to refuse performing the surgery - as long as no part of it contradicts this (or, for that matter, any other) resolution.

The great and powerful Holy Emperor of Rathanan has ruled against this bill. The entire idea of Transgender is among the many frivilous disorders in society....

That - like homosexuality - has been scientifically proven to exist at the biological level. Your point?

Transgenderism is a slap in the face to God, as it is he who has made you in his image...

He made man in his image - not each man but man in general. It's basically saying God looks like a human being. If we were each made in his image, then we would all look the same. Thank you, try again

As our empire is entirely devoted to the Lord our God, we shall never support such legisilation, and we encourge all other nations to do the same.

Have you spoken with him lately? Did he tell you this was against his beliefs?

Just out of curiosity, do you believe in fate?

To add to that, we are forcing nations around the world to use tax dollars in unbenifical ways.....

We are? Aside from article 2 (which I hardly consider to be wasteful), where are we forcing governments to spend a single penny?

You cannot rob from the majority to cater to a minority that doesn't even reach 1% of most populations!

Well....yes you actually can. The Bush government is doing a fine job of it right now - not to mention most nations back in the Medieval age..... Ever heard of Robin Hood? Do you remember why he kept stealing from the rich? Because the rich were taxing the poor excessively and keeping the money for themselves

If this is to be done, it should be done at the national level and not the international level.

With nations like yours continuously refusing point blank to recognize transgenders or treat them with the respect they deserve as a human being - troubled or just different - I disagree

If frivilous bills like these keep getting past in the U.N. our Holy Emperor will have no choice but to resign our nation from it.

And yet, the UN continues to stand, unsmitted by the God you worship and continue to offend...... as you so believe

Just a random thought - has God ever been listening in to a human conversation and heard something and went: "You know what? That's a good idea!

Forgottenlands, you are brilliant. Thanks. :)

I stayed out of the debate thread on this resolution because I just wasn't sure about whether or not it is really necessary, so am very unsure whether to support it or abstain. I won't vote against it because there is nothing in the resolution I dislike enough to do that. So far it seems a lot of the arguements against it in this thread are either "its icky, and our religion doesn't like it", or "its icky and we don't want to pay for it".

We in Waterana are civil rights junkies and have no problems bypassing a nations government if it means individuals of that nation get more freedoms and their government has a harder time discriminating against them or ignoring their problems. In this case though, I just aren't sure whether this resolution is really needed. At the moment, I'm leaning towards abstaining, but will watch this thread and see what sort of pro-resolution points come out of it.

People are getting killed, many transgender individuals are forced into prostitution because they cant find anyone who will hire them. Isnt that a good enough reason?

After having read all the posts until now, and aknowledging a few good points, I still stand firm in my voting against this resolution. I believe in tolerance and equality, and the general tone of this resolution. I would vote favorably if it were not for the tone of article two.

Some of the examples used of Jamaicans being harassed by police just because of a stereotype, just don't really apply to the minority in question here.

There is no sterotype of transgenders being criminals. The police training as stated in the resolution would be to protect them from various types of crimes, related to intolerance of their community. I believe that the police should be prepared to act in case of any crime of any kind commited against any people and that no further instruction or training is necessary for these particular hypothetical situations.

Again... like the "microcredit bazar" (the previous act) WE DON'T NEED IT! First, in my country all individuals are equal... the only difference is the working class... From the miners and cleaners to the CEOs... all have the same civil rights... Second, every nation should decide it's own rules for those matters... so... I VOTED AGAINST

Rafael M Rezende
Representative of the Free Lands of Elastarracha

I think its important to deal with transgender hate crimes because they are the most targeted group of people. Anyways, I like to stress again that the trainning is not mandatory; assuming that some police officers might be ignorant about transgender people, they can have a place where they can learn about TG issues so they can do their jobs better.


I like to add more reasons why this resolutoin is important.

This resolution is important because it protects transgender people from losing their health insurance coverage based on their trannsexual status.

It also helps transgender individuals from becoming jobless because of discrimination. Being jobless could lead to many problems, obviously. Without money, it might be impossible for transgender individual to seek for medical treatments. for example. (if theres no public health coverage ) This resolution acknowledges the prevalent discrimination against transgender individual in many parts of the world and it seeks to lessen the impact of discrimination against transgender individuals.

The Otter Queen has expressed Her deep sympathy with this resolution. She has asked for clarification about the binding quality of Article 5. Article 5: Transsexuals who had undergone sex reassignment surgeries will have his or her new gender be legally recognized. Other transgender people, including cross dressers, feminine men, and masculine women will continue to be legally defined by their biological sex at birth.
If this resolution passes, will our Republic be required to treat pre-operatives as belonging to their birth gender? I have read and re-read the second sentence, and it seems that my monarch's previous policy of granting adults the legal gender of their choice would be overturned. Since I am a new ambassador, I ask, am I misreading this?

Matthew Koblick
Emergency Ambassador to the United Nations
On Leave from the court of The Otter Queen

This bill, is a crime against reality. A mass endorsement to assist the mentally deranged. These people need therapy, not to have their self destructive identity disorders catered to.

I thank you for your question. The answer is No. Here's why, first of all, pre operative transsexual are not cross dressers, feminine men, or masculine women. Second of all, I do not believe that article 5 would ban individual nation from allowing pre operative transsexual to change his or her legal gender , provided the government allows it. It simply states that according to THIS resolution, it will only go so far to allow post operative transsexual to change his or her legal gender.


Signed
Hermione Granger.

Transgenders are not mentally deranged. Here's an interesting articles related to gender identity disorder. It is from the American Psychological Association website. http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr04/gender.html

A study by Reiner and John Gearhart, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, finds that biology--in particular the hormonal influences on developing infants' brains--programs children to eventually identify as either male or female, almost regardless of social influences, at least in the case of the children he's studied.

"It's fair to say that some people in the world of psychology have held that [gender] is socially derived, learned behavior," says Reiner. "But our findings do not support that theory."

However, other researchers, such as Sheri Berenbaum, PhD, a psychologist at Pennsylvania State University, maintain that determinates of gender identity may be more complex than that.

"Genetic and hormonal factors are just two of the many influences on gender identity and gender-typical behavior--social influences are certainly very important as well," she says. "And all of these factors seem to interact throughout a child's development."

Thank you for your prompt answer. I am sure the intention of this resolution is to expand the rights and protections of the transgendered. However, the second sentence states that "other transgendered people, including..." (partial list here) "...will continue to be legally defined by their biological sex at birth."

Earlier articles clearly defend various rights of the preoperative, and those who choose to identify as their birth gender don't need this protection. However, I remain concerned about that very small middle group - those who identify as a different gender but prefer not to undergo complete reassignment surgery. I have become dubious about biological explanations for what remains, in truth, a mystery to us all - Who Am I? And Why?

In any case, The Otter Queen has encouraged me to vote in favor of this resolution. Worldwide, it will clearly bring a better life to a sadly misunderstood group. She wishes to make clear that if She finds Her transgendered subjects' rights reduced as a result of this resolution, She will regretfully withdraw our nation from the United Nations.

Matthew Koblick
Emergency Ambassador to the United Nations
On Leave from the court of The Otter Queen

Thank you for your support; This resolution is only interested in extending rights, not restricting it. I am confident that this resolution will not reduce the rights of the pre operative transsexuals.

Sincerely,
Madonna, U.N ambassador.

The Sacred Kingdom of Karianis, in a very rare move, has voted to support this resolution. Transgender individuals not only are frequently discriminated against, but because of this discrimination, the suicide rate amongst these individuals is alarmingly high. As a result, for some time now, we've had special bills inside our laws protecting transgender individuals.

And while, as many have said, previous resolutions may seem to cover this issue, this issue, we feel, is important enough to receive special attention. Further, we would also like to issue an official 'tsk tsk' to those nations hiding behind religion as an excuse to vote against this resolution. Karianis is primarily a theological society, however, we do not hide behind our beleifs as an excuse.

Serifina Karin
Ambassador for Karianis

Article 4 says, "should be legal" not "will be legal". This is interesting. Very interesting.

After careful deliberation, the High Council of the Ashadi has decided to endorse the issue of Transgendered equality. Despite our slight disagreement with Article Five in that we believe it should at least be possible for the other groups of Transgendered people to have their genders legally recognised, and despite the inevitability of future confusions that will undoubtedly arise should this bill be passed, we feel that the alleviation of discrimination more than outweighs the possible detriments. We thank you for your time. --Arkane Maelstrom, Leader of the High Council of the Ashadi

People are getting killed, many transgender individuals are forced into prostitution because they cant find anyone who will hire them. Isnt that a good enough reason?

I didn't mean to sound as if I said the resolution is not needed because I think trans-gender people don't deserve rights and protections. Quite the opposite in fact, I do firmly belive all people in all walks of life not only deserve such rights but have a right to such rights.

The reason I said that is because I do think their rights are covered and protected already under other resolutions. I'm not writing this resolution off and may yet support it. I'm just not sure whether to abstain or vote for at this time.

Thank you for your prompt answer. I am sure the intention of this resolution is to expand the rights and protections of the transgendered. However, the second sentence states that "other transgendered people, including..." (partial list here) "...will continue to be legally defined by their biological sex at birth."

Earlier articles clearly defend various rights of the preoperative, and those who choose to identify as their birth gender don't need this protection. However, I remain concerned about that very small middle group - those who identify as a different gender but prefer not to undergo complete reassignment surgery. I have become dubious about biological explanations for what remains, in truth, a mystery to us all - Who Am I? And Why?

In any case, The Otter Queen has encouraged me to vote in favor of this resolution. Worldwide, it will clearly bring a better life to a sadly misunderstood group. She wishes to make clear that if She finds Her transgendered subjects' rights reduced as a result of this resolution, She will regretfully withdraw our nation from the United Nations.

Matthew Koblick
Emergency Ambassador to the United Nations
On Leave from the court of The Otter Queen

That "middle group" aren't people who feel they are the opposite sex, they just have traits similar to or like the garments of the opposite sex.

G.M. Still can not believe that this issue is actually still running. There are more important things than a minority of wackos who think they are the opposite sex. We need to worry about more relevant issues like equal rights for women and men, not men who dress like women...

Sincerely,
David Freeman
U.N. Ambassador for Greater Mactopia

I'll post here what I posted on the NSO forum, my explanation for my voting
"Against": I oppose this resolution because I think it's poorly written. I'm not considering it on national sovereignty, or moral, or human rights grounds because of the errors I see in the text. Mainly:
Articles one and 3 say the same thing.
Articles one and 3 are both redundant with "Sexes Rights Law".
Articles one and two are written out while 3-5 are attached with arabic numerals (I pointed this out to the author long before the final submission, too).
Article 4 is not a human rights issue, but an 'equal access to medicine' issue, which should be under a "social justice"
Article 5 attaches gender identity with, instead of physical, emotional, or psychological characteristics, the having of a certain surgery. This neglects the actual roots of gender identity, and passes up any alternative treatments that might be developed.
Anyway, I think the discussion in the forum had too little proof-reading, and that the author rushed this proposal to quorum. In which case, I want to vote it down, and send it back into the drafting stage, so the author can reconsider some of his or her decisions.

We disagree with this based on its pervasive effects on a countries internal politics and we do not favor special legislation for exclusive groups. This can be placed under a simple human rights issue and may already be addressed in earlier UN proposals. This is like making a special law to make the stealing of GM automobiles illegal and place special penalties and incentives to protect GM car owners while there are other cars to protect and that deserve protection too. Trans-gendered persons have the same legal protection in Taflagar as any other group and this proposal is the UN meddling in a countries internal politics. We are forced to view this as what in the US is called Pork barrel or special interests legislation. We are against it because why should there be a special program to protect Trans-gendered persons and nothing for Gay, Amish, or any other subgroup that could be discriminated against? As this issue it is redundant and again a complete special interest proposal. These are issues that are already covered by earlier legislation and should be under the authority of the individual countries. The proposal is based on assumptions that trans-gendered persons are discriminated against more than any other group and I do not believe they are. The existing protections for sexual orientation already cover this issue. The poor wording of the proposal has already been discussed.
After reviewing the last few proposals approved by the UN we see that the UN is attempting to micro-manage and unduly affect the participating governments. If this act passes we shall withdraw from the UN.

G.M. Still can not believe that this issue is actually still running. There are more important things than a minority of wackos who think they are the opposite sex. We need to worry about more relevant issues like equal rights for women and men, not men who dress like women...

Sincerely,
David Freeman
U.N. Ambassador for Greater Mactopia

Did you not read what I said? It has been DONE! We can't do it any further that it already is! If you can bring forth a new idea for us to work on, I'd love to hear it - but with nearly 120 resolutions, we've covered just about every basic idea people have thought of that we are seeing as problems in today's society on a huge variety of issues - or rejected to do so as would be the case for gun control, gambling, and recreational drugs amongst many others (including a wide variety of moral decency issues). Now we can start thinking about the smaller groups that continue to be discriminated against because - as you so eloquently put it - they are seen as "whackos" by a large percentage of the populace. Your very statement alone proves my point.

---------------------
PC - true, but this will do

---------------------
I'll get traflagar at break....

I don't agree with the act because I believe it is discriminatory in nature. Example: police should go through anti-transgender training. By labeling others as "transgender" and saying that all the other civil rights act we have passed do not apply the "transgender" you have just defeated your own proposition! I believe that this is already covered within the bounds of past civil rights laws and should not even be an issue. By claiming it is, you have just excluded the "transgender" from all previous civil rights cases and made them a specialty issue, thus making them less than the rest of our nations' citizens. I say, they are covered under and are given all the rights that everyone else has, and should NOT be made into and special case because that is what we are all trying to avoid in the first place! This proposition is a direct attack on the rights of the transgender, as you call them, and though it is unintentional, it is what it is; do not let this discriminatory proposition pass.

I apologize for the bold text but I felt I had to get peoples attention.

The Chastmerian Government has decided to vote NO on this current resolution. The Chastmerian Prime Minister gave these statements for the reasoning of the decision:

"The Government of Chastmere see's all its citizens as equals, and by singling out transgendered people for preferential treatment, would in itself be seen as discriminatory towards the rest of the populace."

It is for this reason that Chastmere votes NO on the current resolution.

Mr J.J.K.D.S.D. Everneverkenever
UN Representative for Chastmere

It tells you something when the numbers on this forum of people who voted against the resolution does not match the way the votes have gone in the UN. This just tells me that there are a lot of people who vote for things mindlessly without any intention of talking about why they did so. It would seem that the majority of those who actually care and are informed win within the realm of reason but cannot win against the obtuse masses.

I can't believe anyone is bothering to debate this. It is pointless, and it is a stupid resolution.
People who get surgery are still what they started out as: an idiot. Now this isn't saying that they shouldn't do it, its just that they're stupid. You are what you are made as.
That this resolution tries to seperate transgender people from other people is equally stupid.
What's next, Equality for people with Nose Jobs! ?

It doesn't bother me nor affect my nation if this sick and perversed resolution shall pass. My nation throws out and bans all homosexuals, transexuals or any other forms of abommonations to GOD allmighty. And it will continue to so. So have fun with your immoral proposal. GOD bless!

Our nation takes human rights serious. Equality is important in Groot Gouda, and discrimination outlawed by the constitution.

However, we feel that equality is already covered enough by previous UN laws. The author of this resolution shows little respect for the UN by ignoring the history, creating a law that is useless, way too specific, and has no place in a body that is focussed on issues that cross international borders. This is fine as a national issue, as one country not specifically forbidding transgender discrimination does not affect other countries.

Because we are disgusted by the waste of time this resolution is, not because of the general principles behind it but because of the neglect by the author, we will vote AGAINST this proposal and urge all nations to do the same. It will not have any effect on transgender equality, because that is already ensured by previous resolutions. Voting against this resolution has no negative side effects, while voting for only pollutes the UN legislation even more.

It's bloody dolphins all over again.

We are in total agreement with the Great Gouda.

We would formulate our own arguments in this forum, but this act is just so uniquely idiotic it really doesn't warrant our time to refute it.

It doesn't bother me nor affect my nation if this sick and perversed resolution shall pass. My nation throws out and bans all homosexuals, transexuals or any other forms of abommonations to GOD allmighty. And it will continue to so. So have fun with your immoral proposal. GOD bless!

You do no such things. There are several UN resolution that make this course of action impossible for you. Non-complience does not exist.

You do no such things. There are several UN resolution that make this course of action impossible for you. Non-complience does not exist.


It's his country and he can do what he wants. The UN can't step in and tell us how to run our countries. These resolutuions are only guidelines of how a nation who wants to work peacefully should act. If he wants to execute, condemn, relocate his people, He can...

Greetings from the Holy Republic of The Battleax.

While the endeavor to increase human rights to all citizens is laudable, in and of itself, the government of The Battleax must oppose this resolution because our citizens view transgendered behavior as a form of depravity/mental disease, not something that must be protected or given equality with one's natural gender.

The very nature of this resolution is immoral and offensive to most of our citizens, including the police officers who would be charged with enforcing it. It would be viewed as yet another attempt by the rest of the world to force their warped version of morality upon us and lead to massive protests calling on our nation to withdraw from the United Nations, which would further strain relations between the government and the people, as well as those between our government and the United Nations.

If other countries want lend official blessing to the perverted and insane choice of their citizens to change their natural gender, they are free to pass such legislation in their own countries. Don't attempt to enforce foreign immoral views on our people.

Best wishes to all,

Norwood Hatchet
Secretary of State
The Holy Republic of The Battleax

That "middle group" aren't people who feel they are the opposite sex, they just have traits similar to or like the garments of the opposite sex.
And truthfully, my Queen's concern stems from Her opposition to the ridiculous, though widely held, perception of gender as a dichotomy.

Gender describes a collection of traits which are not always in agreement. Morphology does not always match genetics, and neither guarantees reproductive ability. Social scientists may apply whatever labels they need for describing large groups, but that does not make those labels definitive.

The infinite variety of the human form is one of the great wonders of our world. Individuals protected by The Otter Queen shall not be constrained by the desire to pretend that humanity follows binary rules.

Our Queen's strong feelings on this subject have forced The Republic of The Otter Queen to send an unprepared representative to speak with this august body. We had planned to let regional affairs season our government.

But, as I have said, The Republic votes in favor of this resolution.

Matthew Koblick
Emergency Ambassador to the United Nations
On Leave from the court of The Otter Queen

It's his country and he can do what he wants. The UN can't step in and tell us how to run our countries. These resolutuions are only guidelines of how a nation who wants to work peacefully should act. If he wants to execute, condemn, relocate his people, He can...

Read the damn FAQ (someone got that card handy?) - NON COMPLIANCE IS NOT ALLOWED!!!!!

We disagree with this based on its pervasive effects on a countries internal politics and we do not favor special legislation for exclusive groups. This can be placed under a simple human rights issue and may already be addressed in earlier UN proposals.

Sections 1 and 3 are addressed by earlier resolutions and section 2 may be addressed by a past resolution. Section 4 is not, and section 5 I highly doubt has ever been touched before

This is like making a special law to make the stealing of GM automobiles illegal and place special penalties and incentives to protect GM car owners while there are other cars to protect and that deserve protection too.

No - it's merely filling the gaps

Trans-gendered persons have the same legal protection in Taflagar as any other group and this proposal is the UN meddling in a countries internal politics. We are forced to view this as what in the US is called Pork barrel or special interests legislation. We are against it because why should there be a special program to protect Trans-gendered persons and nothing for Gay, Amish, or any other subgroup that could be discriminated against?

Because they have already been dealt with several times - just as there is a sentient species act that is under draft right now that addresses another group not covered by past resolutions

As this issue it is redundant and again a complete special interest proposal. These are issues that are already covered by earlier legislation and should be under the authority of the individual countries. The proposal is based on assumptions that trans-gendered persons are discriminated against more than any other group and I do not believe they are.

Would the proposer care to post some of his rl stats regarding this matter again so they are fresh in people's minds?

The existing protections for sexual orientation already cover this issue. The poor wording of the proposal has already been discussed.
After reviewing the last few proposals approved by the UN we see that the UN is attempting to micro-manage and unduly affect the participating governments.

Hardly - microcredit bazaar was just a waste of air - it wasn't managing a single thing. I can't remember what was before that

If this act passes we shall withdraw from the UN.

You do that

--------------------

I don't agree with the act because I believe it is discriminatory in nature. Example: police should go through anti-transgender training. By labeling others as "transgender" and saying that all the other civil rights act we have passed do not apply the "transgender" you have just defeated your own proposition!

No....we're trying to get police to get over their initial issues of believing someone is subhuman (which they may feel about transgenders) for whatever beliefs they have about themselves or whatever...

I believe that this is already covered within the bounds of past civil rights laws and should not even be an issue. By claiming it is, you have just excluded the "transgender" from all previous civil rights cases and made them a specialty issue, thus making them less than the rest of our nations' citizens.

No - their previous civil rights issues have been guaranteed in all countries to the same level that other groups are at (I note the number of people that have opposed this resolution on religious grounds or because it is "yucky"). Basically, if you feel that this issue has been covered, the only thing that it does is in sections 4 and 5.

I say, they are covered under and are given all the rights that everyone else has, and should NOT be made into and special case because that is what we are all trying to avoid in the first place! This proposition is a direct attack on the rights of the transgender, as you call them, and though it is unintentional, it is what it is; do not let this discriminatory proposition pass

*frowns

I fail to see the logic in your argument


By the way, I don't take too kindly to the belief that what you have to say is more important than any other post here. I actually tend to ignore posts that are like that (in fact, I didn't read your post until I copied the text so it was normal in style). Bold and Italics are for emphasis - not to say your important but because you want to stress one word over the rest of the sentance. Please don't abuse it. Your beliefs have been expressed before on this thread and I'm not going to read your post before the one above it because it is bolded. Heck - I'm not even going to see it before the one above
-------------------------

It tells you something when the numbers on this forum of people who voted against the resolution does not match the way the votes have gone in the UN. This just tells me that there are a lot of people who vote for things mindlessly without any intention of talking about why they did so. It would seem that the majority of those who actually care and are informed win within the realm of reason but cannot win against the obtuse masses.

Nope - it tells me that those that support the resolution are less likely to debate it on the forum or criticize it. People like Canada6 I know are coming on here regardless. It tells me something when the people who's opinions I respect and who discuss resolutions at length and with a full sense of logic and a firm set of beliefs they can back up are either abstaining or opposing it either for:
1) Section 2
2) Because they feel it's been done
3) Because it needs to go through the review stage

Most of the other people (which I have done most of my arguing with) who have posted on this forum are not on this list and in 2 cases so far, I have reversed their decision by clarifying a few issues

More posts to be answered at lunch

Read the damn FAQ (someone got that card handy?) - NON COMPLIANCE IS NOT ALLOWED!!!!!Pipe down Forgottenlord and take your forgottenmeds. The Compliance Ministry may be empowered to change our nations' stats, but it really has no control over the way we roleplay our nations, now does it?Sections 1 and 3 are addressed by earlier resolutions and section 2 may be addressed by a past resolution. Section 4 is not, and section 5 I highly doubt has ever been touched beforeWhich in fact deems this proposal an amendment, and therefore illegal.

Please show me the scientific data behind your so called brain and biological sex theory. No such thing exists and I will gladly challange this rediculous notion and you hack science. This is a choice, and that people choose to live as such is no matter that brings them to deserve special treatment because of it.
If this body has any sence at all this issue will be dismissed. The thought that we engage in this nonsence when there are real world issues at stake make us wonder at the validity of this body.

No - it's merely filling the gapsAnd in doing so it should tip its hat to the previous resolutions between which it is placing itself, to eliminate overlap. Otherwise it borders on "Duplication" or "Contradiction".

Hardly - microcredit bazaar was just a waste of air - it wasn't managing a single thing. I can't remember what was before that
Funny, for someone with negative things to say about the resolution you sure didn't contribute much to the discussion...



Read the damn FAQ (someone got that card handy?) - NON COMPLIANCE IS NOT ALLOWED!!!!!

Pipe down Forgottenlord and take your forgottenmeds. The Compliance Ministry may be empowered to change our nations' stats, but it really has no control over the way we roleplay our nations, now does it?Absolutely. RP decisions are entirely between the consenting nations in the RP. Also, the RP world in which consenting nations interact lives is determined strictly by those who consent to such a world. This means that nations can role-play that another nation, continent, person, universe doesn't exist, or that a resolution doesn't exist, or that UN resolutions are not forced upon member nations. If they agree to it, it can be done. If you don't like the RP of non-compliance then don't participate in it.

But your non-participation in non-compliance RP is hardly evidence of its non-existence. There's a reason it's called "free-form" RP.

I have already discussed why The Transgender Equality Act is necessary. It is as necessary as the Gay Rights Act or the Sexes Rights Law. It exists because there is a historical and present discrimination against homosexuals, women and especially transgender individuals. Not to mention the fact that transgender individuals are often ignored in the U.N proposal. For example, the Discrimination Accord states that “The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence. “

Gender Identity and Gender Expression are left out from the above statement. So I feel that this resolution is absolutely necessary.
I would also like to say that it is not respectful to call people who support this resolution as mindless. Many people don’t come to vote on this forum and many of them , I believe, don’t even feel that this is something that needs to be discussed. They support this resolution because they know the seriousness of this issue and they know that this issue has not been addressed before.

I would also like to, once again, present some facts that members of the transgender community suffer more discrimination than most groups in the society. Before I do so, I would like to say that the ant-transgender discrimination training is not mandatory and it is a lie to say that the police will be charged if he or she does not attend one.






Hate violence. Transgender people are often targeted for hate violence based on their non-conformity with gender norms and/or their perceived sexual orientation. Hate crimes against transgender people tend to be particularly violent. For example, one expert estimates that transgender individuals living in America today have a one in 12 chance of being murdered.[1] In contrast, the average person has about a one in 18,000 chance of being murdered.[2]http://www.hrc.org/Content/Navigati...r_Basics.htm#f2

Based on the FBI’s “Uniform Crimes Reports, Crime in the United States 2000,” showing the murder rate of 5.5 people per 100,000.

on June 20, 2000, Amanda Milan, a 27-year-old transgender woman in New York was walking home with friends when two men began to make lewd comments to her in front of the Port Authority terminal. A witness heard one of the men, Dwayne McCuller, tell Milan, "I know what that is between your legs; you're nothing but a man. I'm going to shoot you. … Get away from me, you faggot." The other man, Eugene Celestine, handed a knife to McCuller who, according to the district attorney's office, cut Milan's throat, killing her. Witness said a group of cabdrivers cheered and applauded as the crime was committed, and shouted transgender-phobic remarks. McCuller and Celestine were charged with murder and face the possibility of life in prison. At this writing, the case was ongoing. Police have declined to classify this as a hate crime.
The body of Fred Martinez Jr., a 16-year-old from Cortez, Colo., was found south of that town five days after he had left home to go to a carnival on June 16, 2001. Shaun Murphy, 18, who was ultimately charged with murder, had bragged to friends that he "beat up a fag," according to media reports. Martinez was openly gay and transgender, and often curled his hair, plucked his eyebrows and wore makeup. His mother, who supported her son's gender expression, told the media that she firmly believes her son's slaying was a hate crime based on his gender identity. Murphy, who was charged with second-degree murder July 4, 2001, pleaded guilty and was sentenced in June 2002 to 40 years in a maximum-security prison.

I have already discussed why The Transgender Equality Act is necessary. It is as necessary as the Gay Rights Act or the Sexes Rights Law. It exists because there is a historical and present discrimination against homosexuals, women and especially transgender individuals. Not to mention the fact that transgender individuals are often ignored in the U.N proposal. For example, the Discrimination Accord states that “The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence. “

Gender Identity and Gender Expression are left out from the above statement. So I feel that this resolution is absolutely necessary.
Not that you've convinced me GID and Gender Expression aren't covered by Discrimination Accord, but what about the others: Sexes Rights Laws, or Rights of Minorities and Women (I don't list "Gay Rights" becuase it doesn't protect anyone)? Please explain how this is needed in light of those resolutions. And also explain why, if this resolution is just filling in gaps where other resolutions have failed, why does it not differentiate what it is doing from what other resolutions did? I'm pretty certain it runs really, really close to overlapping "The Sexes Rights Act" if it does not overlap it entirely.
I would also like to say that it is not respectful to call people who support this resolution as mindless. Many people don’t come to vote on this forum and many of them , I believe, don’t even feel that this is something that needs to be discussed. They support this resolution because they know the seriousness of this issue and they know that this issue has not been addressed before.
I think it's just as unsubstantiated for you to assert that nations support it because of the seriousness of the issue as it is for others to say that those supporting it are "lemmings". Until there is well-conducted, public scientific data, I feel it's all speculation and rhetorical positioning.

I would also like to, once again, present some facts that members of the transgender community suffer more discrimination than most groups in the society.

-snip-
I, for one, am discouraged at this "evidence". As Yoda says: One paraphrase of an un-cited statistic and One quotation of an anecdote do not a worthy resolution make. I'm certain there are many instances in which there are hate crimes against transgendered individuals, and I don't oppose the support this resolution gives to the accessibility of policemen and policewomen to training regarding transgendered people (in fact, I really appreciate the space it gives nations to solve the problem on their own), but, anecdotal evidence and paraphrased, un-cited statistics are hardly solid. I'm afraid they wouldn't even hold up in donkey court. Much less a UN debate.

I voted AGAINST. This is seriously encroaching on each the sovereignty of our nations. It is most certainly not the business of an international body like the UN and if it goes through I shall seriously consider leaving the UN.

Yes, this is worse than the Protection of Dolphins Act.

Not that you've convinced me GID and Gender Expression aren't covered by Discrimination Accord, but what about the others: Sexes Rights Laws, or Rights of Minorities and Women (I don't list "Gay Rights" becuase it doesn't protect anyone)? Please explain how this is needed in light of those resolutions. And also explain why, if this resolution is just filling in gaps where other resolutions have failed, why does it not differentiate what it is doing from what other resolutions did? I'm pretty certain it runs really, really close to overlapping "The Sexes Rights Act" if it does not overlap it entirely.

I think it's just as unsubstantiated for you to assert that nations support it because of the seriousness of the issue as it is for others to say that those supporting it are "lemmings". Until there is well-conducted, public scientific data, I feel it's all speculation and rhetorical positioning.


I, for one, am discouraged at this "evidence". As Yoda says: One paraphrase of an un-cited statistic and One quotation of an anecdote do not a worthy resolution make. I'm certain there are many instances in which there are hate crimes against transgendered individuals, and I don't oppose the support this resolution gives to the accessibility of policemen and policewomen to training regarding transgendered people (in fact, I really appreciate the space it gives nations to solve the problem on their own), but, anecdotal evidence and paraphrased, un-cited statistics are hardly solid. I'm afraid they wouldn't even hold up in donkey court. Much less a UN debate.

Oops, I forgot. Here it is.

http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Issues/Transgender_Issues1/Transgender_Basics/Transgender_Basics.htm#f2

Based on the FBI’s “Uniform Crimes Reports, Crime in the United States 2000,” showing the murder rate of 5.5 people per 100,000.

And in doing so it should tip its hat to the previous resolutions between which it is placing itself, to eliminate overlap. Otherwise it borders on "Duplication" or "Contradiction".

Agreed - but that is a mod issue, not an issue to vote on.

Funny, for someone with negative things to say about the resolution you sure didn't contribute much to the discussion...

I abstained on the resolution. As far as I could tell, all it succeeded in doing was raising awareness of this form of aid and did little in terms of actually doing anything. I had nothing of interest to add to the resolution and felt no reason nor purpose to get involved in the conversation.

Absolutely. RP decisions are entirely between the consenting nations in the RP. Also, the RP world in which consenting nations interact lives is determined strictly by those who consent to such a world. This means that nations can role-play that another nation, continent, person, universe doesn't exist, or that a resolution doesn't exist, or that UN resolutions are not forced upon member nations. If they agree to it, it can be done. If you don't like the RP of non-compliance then don't participate in it.

But your non-participation in non-compliance RP is hardly evidence of its non-existence. There's a reason it's called "free-form" RP.

Your right - we call it god modding. Compliance is still mandatory, just as not breaking the law is considered mandatory in most countries. People still refuse to follow mandatory things - I admit - but the fact of the matter is compliance is mandatory. Apologies for the wrong wording before.

Read the damn FAQ (someone got that card handy?) - NON COMPLIANCE IS NOT ALLOWED!!!!!

Perhaps you should read the "damn FAQ". It says nothing at all about roleplayed compliance vs. non-compliance. In short, your game stats will change, but how you choose to actually implement the resolution via roleplay is your own business. The moderators have never deleted a nation nor ejected it from the UN for non-compliance.

The current tally of votes in the ACA indicates that the regional delegate will vote against this resolution. Of particular note are the comments made by transgendered representatives:

"The Transgender Equality Act mentions intersexed people, then completely ignores them and excludes them in Article 5. It's a clear case of tyranny of the majority of the minority, or something. This transgendered delegate from AYWM presents a Nay vote.

As a side note, is it me, or does "law enforcement authorities should be encouraged to access anti-transgender training so they can adequately and sufficiently deliver justice to members of the transgender community" sound just about opposite of what it's supposed to mean?"
I vote AGAINST this bill, as while it has great intentions, it forces us to take steps backwards in who is and is not recognized as whichever gender. Read article 5. It would force everyone to legally define who can be called what gender, and to force courts to define those transsexuals who have not or do not wish to go through with SRS as their original gender.
It is my hope that this well-intentioned but regrettably flawed piece of legislation is not passed by the United Nations.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

In the meantime, however, virtually no attention has been paid to the apparent rise in attacks on transgender people. Virtually no one has heard of Donald Fuller, 18, stabbed multiple times and left dead in a forest outside of Austin, Texas in January 1999; of Vianna Faye Williams, 36, stabbed nine times in Jersey City in December 1998; or Tracey Thompson, 33, beaten to death with a baseball bat on a remote country road in Georgia last March.

Although a study released last year by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs found that "anti-gay incidents" overall decreased 4 percent between 1997 and 1998, it also reported that the number of transgender victims of hate crimes had increased by 49 percent. The study is considered the most definitive in tracking cases of violence involving transgender victims.

Some of that growth can likely be attributed to increased reporting of such incidents, says Riki Anne Wilchins, executive director of GenderPAC, the leading transgender rights lobbying group. But Wilchins also believes there is a genuine "upward spiral" of violence directed at the transgendered, including as many as one murder per month.

The community's own findings certainly show a disturbing base-level of violence. According to a 1997 survey by GenderPAC and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, close to 60 per cent of transgender people reported having experienced some sort of harrassment or violence.


http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2000/03/brandon.html

Again I challange you to present to this august body of peers your scientific evidence that this is a biological condition and not a matter of personal choise. ou cannot because there is none. We agree that homosexuality is a biological condition and not a choise. This, notion of transgenderism is nothing more that what it is. A CHOISE. You are very quick to present a plethora of FBI files on hate crimes, yet you show nothing that proves this to be more than what it is. A choice of life style. I to can provide a large file on all nature of crimes against persons. Do we now start now making it a criminal offence for children to pick on each other on the play ground because one doesn't possess the latest and greatest fasions, or things on a similar vain of personal choice? The laws of our country will always strive to protect people against violence, but to make decrees that your personal choice entitles you to such things is perposterous!

Sorry I made a mistake. It is supposed to read as anti - transgender discrimination trainning. :eek:

We agree that homosexuality is a biological condition and not a choise.

How did u figure that?

You are very quick to present a plethora of FBI files on hate crimes, yet you show nothing that proves this to be more than what it is. A choice of life style. I to can provide a large file on all nature of crimes against persons.
Choice or not, we should still seek to stop hate crimes against them.

In other words, "I don't care if George is born liking red sweaters, or if he's chosen to like red sweaters: people attacking George because he likes red sweaters is simply unwarranted."

Many well regared persons within the medical and scientific communities have shown that homosexuality is a biological condition and not one of personal choice. We within the land of Cambrion recognize this position. Your position has no basis in science.

How did u figure that?

We have plenty of laws on the books to protect our citizens, separating a small group because their personal preference is not nessesary.

Choice or not, we should still seek to stop hate crimes against them.

In other words, "I don't care if George is born liking red sweaters, or if he's chosen to like red sweaters: people attacking George because he likes red sweaters is simply unwarranted."

Another comment from the region:

The medicalization of Transsexualism under the heading of Gender Identity Disphoria is an outdated and poorly researched institution of oppression inflicted upon trans-people in 'civilized' nations. The wide array of possibility and diversity in gender expression transcends a narrow medical understanding of brain chemistry, chromosomes, and genetalia that may or may not fit into a rigid dualistic gender system. The fifth article of this proposal maintains this status quo of false duality and advocates assignment of gender and sex at birth, an institution which also excludes intersexed persons who were mentioned previously in this document.

The composition of a document advocating transgender rights written in dualistic gendered language is counter-intuitive to any movement in trans-liberation.

As a transgendered person I see the need to stop violence against all trans-people and all people who do not feel at home in a restrictive system of two and only two genders and appropriate modes of gender expression, but such poorly articulated and rashly proposed documents can only lead to further oppression.

Based upon my own suggestions and careful deliberation this office must regrettably say nay to this proposal.

First of all, I am not aware that it is already a FACT that homosexuality is purely a product of biology. Please show sources for this, I would love to be able to get a piece of that information. The fact is, much of it is still guesswork. Its probably part environment, part biology.

anyways.. heres something you can read..



Most scientists think there's no real difference between men and women when it comes to total intelligence (commonly called IQ), but there is growing evidence that men and women's brains are wired differently. This theory may explain the finding that, on average, men are at better at some things and women are better at others.

For example, studies have found that women tend to be better at empathising and men are generally better at systemising. In other words, men are often more adept at discovering the rules that govern a system. They like to get deeply involved in activities such as car repair, computing or building up an extensive music collection.

Women, on the other hand, are thought to be better at guessing other people's emotions and responding appropriately. They would be more likely to comfort you in a time of crisis.

But men and women don't always fit neatly into their respective groups. A University of Cambridge study found that 17% of men have a 'female' empathising brain and 17% of women have a 'male' systemising brain.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/articles/brain_sex.shtml


Brain - the transgender brain
Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron
Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus

FRANK P. M. KRUIJVER, JIANG-NING ZHOU, CHRIS W. POOL,
MICHEL A. HOFMAN, LOUIS J. G. GOOREN, AND DICK F. SWAAB
Graduate School Neurosciences Amsterdam (F.P.M.K., J.-N.Z., C.W.P., M.A.H., D.F.S.), Netherlands
Institute for Brain Research, 1105 AZ Amsterdam ZO, The Netherlands; Department of Endocrinology
(L.J.G.G.), Free University Hospital, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and Anhui Geriatric Institute
(J.-N.Z.), The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, Anhui, 230032 China
Abstract [Full Text] PDF
Introduction

Abstract

Transsexuals experience themselves as being of the opposite sex, despite having the biological characteristics of one sex.

A crucial question resulting from a previous brain study in male-to-female transsexuals was whether the reported difference according to gender identity in the central part of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) was based on a neuronal difference in the BSTc itself or just a reflection of a difference in vasoactive intestinal polypeptide innervation from the amygdala, which was used as a marker.

Therefore, we determined in 42 subjects the number of somatostatin-expressing neurons in the BSTc in relation to sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and past or present hormonal status. Regardless of sexualorientation, men had almost twice as many somatostatin neurons as women (P , 0.006).

The number of neurons in the BSTc of male- to-female transsexuals was similar to that of the females (P 5 0.83).In contrast, the neuron number of a female-to-male transsexual was found to be in the male range.

Hormone treatment or sex hormone level variations in adulthood did not seem to have influenced BSTcneuron numbers. The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder. (J ClinEndocrinol Metab 85: 2034–2041, 2000)

Citation: The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism


http://www.transgenderzone.com/library/ae/abstract/42.htm

After reviewing what others had to say about this issue, I have to vote nay, because i do not believe in using the police to force my people to think what the state believes is right.

Another comment from the region:


First of all. it doesn’t exclude intersex individuals. It is already implied that they will have the right to claim a legal gender status. They have always had the right the right to do so. Transsexuals are people who do not get to change their gender after sex reassignment surgeries because some governments do not believe in the legitimacy of a gender identity disorder, which is still recognized by the American Psychological Association btw.
Your individual nation can have as many genders as you want, this resolution does not prevent you to extend the binary gender system.

After reviewing what others had to say about this issue, I have to vote nay, because i do not believe in using the police to force my people to think what the state believes is right.


Its not right to kill or hurt people. That is all. Anyone can disagree with transgenderism as much as they want in private, but police officers should be able to access trainning if it will help them to handle transgender hate crime more sufficently.

Thank you very much for proving my point. By your own admission. Pschological Disorder. Not a biological condition.


[QUOTE=Agnostic Deeishpeople]some governments do not believe in the legitimacy of a gender identity disorder, which is still recognized by the American Psychological Association btw.

:rolleyes: Did you actually read my proof?


Biology affects affects cognition, so it is both a biolgoical and psychological issue.

I have read your proof, and I must agree with my esteemed collegue. You have not shown anything more that conjecture and speculation as to the nature of this...condition; even with your proofs. Our Governments already have enough laws on the books a well as the UN mandates. To say that these misguided and mentaly unstable individuals require special rights because of their personal choises is unacceptable to my government. To which we are prepared to take drastic measures if nessesary to protect our soverenty.

:rolleyes: Did you actually read my proof?


Biology affects affects cognition, so it is both a biolgoical and psychological issue.

I have read your proof, and I must agree with my esteemed collegue. You have not shown anything more that conjecture and speculation as to the nature of this...condition; even with your proofs. Our Governments already have enough laws on the books a well as the UN mandates. To say that these misguided and mentaly unstable individuals require special rights because of their personal choises is unacceptable to my government. To which we are prepared to take drastic measures if nessesary to protect our soverenty.

:rolleyes: Did you actually read my proof?


Biology affects affects cognition, so it is both a biolgoical and psychological issue.

You could say the same thing about homosexuality. *shrugs* If you think its a personal choice to be considered a freak and being constantly harassed and discriminated against , than so be it.

Not only did I read it, I am also familiar with the graduate study with which you chose to quote from. I am also extreamly familiar with concepts of nurture vs. nature. In the short of it, one graduate thesis does not provide proof. It only supplies more conjecture. Personal choise does not decry special protections under the law. Further if I am to take your proofs as your have supplied them, then these persons are suffering from a mental affliction and as such then a cure must be found to save them from the state in which they live.

:rolleyes: Did you actually read my proof?


Biology affects affects cognition, so it is both a biolgoical and psychological issue.

If you think its a personal choice to be considered a freak and being constantly harassed and discriminated against , than so be it.

Anyways..heres an informative and interesting article written by by Carl W. Bushong, PhD, LMFT



Dr. Simon LeVay, in his book, "The Sexual Brain," argues that one's brain receptors for hormones may also play a significant role in our gender development. Dr. LeVay writes, "There is much to recommend...that there are intrinsic, genetically determined differences in the brain's hormone receptors. This would provide a mechanism that involves hormone-induced brain differentiation (along gender lines) but does not require there to be differences in the actual levels of hormones, and there is opportunity for selective effects on different brain systems."

At all times keep in mind that Physical Gender does not always indicate "Brain Gender," while most physical male and female infants have Brain Gender matching their physical gender, a significant (but unknown) percentage do not. And in transgendered individuals, the Physical and Brain Gender are the opposite, and begin to express themselves at birth.

Even a few hours after birth, significant behavioral differences are noted between morphologically "normal" boys and girls. Newborn girls are much more sensitive to touch and sound than their male counterparts. Several day old girls spend about twice as long looking back at an adult face than boys, and even longer if the adult is speaking. A girl can distinguish between the cries of another infant from other extraneous noises long before a boy. Even before they can understand language, girls do better at identifying the emotional context of speech.

Conversely, during the first few weeks of infant life, boys are inattentive to the presence of an adult, whether speaking to the infant or not. However, baby boys tend to show more activity and wakefulness. At the age of several months, girls can usually distinguish between the faces of strangers and people they know—boys usually do not demonstrate this ability.

As infants grow into children, the differences seem to intensify and polarize. Girls learn to speak earlier than boys and do a better job of it. Boys want to explore areas, spaces and things, girls like to talk and listen. Boys like vigorous play in a large space where girls like more sedentary games in smaller spaces. Boys like to build, take things apart, explore mechanical aspects of things and are interested in other children only for their "use" (playmates, teammates, allies, etc.). Girls see others more as individuals—and will likely exclude a person because they're "not nice," and will more readily include younger children and remember each other's names. Girls play games involving home, friendship, and emotions. Boys like rough, competitive games full of "'zap, pow' and villainy." Boys will measure success by active interference with other players, preferring games where winning and losing is clearly defined. In contrast, girl play involves taking turns, cooperation and indirect competition. Tag is a typical boy's game, hopscotch is a girl's game.

As we grow into adults, these differences become both more subtle and entrenched.

Female brained individuals are naturally socialized, tend to prefer cooperation, group discussions and compromise, but are rigid rule followers. Male brained individuals need to be forced into a social conscience, see everything as winning or losing, and are very territorial (my idea, my place, my person, etc.). Competitive and keenly aware of their place in the pecking order, males view rules as something to avoid, ignore or use against others. (The legal profession is very male.)

Female brained individuals are very aware of emotional states, both in themselves and others, and have a gift for, and need to express themselves in language. These two needs/abilities combine so that there is a great deal of discussion and description of everyday things (food, experiences, involvements and other people) with an emotional context and value judgment.

Male brained individuals have great difficulty identifying emotional states of any kind beyond anger, fear and lust, either in themselves or others. Language tends to be restricted and used sparingly, and hardly ever to describe emotional states. But male brains do have superior spatial and non-verbal skills, such as mathematics, map reading, 3-D conceptions, and with increasing intelligence, abstractions.




http://www.transgendercare.com/guidance/what_is_gender.htm

It is examples such as this, which is why the Domain of Strigasptizwald will never submit to this Tyranny of the masses. This so called united nations is a pathetic excuse for an attempt at a world government. To push such ridiculous ideals upon others is nothing more than an afront to a Nations soverenty. Should this body ever decide to take on more meaningfull issues, then we might consider graceing you with our pressence. Till then we will continue to Govern our own people as we see fit, not as the rest of the world sees.

By the words of his most Exhalted Majesty.

if bettering the lives of the transgender people is ridiculous, than I want to be completely f*cking ridiculous!

Kurtzwald has watched this debate with mild amusment...The UN is nothing more than an impotent body and this just proves it more. The fact that you let yourself degenerate into cursing shows what a useless git you are. Bettering the lives of mental degenerates? PAH! We in Kurtzwald are already doing so by seeking a medical cure for this terrible affliction. Perhaps your scientists ought to do the same. It might be a tad more productive that another usless bill thrust upon the world by this so called United Nations. Or maybe you are looking to cover your own countrys short fallings in policing your criminal element? Maybe you should look to your own internal affairs before attempting to get the world to cover it for you.


if bettering the lives of the transgender people is ridiculous, than I want to be completely f*cking ridiculous!

I curse because we are a free country. All the government officals in ROADP are allowed to curse freely as long as it is not disruptive. We believe that saying the F word can be a passionate form of expression and theres absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I curse because we are a free country. All the government officals in ROADP are allowed to curse freely as long as it is not disruptive. We believe that saying the F word can be a passionate form of expression and theres absolutely nothing wrong with it.


The F word makes now sense....

It means, "Fornicating Under Consent of King" and was used in the good ol days of Kings & Queens. Not really insulting...

"Fornicating Under Consent of King You!"

The people of The Democratic Republic of Tajiri_san shall be most please to offer their wholehearted support to this Proposal if we are accepted into the NSUN in time to do so.

i see nothing wrong with continually stating that these people are people as that would be taking away there human rights but is a UN resolution truly necesary to get these peoples gender difficulties sorted out. I personally think its the job of each country to deal with there own people as they see fit. Hence i am voting against this resolution as i see it as a complete and utter farce.

Greetings.

We refer to our previous statement, and would like to state that we agree with some of the views presented earlier by both the honourable delegate from Groot Gouda (#79) and the honourable delegate Powerhungry Chipmunks (#70).

We are not convinced that this rather poorly worded resolution will do anything to better the conditions of transgender people. As have previously been stated, we feel that this group is already protected by various existing acts. The Discrimination Accord, for example, mentiones "sex, sexual orientation", and our understanding is that this also covers transgender people. We feel that this resolution, as it is written, does nothing for the transgender people, with the possible exception of the first paragraph of article 5.

In addition, we do not see the unfortunate story of Brandon Teena as a compelling reason to encourage police officers to access "anti-transgender training" [sic]. We rather see this as a troubling case where the nation in question grossly fails in its responsibilities to enforce already existing human rights regulations, in particular The Universal Bill of Rights Article 4. If anything, it would be this article law enforcement authorities should get educated about, and not just training concerning discrimination of just one singular group of people.

After consulting with our region, we have decided to vote against this unsatisfactory resolution.

All Hail!

Lyn Thorsson
Imperial ambassador to the UN

We are gratified to see that other nations have joined Us in opposing this misguided resolution. The question of such sensitive matters as sexuality is far too important a matter to be subject to the whims of UN bureaucrats. We urge all other nations to vote to preserve their unique ways of life from the imposition of one nation's sexual biases, and reject this proposal.

I agree with many previous posters -- including Gravlen, Powerhungry Chipmunks and Groot Gouda, my predecessor as UN Delegate at the International Democratic Union -- that while the goals of The Transgender Equality Act are laudable, the law would add little to current legal protections for transgendered, intersex, transvestite, third sexed or similar persons:

Article one: One’s gender identity or expression shall be included as a prohibited ground of discrimination; any transgender person should receive the same right as everyone else residing in all U.N member countries.

[Already covered in general by The Sexes Rights Law UNR#69 which generally mentions “all sexes” rather than “both sexes” and specifically mentions “intersex” once. “The above conditions are recommendations applicable within reason in that they are open to interpretation by a member states legal system in regards to each individual case, under the condition that the legal system must act in an un-biased fashion in regard to these cases.”

[Protection in general repeated in Discrimination Accord UNR#99: “§ The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.”

[Also covered in the specific case of marriage by Definition of Marriage UNR#81: “The UN HEREBY: DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age;”]

Article two: Considering that a transgender person is much more likely to be targeted for hate violence, law enforcement authorities should be encouraged to access anti-transgender training so they can adequately and sufficiently deliver justice to members of the transgender community.

[Already covered by Discrimination Accord #99: “ENCOURAGES all nations to work towards eliminating “hate crimes”, or violent, malicious crimes spurned on by a lack of tolerance of cultural, ethnic, racial, or other differences;]

Article 3: All Anti transgender discrimination in hiring, promotion, training and dismissal will be illegal in all U.N countries.

[Already covered by The Sexes Rights Law UNR#69: “2. The Nation States United Nations calls upon all employers within member-states to abide by the following regulations :
”a) Equal wages for all sexes.
”b) Equal benefits for all sexes. “]


Article 4: Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally therefore; Sex Reassignment Surgeries and Hormonal treatments should be legal and reasonably accessible to people who have GID. Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse treatments to a transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people.

[This is already largely covered in the general prohibition against discrimination, so that health services to transgendered, intersex and similar persons will be delivered without regard to their sex or gender.]

Article 5: Transsexuals who had undergone sex reassignment surgeries will have his or her new gender be legally recognized. Other transgender people, including cross dressers, feminine men, and masculine women will continue to be legally defined by their biological sex at birth.

[Already covered by The Sexes Rights Law UNR#69: “5. The Nation States United Nations recognises that gender is not just a physical manifestation but also a mental manifestation, and recognises that people of self proclaimed gender are also equally protected by the regulations and recommendations bound here in.”]

The only minor change is a requirement to change legal status of gender or sex. Since discrimination on the basis of all sexes and genders is prohibited, such change would have no effect on the human rights of transgendered people.

As a regional delegate, I must wait until the International Democratic Union decides as a whole how I shall vote. However, were I not the delegate, I would vote no because the act fails to improve human rights in any meaningful way.

I think a few regulars need to read the FAQ again - you're confusing the FAQ with the sticky

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

There is no mention of role-play in the FAQ.

Yo
Forgottenlands out of curiosity could you give me a link to something, preferably a ligitamite site, that shows homosexuality is a proven disorder? I dont think you ment disorder by the way, but i would like to see some evidence (either way dude im just curious) on this issue. I have heard form one camp that it is a documented case but i have never seen any actual evidence. Of course the other camp claims its mostly a factor of the environment you grew up in. I have seen evidence of that. Take a look at the aclu funded servey into children (adopted abviously) of same sex maraiges being more likely to become gay themsleves. Granted this isnt much of a suprise considering tha growing up in a riligious home will do the same thing. Still both those arguments seem to say its nurture not nature that matters. Still im willing to listen if you have new info. This issue dosnt hit close enough to home for me to get to excited about. Curiosity is a cat that likes attention though. Thanks

Fleecedom

Oh forgot to add you will find that the aclu canceled the servay about 3/4 of the way through its projected life time and smashed the results. I found that rather amusing.

Yo
Forgottenlands out of curiosity could you give me a link to something, preferably a ligitamite site, that shows homosexuality is a proven disorder? I dont think you ment disorder by the way, but i would like to see some evidence (either way dude im just curious) on this issue. I have heard form one camp that it is a documented case but i have never seen any actual evidence. Of course the other camp claims its mostly a factor of the environment you grew up in. I have seen evidence of that. Take a look at the aclu funded servey into children (adopted abviously) of same sex maraiges being more likely to become gay themsleves. Granted this isnt much of a suprise considering tha growing up in a riligious home will do the same thing. Still both those arguments seem to say its nurture not nature that matters. Still im willing to listen if you have new info. This issue dosnt hit close enough to home for me to get to excited about. Curiosity is a cat that likes attention though. Thanks

Fleecedom


Yeah - disorder was incorrect term - but I think you get the point. I'm trying to look for something (I admit, I've never read it, but a number of people who I tend to trust for giving me good info have stated it a few times before so....we'll see what crops up). That said, initial searches have been mostly discussions regarding the effects of the gay gene, the effects upon abortion, and a few studies claiming it wasn't found. There were two studies where they felt they found the gay gene, but they were saying that their results weren't conclusive. I'll get back to you (possibly via TG)

Edit: looks like I might not be the only one in this boat. Here's something from '97 (so a bit old so we'll see what's happened since)
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html

We are gratified to see that other nations have joined Us in opposing this misguided resolution. The question of such sensitive matters as sexuality is far too important a matter to be subject to the whims of UN bureaucrats. We urge all other nations to vote to preserve their unique ways of life from the imposition of one nation's sexual biases, and reject this proposal.

We are gradtified as well. ;)

The Goblin's high chieften and populace agree that this bill, despite how poorly or well written you might think it is, is a bill that should be passed. Hate crimes, and predjudice against transgendered people are all to frequent. I hope more nations vote in favor of this bill and that some change their minds, for as we argue about how to word our bills millions suffer.

We believe in this bill, and would like to remind other member nations that if we vote it down, that bigots will take it as a victory, and supporters will be disheartened. I believe its better to vote in favor and admend this latter then let suffering continue. Afterall this bill is an aid to all people, and taxes need not raise but can always be redistrubted to cover the cost. Many taxpayers that are against paying for the surgeries might find themselves having a child or familymember who is transgender and unable to afford the surgery and those same people that had been against it and they will likely change their mind.

The only thing that we're personally uncertain of, and would be uncertain about seeing in a UN bill, is the age of which such surgery is allowed.

You raise a good poitn, but there are still more important issues, like supporting antions that are going to be invaded, loaning money to smaller nations, Exporting weapons, sending armies, that kind of stuff. Not Men who think they are women. This stuff is sick and disgusting. I have actually asked all of my people to view some sites on the internet. They have found it very disturbing and find it very unnatural and sick...

I urge the nations to support this resolution even if they think it is "yucky." It is simply not a legitimate reason to dispose such a resolution. I have already talked about why this resolution is nesscary, I would not do it again. But if you vote no to this resolution, I believe you are voting for discrimination and hatred. Its as simple as that.

Signed
Hermione Granger, Spokeswoman of ROADP.

I urge the nations to support this resolution even if they think it is "yucky." It is simply not a legitimate reason to dispose such a resolution. I have already talked about why this resolution is nesscary, I would not do it again. But if you vote no to this resolution, I believe you are voting for discrimination and hatred. Its as simple as that.

Signed
Hermione Granger, Spokeswoman of ROADP.


There would be no reason for hatred and discrimination if they never felt the urge to be transgendered.

You raise a good poitn, but there are still more important issues, like supporting antions that are going to be invaded, loaning money to smaller nations, Exporting weapons, sending armies, that kind of stuff. Not Men who think they are women. This stuff is sick and disgusting. I have actually asked all of my people to view some sites on the internet. They have found it very disturbing and find it very unnatural and sick...

I disagree. Gender stereotypes affect far more people than most people think. This resolution is NOT just about transgender who have underone SRS, it is about a whole array of people who live and behave in non conventionally. To my mind, there's nothing more important than saving lives and bettering the lives of a minority group.

There would be no reason for hatred and discrimination if they never felt the urge to be transgendered.

some people reported that they feel different very early in their lives, like around 3 or 4. The little boy would refuse to play with the boys and play with the girls instead, playing Barbie doll and etc. I dont think the little boy is sexually perverted or they consciously choose to be that way .

OOC : and I don’t choose to be feminine, its just the way I am. I should not be punished for it.

I disagree. Gender stereotypes affect far more people than most people think. This resolution is NOT just about transgender who have underone SRS, it is about a whole array of people who live and behave in non conventionally. To my mind, there's nothing more important than saving lives and bettering the lives of a minority group.

Well, when you can save a whole nation or a minority group, whuch would you choose?

VOTE NO I ASK YOU ALL
Homosexuality is ok, but why the hell would someone surgically alter their sex?! I think that this is one of the sick ideas of humanity...

NO I ASK YOU TO VOTE!!
IF YOU VOTED YES THINK IT OVER AND VOTE NO!!

some people reported that they feel different very early in their lives, like around 3 or 4. The little boy would refuse to play with the boys and play with the girls instead, playing Barbie doll and etc. I dont think the little boy is sexually perverted or they consciously choose to be that way .

OOC : and I don’t choose to be feminine, its just the way I am. I should not be punished for it.

I am not condeming you for being a female, unless you were at once a man. But, the thing about the barbie dolls. That brings up an interesting point, but why change sex. It is not that you HAVE to. It is that YOU WANT to. Big differrences. Noone is forcing them to become women. If that was happening, ie. forced feminization, and the she-males wished to be men again, I could support this bill. But if they volluntarily took the hormone pills and shots, then, It is an act against God. It's not that I don't have an open m,ind. I am conservative and see these things as wrong, and an act against the sanctity of life and nature.

When people give up their original sex, it's a disgrace upon their sex. It shouldn't be made a U.N. resolution in the first place. About the argument for it about the boy who wants to play with the girls, that happens sometimes, and that might actually benefit him when he asks one of them out to the Senior Prom. If he changes sex, then how are his morals going to be through the rest of his life?! Oh and Amen Greater Mactopia!

When people give up their original sex, it's a disgrace upon their sex. It shouldn't be made a U.N. resolution in the first place. About the argument for it about the boy who wants to play with the girls, that happens sometimes, and that might actually benefit him when he asks one of them out to the Senior Prom. If he changes sex, then how are his morals going to be through the rest of his life?! Oh and Amen Greater Mactopia!

OOC: Woohoo, and ty. :)

I am not condeming you for being a female, unless you were at once a man. But, the thing about the barbie dolls. That brings up an interesting point, but why change sex. It is not that you HAVE to. It is that YOU WANT to. Big differrences. Noone is forcing them to become women. If that was happening, ie. forced feminization, and the she-males wished to be men again, I could support this bill. But if they volluntarily took the hormone pills and shots, then, It is an act against God. It's not that I don't have an open m,ind. I am conservative and see these things as wrong, and an act against the sanctity of life and nature.


I didnt say I want to be a female. It is a huge thing for anyone who wishes to change his or her sex, and not to mention it also costs alot in most cases. I believe there is a biological basis for such a huge undertaking and I dont understand why anyone would want to add even more hardship on these people? That's what truely disgusting.

I still don't see the point, in teaching police how to handle transgender discrimination as a seperate. Next we will be teaching our police forces how to handle French Men, with mustaches and mullets, that are over 6 feet tall seperately because there might be some prejudices.

How you handle a Transgender male or female, need not be any different then how a police force handles any other citizen. You want to give them equal rights, yet you seclude them by making them "special". Discrimination is discrimination, and we should focus more on creating a educated police force, then teaching some discriminatory fools how not to hate transgenders.

You raise a good poitn, but there are still more important issues,

*Sighs* you honestly think this isn't being discussed elsewhere?

like supporting antions that are going to be invaded,

Discussed, overruled excessively (a lot of which was under the point of "we're outnumbered 3:1, we can't fight all wars). What we did do was pass a justification of war

loaning money to smaller nations,

Why do small nations need money loaned to them? Do you think the Vatican (which IS a nation - a VERY small one) needs more money loaned to them? Do you mean undeveloped nations? Discussed several times - thrown out. After the Live8 concerts, we threw out probably a dozen proposals along those lines.

Exporting weapons,

Actually - we're spending more time trying to cut down exportation of weapons - nor do I see any reason why that is a UN issue - you can get better deals between two nations discussing that sort of thing (in fact, my regional Secretary of Defense is producing most of my warships these days - I didn't need the UN to get us at the bargaining table)

sending armies,

The UN has no army to speak of - nor will it ever be allowed to have an army

that kind of stuff.

Nope - nothing new or interesting

Not Men who think they are women.

How about women who think they are men

This stuff is sick and disgusting. I have actually asked all of my people to view some sites on the internet. They have found it very disturbing and find it very unnatural and sick...

Yeah - I find horror movies sick and disturbing - so let's go and ban the making of horror movies. What do you say? It would certainly make my life easier because then my friends wouldn't be trying to put a horror movie on every month

There would be no reason for hatred and discrimination if they never felt the urge to be transgendered.

And there would be no reason for a mentally handicapped person to be hated or discriminated against if they weren't handicapped, now would there? However, it still happens and we protect them from those that discriminate against them

Well, when you can save a whole nation or a minority group, whuch would you choose?

If it comes to life and death, we're dealing with a matter of numbers. However - the only people dieing here are the transgenders so I think that classifies as THEM getting protection


I am not condeming you for being a female, unless you were at once a man. But, the thing about the barbie dolls. That brings up an interesting point, but why change sex. It is not that you HAVE to. It is that YOU WANT to. Big differrences. Noone is forcing them to become women. If that was happening, ie. forced feminization, and the she-males wished to be men again, I could support this bill. But if they volluntarily took the hormone pills and shots, then, It is an act against God. It's not that I don't have an open m,ind. I am conservative and see these things as wrong, and an act against the sanctity of life and nature.

If they are God's creation.....wouldn't he have also created their gender identity crisis?

Truly - these are people that feel in bottom of their soul that they were born with the wrong anatomy. They truly have a full gender identity crisis. This is much different than homosexual tendencies (where they are merely attracted to the same sex - but still feel they are the gender they were born as), they TRULY think, act and feel like the opposite gender from which they were born. If you cannot understand that, I cannot help you - I can only explain it so far. I just ask that you choose not to vote against something because:
1) You believe it goes against God. Just because God created a person like that at birth doesn't mean he intended them to stay that way. I note the number of people that have been mutilated both internally and on the surface throughout history - not to mention the "evolution" of our species - we're getting taller and bigger if you haven't noticed. Unless you've spoken with God, don't claim you know what he truly wants of these people - for all you know, it's just a test that he's set up for us to learn to accept those that we cannot understand.
2) It is icky - because how many people can't stand disection? How many people are grossed out by blood and gore? How many people get sick from just about anything that they don't have a personal connection to that deals with human fluids or organs? Why should that be a justification for banning something?
3) You don't understand the people that are transsexuals. Do you understand the psychology of most of the people walking around you? How about the philosophy? History? Society they were brought up in? Assuming you live in the first world, how well do you understand those who live in Brazil - their culture, their society, their beliefs? How well do you understand the people in Afghanistan - whether it be the Taliban or the new government the US has provided/installed. What about Saudi Arabia? South Africa? Zimbabwe? Finland? Germany? Heck - there's a lot of people living in each Britain and the US that can't understand the other country. Are you an avid supporter of both Cricket and Baseball? Do you understand both sports? What about Rugby and American Football? I pair these up because most people understand one - but are ignorant of the other (as they tend to eclipse one another). I could go into all sorts of fields and the fact of the matter is you'd still have a hard time understanding how people can believe in something or follow something you don't

Actually - since your brought God up - two more - Buddism and Hindu

===================

When people give up their original sex, it's a disgrace upon their sex. It shouldn't be made a U.N. resolution in the first place. About the argument for it about the boy who wants to play with the girls, that happens sometimes, and that might actually benefit him when he asks one of them out to the Senior Prom. If he changes sex, then how are his morals going to be through the rest of his life?!

What in God's green Earth (though according to NASA, it's brown and blue) does one changing their sex have ANYTHING remotely to do with one's morals?

I still don't see the point, in teaching police how to handle transgender discrimination as a seperate. Next we will be teaching our police forces how to handle French Men, with mustaches and mullets, that are over 6 feet tall seperately because there might be some prejudices.

How you handle a Transgender male or female, need not be any different then how a police force handles any other citizen. You want to give them equal rights, yet you seclude them by making them "special". Discrimination is discrimination, and we should focus more on creating a educated police force, then teaching some discriminatory fools how not to hate transgenders.


unless French guys suddenly become the most targeted group of victims in the society. People are not going to be suddenly equal just because the law made it so. Its important to give a protected class status to transgender individuals, and I would say the same thing about gays as well; we have heard the prejudices that some police officers have against transgender victims. So I think that needs special attention.

You know - I was GOING to stop where I stopped in response to the moral comment - but then a rant started forming as I cooked my supper and I knew I had to continue.

Explain to me why it is that religious people think they have a moral highpoint just because they do what they *believe* God wants them to do. After all, we've had wonderful things like the Crusades, several inter-nation European wars, murders of countless priests by Queens Mary and Elizabeth who killed Prodestant and Catholic priests (respectively) to get a dominance of their religion of choice (not to mention the latter had Mary, Queen of Scots assassinated so that King James - Prodestant - would take the thrown) in England alone all done in the name of our Lord while a bunch of people sitting in the Middle East right now are trying to overthrown the evil American Empire in the name of Allah and the American Empire responds by going "God Bless America" and bombing the crap out of them while the Isrealis and Palestinians continue their hatred of each other which is as much about religion as it is about discrimination (of religion) and the IRA finally decided to step down its militant programs in Ireland that it had spent so long doing in the name of it's bloody God.

But hey, we stand at a Moralistic hilltop because we act in the name of God and defend his beliefs to the death if we have to. We are his children and we are the ones he favors. But wait - I remember this speech before - some guy renamed it the Aryan(sp?) Race as God's chosen people and ended up through his belief in this Aryan race killing somewhere in the range of.....6 million Jewish and about as many other ethnic or other minorities? But hey - he was cleansing the population of these people who were not members of the Aryan nation - and therefore had no right to live amongst us all - because after all, the Aryan race is the chosen race of God. And did the rest of the world agree with his moralistic hilltop? Heck no - we went and ran over his empire like no freaking tomorrow - and honored the fallen Jewish soldiers with a non-standard cross - and those that continue to believe in the Aryan Race are (often deservingly) persecuted more than any other minority in existance! And all because some guy wanted the moralistic hilltop of God?

Piss off

VOTE NO I ASK YOU ALL
Homosexuality is ok, but why the hell would someone surgically alter their sex?! I think that this is one of the sick ideas of humanity...

NO I ASK YOU TO VOTE!!
IF YOU VOTED YES THINK IT OVER AND VOTE NO!!
What you're not understanding is that transgender is an issue that goes beyond simple homosexuality.

Homosexuality is simply preferring the same sex as a partner, rather than the opposite sex, as in heterosexuality.

Transgenderism comes from not homosexuality, but actually having the mental gender indentity of the opposite sex. Imagine for a moment that, while physically male, you were, mentally, 100% female. This is what leads people to seek surgical answers to this problem, in the form of having a sex change operation.

This isn't an issue of 'oh, I'd rather be a girl'. Its an actual conflict of identity between the mind and the body, caused by physiological problems in the mind. Often, those with these issues, actually show traits of their 'mental' gender, such as having a very feminine appearance (and even having small breasts, in some cases.)

This is a very serious issue. As a result of how costly and hard to get these surgeries are, the suicide rate amongst transgenders is incredibly high - 8 out of 10 transgenders commit suicide. Those who are able to get the surgery are much more mentally stable, and rarely commit suicide.

However, as a direct result that this is, to the vast majority of people, a very unnatural thing, it is not uncommon for transgendered people to be murdered, as others have stated so far. This is why The Sacred Kingdom of Karianis supports this resolution. These people deserve protection that they simply do not get, even with previous resolutions.

But if you vote no to this resolution, I believe you are voting for discrimination and hatred. Its as simple as that. Signed, Hermione GrangerI'll thank you not to resort to such simple-minded, "You're either with us or against us" logic. We support civil rights, and in fact our nation has been in the business of protecting its citizens' private rights much longer than yours; we just don't support resolutions that are entirely unnecessary and in fact are duplications or amendments to previously passed resolutions -- a flagrant violation of U.N. protocol, I might add. We also don't support laughably silly legislation based purely on junk science and the excesses of academia, which is what this is.Signed, Hermione GrangerHow very unfortunate for you that the U.N. doesn't at all protect the rights of Muggleborns, you filthy little Mudblood. :cool:

You know - I was GOING to stop where I stopped in response to the moral comment - but then a rant started forming as I cooked my supper and I knew I had to continue.

Explain to me why it is that religious people think they have a moral highpoint just because they do what they *believe* God wants them to do. After all, we've had wonderful things like the Crusades, several inter-nation European wars, murders of countless priests by Queens Mary and Elizabeth who killed Prodestant and Catholic priests (respectively) to get a dominance of their religion of choice (not to mention the latter had Mary, Queen of Scots assassinated so that King James - Prodestant - would take the thrown) in England alone all done in the name of our Lord while a bunch of people sitting in the Middle East right now are trying to overthrown the evil American Empire in the name of Allah and the American Empire responds by going "God Bless America" and bombing the crap out of them while the Isrealis and Palestinians continue their hatred of each other which is as much about religion as it is about discrimination (of religion) and the IRA finally decided to step down its militant programs in Ireland that it had spent so long doing in the name of it's bloody God.

But hey, we stand at a Moralistic hilltop because we act in the name of God and defend his beliefs to the death if we have to. We are his children and we are the ones he favors. But wait - I remember this speech before - some guy renamed it the Aryan(sp?) Race as God's chosen people and ended up through his belief in this Aryan race killing somewhere in the range of.....6 million Jewish and about as many other ethnic or other minorities? But hey - he was cleansing the population of these people who were not members of the Aryan nation - and therefore had no right to live amongst us all - because after all, the Aryan race is the chosen race of God. And did the rest of the world agree with his moralistic hilltop? Heck no - we went and ran over his empire like no freaking tomorrow - and honored the fallen Jewish soldiers with a non-standard cross - and those that continue to believe in the Aryan Race are (often deservingly) persecuted more than any other minority in existance! And all because some guy wanted the moralistic hilltop of God?

Piss offTake your bigoted sermonizing against religion to the General forum, please. There's no use for it here.

Oh, it's a fact now, is it? Even the evolutionary theory is still only a theory, and there is a hell of a lot more scientific evidence to support it.

Actually - reread the quote - he said he was NOT aware of it being considered such.

Take your bigoted sermonizing against religion to the General forum, please. There's no use for it here.

That was bigoted? How so? You still didn't answer the question I started my rant off with - which considering the debate was a rather reasonable question.

What you're not understanding is that transgender is an issue that goes beyond simple homosexuality.

Homosexuality is simply preferring the same sex as a partner, rather than the opposite sex, as in heterosexuality.

Transgenderism comes from not homosexuality, but actually having the mental gender indentity of the opposite sex. Imagine for a moment that, while physically male, you were, mentally, 100% female. This is what leads people to seek surgical answers to this problem, in the form of having a sex change operation.

This isn't an issue of 'oh, I'd rather be a girl'. Its an actual conflict of identity between the mind and the body, caused by physiological problems in the mind. Often, those with these issues, actually show traits of their 'mental' gender, such as having a very feminine appearance (and even having small breasts, in some cases.)

This is a very serious issue. As a result of how costly and hard to get these surgeries are, the suicide rate amongst transgenders is incredibly high - 8 out of 10 transgenders commit suicide. Those who are able to get the surgery are much more mentally stable, and rarely commit suicide.

However, as a direct result that this is, to the vast majority of people, a very unnatural thing, it is not uncommon for transgendered people to be murdered, as others have stated so far. This is why The Sacred Kingdom of Karianis supports this resolution. These people deserve protection that they simply do not get, even with previous resolutions.

I couldnt have said it better. Thank you, Karianis.
No where in the past resolutions did it say that sex reassignment surgery should be legal and accessible, for example. OOC: In the real world where everyone in the western countries is supposed to get equal rights, we still hear stories about transgender individuals getting fired after their transgender statuses are revealed or that the hosptials reveal to treat a transgender patient.


This issue is serious and this resolution is necessary; minimizing it is the same as minimization of the lives of the transgender people.

Actually - reread the quote - he said he was NOT aware of it being considered such.Actually, you're right. I misread the delegate, and will edit my first post accordingly.That was bigoted? How so? You still didn't answer the question I started my rant off with - which considering the debate was a rather reasonable question. It is a small-mided rant attempting to classify all relgious people as bigots. Or am I reading you correctly when you sail off into incoherence and blame "religious people" for countless horrors in real-life history? History having nothing to do with the NS world, nothing to do with NSUN, and nothing to do with the question at hand, I might add. Hence my request that you take it elsewhere.

As for:You still didn't answer the question I started my rant off with - which considering the debate was a rather reasonable question.Is this the question you are referring to?:If they are God's creation.....wouldn't he have also created their gender identity crisis?Just because something is "God's creation," it doesn't mean that religious people must accept it as "natural" or "as God intended." God also created Satan, didn't he?

It is a small-mided rant attempting to classify all relgious people as bigots.

Sorry - intention was not to classify them as bigots - but to challenge a position that they seem to hold be default: a moral highground that I just faily to understand. Basically, my positon was summarized in the first line of the rant:

Explain to me why it is that religious people think they have a moral highpoint just because they do what they *believe* God wants them to do. (yes, it should be a ?)

Or am I reading you correctly when you sail off into incoherence and blame "religious people" for countless horrors in real-life history? History having nothing to do with the NS world, nothing to do with NSUN, and nothing to do with the question at hand, I might add.

History, politics, stats, RL period can be used to explain or support a position in real life - as long as they don't end up in your resolution

Hence my request that you take it elsewhere.

As for:Is this the question you are referring to?:Just because something is "God's creation," it doesn't mean that religious people must accept it as "natural" or "as God intended." God also created Satan, didn't he?

No - I meant the thesis of my rant - which I quoted again above.

I just started a new thread discussing wether sexual inclination is a matter of nature, nurture or some mix of both. I think it has an extremily important impact on this issue but thats just me. If you have information or evidence about either i would like to hear it. I would like to think that people are rational about these types of issues and that the evidence will actaully be considered not just someones personal bent.

Fleecedom

ps its in General topics

Explain to me why it is that religious people think they have a moral highpoint just because they do what they *believe* God wants them to do.Oh, that's the question! I haven't been able to get anything right tonight; I should really quit while I'm ahead.

That's a really a question you should take up with the religionites: In case you haven't noticed, my nation's name takes God's name in vain; we are in no position to defend any "moral highpoint." :D

Oh, that's the question! I haven't been able to get anything right tonight; I should really quit while I'm ahead.

That's a really a question you should take up with the religionites: In case you haven't noticed, my nation's name takes God's name in vain; we are in no position to defend any "moral highpoint." :D

Yeah - I never assumed you were a person trying to stop this because of religion (the demographic that question was meant for)

Actually....was Lucifer created by God....or just banished by God for defying him (but was already in existance at the time....)

Actually....was Lucifer created by God....or just banished by God for defying himBoth. He created Lucifer to rule the angels. Unfortunately (in this case) he also created freedom of choice, which allowed Lucifer to defy God, get expelled from heaven and introduce Man to evil.

To our esteemed colleagues, greetings;

As Delegate for the region of the Warm Peaceful Antipodes, the Republic of Sarnatha must consider with gravity each proposition brought before this body. It would be irresponsible to cast votes in the names of our fellow Antipodeans without taking seriously the issue, or issues, at hand.

Our Region is composed of peace-loving nations that, for the most part, place utmost value on civil rights and freedoms. I can state quite confidently that the average citizen of the Antipodes region would support the protection of the "transgendered" minority group, especially in regards to guarding against economic discrimination. Further, the question of medical discrimination is one close to hearts of my own people, the Sarnathans.

In spirit, then, most Sarnathans, and indeed most Antipodeans, would support this proposal. What troubles my Government is not the spirit, but rather the letter, of the proposal.

In law, the letter matters; it is specific language that guards a law against willful and anarchic interpretation. Vague language, assumptions of common understanding of underlying meaning; history has seen more than a few abuses of the law when the law itself was poorly written.

This proposal is not well-worded. Aside from the grammar and spelling errors, which have already been pointed out by our various colleagues, there are numerous occasions of worrying vagueness. For example:

Defining a transgender person to be any person who has a gender that is different than the sex that he or she is assigned at birth ; any intersexes person; anyone who expresses their genders in a way that contravenes societal expectations

"...assigned at birth" by whom? "...contravenes societal expectations" meaning what? This passage, along with Article Five, opens a door for willful misinterpretation that may well do more harm than good to the very people the proposal seeks to protect.

The Premier of the Republic of Sarnatha has asked me to issue this invitation: convince us that this proposal is more tightly-worded that it appears. Point out its specificity and its proofs against willful misinterpretation. If this has already been outlined elsewhere in the debate, where I might have missed it, kindly direct me to that discussion and I will report my findings to the Premier. Only then will I be instructed to deliver the vote of Sarnatha as sovereign state and as Regional Delegate in support of this measure.

In closing, allow me to extend the deep admiration of the Government and People of Sarnatha to the Government of the Agnostic Deeishpeople, for their courage and determination in bringing this proposal before the UN. The integrity to fight for human rights is rare enough that it deserves commendation.

With thanks for your time,

Miles May
Ambassador to the United Nations
Republic of Sarnatha

Contravene:

1: to go or act contrary to : VIOLATE <contravene a law>
2 : to oppose in argument : CONTRADICT <contravene

This means anyone who acts in a way that violates the gender norm.


Sex assigned at birth meanning..that if someone found out that he or she is of another gender later in their life, they can change their sexes, which will obviously be different than the ones they were assigned at birth.


Sincerely yours,
Hermione Granger, Spokeswoman of ROADP

Arrrrrgggggg :headbang: I give up. It seems impossible for people to just state an argument with some decent evidence without getting into a discussion fo their personal preferances. I would like to think this issue can be broken down into about four main points.

One, regardless if you believe it is unatural or what not do you believe that every citizen deserves the right to equal treatment under the law?

Second is it also the right of citizens to express thier disaproval of a certain set of actions deemed "perverted" by the standards of the comunity?
For example do you have the right to protest the inclusion of a sex offender in a neighborhood?

Third is the UN the correct place for this type of legislation if it is necisary at all?

And last is the wording on the resolution going to open a can of worms no one wants to deal with?

To the first in my opinion yes the government should see every one as a number. Its a bit uncaring but it also prevents alot of trouble.

Tothe second only in a limited sense. I have the right to protest whatever i want. I do not have the right to go beat the sex offender from my neigborhood. If i do so it dosnt matter what kind of scum he is (yes i used he screw all you politically correct idiots you get my point) I still broke the law and i should be punished.

To the third i dont believe so because all the UN can do is have something labeled as wrong or right. It cant enforce it. So big deal its illegal to discriminate on these bounds. It was ilegal to discriminate agains Blacks for a long time that dosnt mean it didnt happen alot. So what does this resolution do? Only makes it legal to get a sex change with a working that allows people to twist it 9 ways to sunday? If i decide resonable is to make someone wait on a sex change till there sure its not a bad idea.....for 7 or 8 years i can do that. So whats the point?

To the last. Most probably. As someone else mentioned earlier every resolution offers loop holes to twist to purposes no one has any clew about before hand. So if this resolution dosnt do anything and has a posibilitie to have some nasty side issues why should we vote for it?

I think you need to rewrite this bit of legislation or scrap it entireily as unenforcable.

Stop being desperate. :) There is no reason to bring "sex offenders" into this discussion. :rolleyes: If the U.N cant enforce anything, than all the human rights resolutions that have been passed can go out the door. Theres no point to make any human rights resolution.

This amendment is specious!

This resolution reqires us to respect the humanity of those who mutiliated their own humanity by altering the very bodies that they were given at birth. If they lack respect for themselves, why should we give it to them, much less be MANDATED to do so?

More importantly, God has given men and women their roles and their purpose within their body. By changing their body in this manner, they deny their role, deny their purpose, and in rendering themselves infertile, make it so that they cannot spread their seed and egg. They are like mules; born from horses and donkeys yet altered by a foul mating that renders them incapable of reproduction, because God hates mules, and he hates transgenders too.

The Corporate Christian Empire of Sidestreamer objects to this latest attempt by the UN to stupify itself and its membership. Why is the UN so contemptious of humanity that they would promote its desecration by giving transgenders special recognition?

I have already discussed why The Transgender Equality Act is necessary. It is as necessary as the Gay Rights Act or the Sexes Rights Law.

Funny you should mention those, because they aren't necessary either. Unfortunately, the UN is full with nations who cannot see beyond one single issue, their vision clouded so much by pink fluffy "I need to do good" clouds that they seem unable to step up to a higher level, and go for the big picture. Instead of passing one or two resolutions on the environment, they want to save dolphins and whales - well, sod all the other endangered specied then, or save them one resolution at a time? Instead of simply outlawing discrimination, the UN seem to want to outlaw discrimination kind by kind. Think, for gods' sake! Passing this resolution is utterly futile!

If nations who support this resolution for one time would put their heads and brains together, beautiful resolutions could happen, and we could all get down to lunch and do some good work instead of wasting our time on micromanagement of nations. Don't get me wrong, I dislike the "national souvereignity" camp and think the UN should force its laws on nations who joined, but not in this way. The UN is an international body, it's laws compulsory for all that join - an excellent platform to put good legislation in place that overrules dozens of issues. But what do you do with it? Waste it.

Well, thanks.

Oops, I forgot. Here it is.

http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Issues/Transgender_Issues1/Transgender_Basics/Transgender_Basics.htm#f2

Based on the FBI’s “Uniform Crimes Reports, Crime in the United States 2000,” showing the murder rate of 5.5 people per 100,000.

You are citing an extremely biased source. They call themselves "Human Rights Campaign". How do you expect them to provide sources that contradict what they say, or put another perspective on it?

In other words, this source is useless.

I urge the nations to support this resolution even if they think it is "yucky." It is simply not a legitimate reason to dispose such a resolution.

No, but because it's useless and already covered by previous resolutions, now that is a good reason to vote against.

Vote against to stop bad resolutions taking over the UN!

I still don't see the point, in teaching police how to handle transgender discrimination as a seperate.

You shouldn't, that's discrimination and as such outlawed by the UN.

The people of the Democratic Republic of Tajiri_san have now voted for this proposal.

Sections 1 and 3 are addressed by earlier resolutions and section 2 may be addressed by a past resolution. Section 4 is not, and section 5 I highly doubt has ever been touched before



No - it's merely filling the gaps



Because they have already been dealt with several times - just as there is a sentient species act that is under draft right now that addresses another group not covered by past resolutions



Would the proposer care to post some of his rl stats regarding this matter again so they are fresh in people's minds?



Hardly - microcredit bazaar was just a waste of air - it wasn't managing a single thing. I can't remember what was before that



You do that

--------------------



No....we're trying to get police to get over their initial issues of believing someone is subhuman (which they may feel about transgenders) for whatever beliefs they have about themselves or whatever...



No - their previous civil rights issues have been guaranteed in all countries to the same level that other groups are at (I note the number of people that have opposed this resolution on religious grounds or because it is "yucky"). Basically, if you feel that this issue has been covered, the only thing that it does is in sections 4 and 5.



*frowns

I fail to see the logic in your argument


By the way, I don't take too kindly to the belief that what you have to say is more important than any other post here. I actually tend to ignore posts that are like that (in fact, I didn't read your post until I copied the text so it was normal in style). Bold and Italics are for emphasis - not to say your important but because you want to stress one word over the rest of the sentance. Please don't abuse it. Your beliefs have been expressed before on this thread and I'm not going to read your post before the one above it because it is bolded. Heck - I'm not even going to see it before the one above
-------------------------



Nope - it tells me that those that support the resolution are less likely to debate it on the forum or criticize it. People like Canada6 I know are coming on here regardless. It tells me something when the people who's opinions I respect and who discuss resolutions at length and with a full sense of logic and a firm set of beliefs they can back up are either abstaining or opposing it either for:
1) Section 2
2) Because they feel it's been done
3) Because it needs to go through the review stage

Most of the other people (which I have done most of my arguing with) who have posted on this forum are not on this list and in 2 cases so far, I have reversed their decision by clarifying a few issues

More posts to be answered at lunch
Nothing you said invalidated any of the concerns expressed.
Regarding the UN if it is to serve special interest groups then it to will go the way the of the League of Nations. Since compliance is forced if it is passed these issues are quite legitimate.We too have issues with some of the proposals you have mentioned. These are the resons we have issues with this proposal. It is fortunate this is a limited simulation because many effects such as most of the world not being a member of the UN are mitigated.
We will watch the vote and act appropriately.

I agree with this issue. It's very good, except the part with the funds, but i voted for.

Ausserland has voted against this resolution. We believe that transgendered people have exactly the same rights as all other human beings. And we believe those rights are already adequately and properly protected under the Universal Bill of Rights.

We also have serious reservations about the provision of Article 4 which states: "Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse treatments to a transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people." We believe surgeons should not be required to perform operations which they consider improper according to their moral or religious beliefs, and such refusal would surely be condemned as "discrimination" by those with different views.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ausserland has voted against this resolution. We believe that transgendered people have exactly the same rights as all other human beings. And we believe those rights are already adequately and properly protected under the Universal Bill of Rights.

We also have serious reservations about the provision of Article 4 which states: "Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse treatments to a transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people." We believe surgeons should not be required to perform operations which they consider improper according to their moral or religious beliefs, and such refusal would surely be condemned as "discrimination" by those with different views.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

One wonders how they might have the training and knowledge for such a procedure if they are morally against it.....

I will station troops on any ones boarder who votes for this piece of crap.


( I am looking for my sabre to rattle its in here somewhere? )

We also have serious reservations about the provision of Article 4 which states: "Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse treatments to a transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people." We believe surgeons should not be required to perform operations which they consider improper according to their moral or religious beliefs, and such refusal would surely be condemned as "discrimination" by those with different views.


Interesting, requiring medical personnel to not discriminate actually is a reason my government might (we are still undecided) vote in favour of this resolution. At this time, though the majority of my region has voted against this, my government is still reviewing the text of the resolution and evalulating how it compares with our domestic policies.

I voted for the resolution, even though I had reservations with article 5. Noted the poll on the top. Considering the positions are reversed on the current tally, does that mean these polls here are in any way reliable, or is it just that we get more people here with a gripe against the resolution?

One wonders how they might have the training and knowledge for such a procedure if they are morally against it.....

Because anyone who is morally opposed to transgendered people are OBVIOUSLY uneducated hhhuuurrrr.

I myself am indifferent, people can do what they want, but to say well anyone who isn't accepting of all others regardless of race/gender/sexuality are uneducated is as biggoted a view as the one you seem to be trying to portray the post you quoted as. The world isn't black/white and good/evil as much as people seem to want it to be here.

[QUOTE=Forgottenlands]*Sighs* you honestly think this isn't being discussed elsewhere?



Discussed, overruled excessively (a lot of which was under the point of "we're outnumbered 3:1, we can't fight all wars). What we did do was pass a justification of war



Why do small nations need money loaned to them? Do you think the Vatican (which IS a nation - a VERY small one) needs more money loaned to them? Do you mean undeveloped nations? Discussed several times - thrown out. After the Live8 concerts, we threw out probably a dozen proposals along those lines.



Actually - we're spending more time trying to cut down exportation of weapons - nor do I see any reason why that is a UN issue - you can get better deals between two nations discussing that sort of thing (in fact, my regional Secretary of Defense is producing most of my warships these days - I didn't need the UN to get us at the bargaining table)



The UN has no army to speak of - nor will it ever be allowed to have an army



Nope - nothing new or interesting



How about women who think they are men



Yeah - I find horror movies sick and disturbing - so let's go and ban the making of horror movies. What do you say? It would certainly make my life easier because then my friends wouldn't be trying to put a horror movie on every month



And there would be no reason for a mentally handicapped person to be hated or discriminated against if they weren't handicapped, now would there? However, it still happens and we protect them from those that discriminate against them



If it comes to life and death, we're dealing with a matter of numbers. However - the only people dieing here are the transgenders so I think that classifies as THEM getting protection



If they are God's creation.....wouldn't he have also created their gender identity crisis?

Truly - these are people that feel in bottom of their soul that they were born with the wrong anatomy. They truly have a full gender identity crisis. This is much different than homosexual tendencies (where they are merely attracted to the same sex - but still feel they are the gender they were born as), they TRULY think, act and feel like the opposite gender from which they were born. If you cannot understand that, I cannot help you - I can only explain it so far. I just ask that you choose not to vote against something because:
1) You believe it goes against God. Just because God created a person like that at birth doesn't mean he intended them to stay that way. I note the number of people that have been mutilated both internally and on the surface throughout history - not to mention the "evolution" of our species - we're getting taller and bigger if you haven't noticed. Unless you've spoken with God, don't claim you know what he truly wants of these people - for all you know, it's just a test that he's set up for us to learn to accept those that we cannot understand.
2) It is icky - because how many people can't stand disection? How many people are grossed out by blood and gore? How many people get sick from just about anything that they don't have a personal connection to that deals with human fluids or organs? Why should that be a justification for banning something?
3) You don't understand the people that are transsexuals. Do you understand the psychology of most of the people walking around you? How about the philosophy? History? Society they were brought up in? Assuming you live in the first world, how well do you understand those who live in Brazil - their culture, their society, their beliefs? How well do you understand the people in Afghanistan - whether it be the Taliban or the new government the US has provided/installed. What about Saudi Arabia? South Africa? Zimbabwe? Finland? Germany? Heck - there's a lot of people living in each Britain and the US that can't understand the other country. Are you an avid supporter of both Cricket and Baseball? Do you understand both sports? What about Rugby and American Football? I pair these up because most people understand one - but are ignorant of the other (as they tend to eclipse one another). I could go into all sorts of fields and the fact of the matter is you'd still have a hard time understanding how people can believe in something or follow something you don't

Actually - since your brought God up - two more - Buddism and Hindu


Mkay, Banning it is right. It is wrong. People who change their sex, even if deep down they feel they were meant to be the opposite sex, is wrong. The Lord crated that peson for a reason. Or if you want to get scientific, blame the father. His X and Y genes determine what sec the baby will be. I don't have a hard time understanding other cultures. But the question is, how can you stand up for something that you are not??? I am not sure, but maybe some of you are transgendered...

I will station troops on any ones boarder who votes for this piece of crap.


Hmm... that's interesting... considering I voted for the proposal and I have more troops than your country's total population... let alone all the other 4,000+ nations that voted for it... :rolleyes:

I agree with this issue. It's very good, except the part with the funds, but i voted for.

Why? Please see the post back here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9451344&postcount=125

The issue is already covered by earlier resolutions. It's pointless! Please don't vote for, you're only encouraging authors to write the same resolutions we've passed months or even a year ago...

I voted for the resolution, even though I had reservations with article 5. Noted the poll on the top. Considering the positions are reversed on the current tally, does that mean these polls here are in any way reliable, or is it just that we get more people here with a gripe against the resolution?

That is our (Mikitivity's) hypothesis, yes. :)

The two previous resolutions saw less support for the polls in the UN forum than in the overall UN vote, but the differences were what I'd consider small.

Gameplay Info on Res 116 (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Mitigation_of_Large_Reservoirs#Gameplay_Impacts)
Gameplay Info on Res 117 (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Microcredit_Bazaar#Gameplay_Impacts)

116 :: 65% vs. 58% --> -7%
117 :: 60% vs. 56% --> -4%

To be fair, it is hard to often give constructive advise. Now this resolution was around as a proposal for some time, so there was plenty of *time* to give advise.

In my government's case, my office was busy with our own proposal / resolution, and we're also trying to back fill a great deal of unrecorded UN history (thankfully the United Nations Association is helping us) ... so while there are a few stand-out clauses we'd love to have had the chance to change, my nation's vote will be based largely on "trade-offs". (Meaning we are still undecided, though a bit of foreign aid sent to the former American Federalists, might help my government make its decision faster.) ;)

Interesting, requiring medical personnel to not discriminate actually is a reason my government might (we are still undecided) vote in favour of this resolution. At this time, though the majority of my region has voted against this, my government is still reviewing the text of the resolution and evalulating how it compares with our domestic policies.

We'd like to point out that we were not suggesting that SRS be denied to those whose medical condition indicates it. Indeed, we believe it should be readily available to those in need of it. Our concern is that individual physicians whose moral or religious beliefs prevent them from performing such operations in good conscience would be required by the proposal to do so. The code of ethics of the Ausserland Medical Association specifies that a physician may (except in case of emergency) refuse a specific treatment when he or she believes that providing the treatment would violate his or her moral or religious principles. The physician is required, though, to refer the patient to an alternative source of treatment.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

The great people and equal-opportunity government have decided on the issue with a national vote. A whopping 82% agree that transgenders should not be discriminated for work, or therefore discriminated period. the other 16% were the vacationing conservatives.

So, with the power invested in me by my people, the great Democratic Republic of Chaos Punx votes... aye.

I have more troops than your country's total population...You have more than 36 million troops?! Even 7 million would be a stretch for a nation your size. OOC: Active-duty U.S. forces number only about 1.5 million, and you only spend about 300% what they do on defense. 4.5 million active duty, tops.

Because anyone who is morally opposed to transgendered people are OBVIOUSLY uneducated hhhuuurrrr.
[emphasis added]

;) Be careful who you call 'uneducated'; it just begs for others to nitpick your own education, mainly spelling and grammar. For example: "anyone" is singular and "are" is a plural conjugation. Subject and Predicate should agree in number.

We'd like to point out that we were not suggesting that SRS be denied to those whose medical condition indicates it. Indeed, we believe it should be readily available to those in need of it. Our concern is that individual physicians whose moral or religious beliefs prevent them from performing such operations in good conscience would be required by the proposal to do so. The code of ethics of the Ausserland Medical Association specifies that a physician may (except in case of emergency) refuse a specific treatment when he or she believes that providing the treatment would violate his or her moral or religious principles. The physician is required, though, to refer the patient to an alternative source of treatment.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Thank you Ambassador Barfanger. When rereading article 4 more closely, we agree with your analysis of the first sentence in that clause. Requiring physicians to refer patients to other sources of treatment does in fact sound very reasonable.

-Howie T. Katzman

[emphasis added]

;) Be careful who you call 'uneducated'; it just begs for others to nitpick your own education, mainly spelling and grammar. For example: "anyone" is singular and "are" is a plural conjugation. Subject and Predicate should agree in number.

Well thats sort of my point proved I guess, I wasn't saying HE was uneducated, just pointing out that calling someone uneducated because they don't share your values or beliefs is an uneducated thing to do.

Alas I must say that grammar was never my fine point, then again grammar and spelling have never been reliable indicators of education or intelligence, for where some people excel, others fail. Of course we then have to discuss whether intelligence is the same as being well educated, Albert Einstein was a brilliant scientist but academically a failiure leaving school with terrible results, so was he uneducated and intelligent, or is intelligence a sign of education?

In other words, what was your point? That the pot shouldn't call the kettle black? If I had tried to say he was uneducated then maybe your post pointing out minor grammar and spelling errors would of been relevant, but seeing as I didn't I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make?

We'd like to point out that we were not suggesting that SRS be denied to those whose medical condition indicates it. Indeed, we believe it should be readily available to those in need of it. Our concern is that individual physicians whose moral or religious beliefs prevent them from performing such operations in good conscience would be required by the proposal to do so. The code of ethics of the Ausserland Medical Association specifies that a physician may (except in case of emergency) refuse a specific treatment when he or she believes that providing the treatment would violate his or her moral or religious principles. The physician is required, though, to refer the patient to an alternative source of treatment.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations


"Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse treatments to a transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people." When I wrote this, I did not intend to include "sex reassignment surgery" as one of the said treatment. I meant any normal everyday medical treatment. But how do you consider an "emergency" anyways? Isn’t that kind of subjective also? Would you allow a police officers to stop his or her policing work because his or her religious beliefs are violated ? I think there is always a balance that should be made between religious freedom and equality right. Frankly, I dont think it is acceptable for life saving professionals to refuse treatment to another person based on his or her religious beliefs. But regardless, I think only specialized doctors can perform SRS, so if a ordinary doctor who has problem against SRS would not be have the specialized knowledge to perform SRS on patient anyways.

"Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse treatments to a transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people." When I wrote this, I did not intend to include "sex reassignment surgery" as one of the said treatment. I meant any normal everyday medical treatment.

... only specialized doctors can perform SRS, so if a ordinary doctor who has problem against SRS would not be have the specialized knowledge to perform SRS on patient anyways.

I appreciate you making that more clear. I believe the misunderstanding comes from the sentence before that one in Article 4:

Article 4: Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally therefore; Sex Reassignment Surgeries and Hormonal treatments should be legal and reasonably accessible to people who have GID. Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse treatments to a transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people.

The confusion is that the second sentence looks as if it is tied to the second half of the first sentence. I apologize for not having had the time to look at this when it was a draft, because if we had the ability to make amendments, I would actually suggest that we could have broken this into subparagraphs:

(a) Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse medical treatements based on discrimination against ...

(b) Sex reassignment surgies and homrmonal treatments should be made legal and not subjected to discriminatory pricing practices (i.e. be reasonably afforable);

Is this basically what your government had in mind? Though we can not make amendments, some nations (such as my own) do value author's statements during UN debates and essentially put a very high value on clarifications. :)

Howie T. Katzman

[OOC: If you've not subscribed to the Feeder Regions forums, I highly recommend you poke into the debates happening in a few regions to test the waters. I currently don't have my puppet in a feeder nation (it expired some time ago), so I don't know if the feeder delegates have voted, but they represent several thousand votes.]

Yup, that is what I have in mind. What are the feeder regions forums and where are they at? Thank you for your notice.

Yup, that is what I have in mind. What are the feeder regions forums and where are they at? Thank you for your notice.

The feeder regions are the regions where new nations start, but many nations choose to stay in the feeders.

Some of the feeders I've worked with:
The North Pacific
The East Pacific
The West Pacific
The South Pacific

Here is the North Pacific forum:
http://s2.invisionfree.com/The_North_Pacific/index.php?act=idx

Though currently it looks like the debate on this resolution is not going well there.

Meh. I just checked. The U.N delegate for the North Pacific has already voted against this resolution.

transgender people do not deserve equal rights their are just plain weird act like your supposed to women act like women and guys act like guys is that so hard :gundge: :gundge: :headbang: :sniper: :mp5:

I would like to know what percentage of a population is gay or transgendered? If this resolution goes through I would like to quit the UN an have a Mod erase that percentage of my population as those numbers will be put to death in my country "The Big Warboski".

I will station troops on any ones boarder who votes for this piece of crap.


( I am looking for my sabre to rattle its in here somewhere? )

Might want to check how strong your position is before you suggest such a thing

because anyone who is morally opposed to transgendered people are OBVIOUSLY uneducated hhhuuurrrr.

I said training for the procedure

Mkay, Banning it is right. It is wrong. People who change their sex, even if deep down they feel they were meant to be the opposite sex, is wrong.

Why?

The Lord crated that peson for a reason.

Perhaps the Lord's reason is to test our ability to be accepting of the flaws in different people - and to welcome them and help them in any way we can. Maybe it is to test whether we can truly love our fellow man - no matter what sort of person the fellow man is. Perhaps it is to remind us that we're not all perfect. Perhaps to pass this test, this resolution must be passed. Perhaps a thousand different reasons (both for and against this resolution) on the possibilities of what God's purpose for making transgender people. How dare you claim that you know the divine plan. How dare you claim that this was not God's intention when he created these people - not that I'm saying it was his intention, but that we don't know - so in the meantime - let's accept them for who they are, and help them be a person once again - regardless of which gender they are afterwards.

Or if you want to get scientific, blame the father.

Yes - because the FATHER has such wonderful control of his sperm :rolleyes:

His X and Y genes determine what sec the baby will be.

And flaws within either set of genes from either of the parents can create all sorts of issues - such as - perhaps - the identity crisis

I don't have a hard time understanding other cultures.

I didn't ask if you had a hard time understanding them - I asked you if you did understand them. I don't mean the surface details of what they have done, I mean do you understand why they do those things. You have failed to answer my question - go back to start

But the question is, how can you stand up for something that you are not???

Would you defend your husband/wife (I'm guessing latter) if he/she was in court? How can you stand up for someone that you are not?

:rolleyes: :headbang:

I don't claim to understand them. Heck - I'm repulsed by gay sex. However - I know just because I feel that way doesn't mean that others do not enjoy it - either to watch (tries to count how many guys have grins on their faces) or to practice. Further - I see no problem with them doing such a thing. As long as this is not hurting (and I mean physically hurting) someone, I have no problem with them doing such a thing. I believe that you should have the right to practice whatever sexual activities, modify their gender however much they want, do whatever the heck they want to their body, under the condition none of it is hurting anyone. If they're making a earing using the finger of someone they killed.....put them in jail. However - your gender being changed doesn't hurt anyone. Therefore, I don't care - and if I don't care, they should have the right to do it.

It's not about how I can possibly defend them, it's about how can you possibly oppose them. What is it that makes you feel this is so unjustifyably wrong that it should be banned.

I am not sure, but maybe some of you are transgendered...

THAT would be the bigoted comment. I bet that in this entire thread, there is no more than 1 transgender (I can believe there is one, just due to random chance). Me, I'm a straight guy (always have been) with no identity crisis, an above-average IQ, sitting in a University Dorm room waiting for my first workterm to end so I can start my third year and so my girlfriend (who has always been a girl - a tomboyish girl, but a girl nonetheless) can spend a bit more time with me while she stays on campus - away from her family.....who wouldn't approve if they found out she had a boyfriend - debating why I believe Abortion should be a person's choice, Homosexuals should have the right to marry and Transgenders should have the right to have their gender changed (as one of my friends pointed out - if you were hiring a person, and on the resume it said "male" but this person walks in wearing women's clothes and moderate breasts.....isn't that a rather fast way to figure out whether this person is a transgender - and this info gets sent in as you're trying to access past records of this person - including, perhaps, social insurance info which would officially hold a record of this person being male....meaning that person couldn't claim being a female unless the official record could be changed)

And so on and so forth we go down the spiral of bull (sorry - got off topic)

If people only supported groups that either they are or are members of, the only people advocating women's rights would be women, the only people advocating black's rights were blacks, the only people advocating for fair treatment of the German government after World War II would be Germans - none of this was true. Why? Because we understood the failings of looking at the world so narrowmindedly. We understood why things needed to be such a way - or should be such a way. We understood both the advantages and consequences of such injustices. This is yet another where we must once again, look at the advantages and consequences of these injustices.

-------------------------------

You have more than 36 million troops?! Even 7 million would be a stretch for a nation your size. OOC: Active-duty U.S. forces number only about 1.5 million, and you only spend about 300% what they do on defense. 4.5 million active duty, tops.

The US is considered to be numerically weak for its population and has difficulty meeting its armaments requirements. On the flip side, China boasts an army of 400 million - why, everyone is required to take basic training so most people are in the reserves - hence the 400 million number. If it comes to war, China can call up all 400 million troops for the front line - as they are fully qualified to do so.

-------------------------

Regarding Article 4:

1) I note that the physician is not required to refuse treatment - but is also not required to personally perform such a treatment (and thus, if they have a moral objection or whatnot - they can give it to a doctor who does not have such an issue)
2) I note that there are important distinctions of moral obligations. If you think it is not moral to do so because there is a significant risk or you do not feel they are capable of making such a decision - then that would be permissable. If you feel that on a religious level this sort of operation isn't moral.....I'd actually see it as something this resolution is trying to prevent - and I refer you back to (1)
3) Again I ask why such a doctor would have specific training for such a treatment if they objected to it. Unlike some surgeries, genetilia seems to be rather outside of the norm.

I would like to know what percentage of a population is gay or transgendered? If this resolution goes through I would like to quit the UN an have a Mod erase that percentage of my population as those numbers will be put to death in my country "The Big Warboski".

While I undoubtedly will be unable to get you to change your mind on whether they should be allowed to live in your country, may I suggest that instead you deport them? My nation would be more than willing to welcome them.

We the people of Twistopolis do not believe that anything regarding "Law Enforcement" or "Military Endevors" should be manditory as stated in article 2 of the proclamation. We do believe that The transgendered should be treated as equals as far as dignity, respect, and employment are consitered. Therefor The Dominion of Twistopolis will stand back and watch the debate unfold before fully deciding on this issue.

While I undoubtedly will be unable to get you to change your mind on whether they should be allowed to live in your country, may I suggest that instead you deport them? My nation would be more than willing to welcome them.


I stand where I stand. I wish a mod to erase that portion of my pop. totally. Another nation "The Queendom of pdkbangels" also wishes her nations Gay and Transgendered population erased as she will have them put to death also.

This is what forced acceptance becomes.

it specifically bans homosexuality in the bible, therefore I dont want them in my nation!!! You can have them!!!!!!!

it specifically bans homosexuality in the bible, therefore I dont want them in my nation!!! You can have them!!!!!!!

Where does it do that?

And do you have laws banning adultry?

Therefor The Dominion of Twistopolis will stand back and watch the debate unfold before fully deciding on this issue.


There will be no debate here, only death will come of this. And that's not just me, several other nations are prepared to ask Moderator to delete population percentages to represent our disapproval and the hunting down and extermination of that portion of the population.

There will be no debate here, only death will come of this. And that's not just me, several other nations are prepared to ask Moderator to delete population percentages to represent our disapproval and the hunting down and extermination of that portion of the population.

You realize moderators don't care enough to actually delete the numbers, right? You might as well claim that at update, these people that you had killed were replaced by an extra high number of births.

You realize moderators don't care enough to actually delete the numbers, right? You might as well claim that at update, these people that you had killed were replaced by an extra high number of births.

We are going to try and have it done but the fact that if it cann't be done the new birth rate being high will represent that portion of our countries that want to reproduce is atleast a comfort!

If they are God's creation.....wouldn't he have also created their gender identity crisis?

The esteemed delegate of the Forgottenlands raises an excellent point, for it demonstrates the very reason We oppose this proposal.

All things are Divine creation. Yet it is undeniable that some people are born blind, some are born without use of their limbs, some are born with defects of the mind. It is not so hard to imagine that some are also born confused about the nature of their sexuality.

The teachings of the Eternal Kawaii (may the Cute One be praised) say not to let the blind stumble, or the lame starve for lack of work, or the mentally deficient to be prey to their smarter brothers and sisters. They also tell Our people not to allow the sexually confused to be preyed upon by those who would use this weakness to abuse their sex.

Mutilation of the genitals, as the proposed under the tragic misnomer "sex reassignment surgery" is an abomination in the eyes of the Cute One, for it treats the Divine gift of sexuality as little better than a pair of shoes to be put on and cast off according to human whim, and places human ego in the place of the Creator's Will. To encourage the sexually confused to seek this abomination is a form of sexual abuse.

These are the teachings of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp). We realize that not all nations share Our peoples' faith in such matters. This resolution, however, demands of Our people to abandon their faith and accept a teaching contrary to that of their God. This is a direct assault upon the religious convictions of a sovereign NationState. Is such a thing to be allowed in the NSUN?

We urge all nations present--if you value your people's religious freedom, vote down this act of arrogance and bigotry.

Another nation "The Queendom of pdkbangels" also wishes her nations Gay and Transgendered population erased as she will have them put to death also.



The Queendom? Really? That's a first.


Even though I feel that Global Warming will affect far more people over the next...sadly...10 years than Transgender disassociation.


I also feel Genocide and intolerance still runs ramped.


So as decided by my Region we're voting FOR.

Yes, "Queendom", because I AM A WOMAN!!!!!and i am straight!

The esteemed delegate of the Forgottenlands raises an excellent point, for it demonstrates the very reason We oppose this proposal.

All things are Divine creation. Yet it is undeniable that some people are born blind, some are born without use of their limbs, some are born with defects of the mind. It is not so hard to imagine that some are also born confused about the nature of their sexuality.

The teachings of the Eternal Kawaii (may the Cute One be praised) say not to let the blind stumble, or the lame starve for lack of work, or the mentally deficient to be prey to their smarter brothers and sisters. They also tell Our people not to allow the sexually confused to be preyed upon by those who would use this weakness to abuse their sex.

Mutilation of the genitals, as the proposed under the tragic misnomer "sex reassignment surgery" is an abomination in the eyes of the Cute One, for it treats the Divine gift of sexuality as little better than a pair of shoes to be put on and cast off according to human whim, and places human ego in the place of the Creator's Will. To encourage the sexually confused to seek this abomination is a form of sexual abuse.

These are the teachings of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp). We realize that not all nations share Our peoples' faith in such matters. This resolution, however, demands of Our people to abandon their faith and accept a teaching contrary to that of their God. This is a direct assault upon the religious convictions of a sovereign NationState. Is such a thing to be allowed in the NSUN?

We urge all nations present--if you value your people's religious freedom, vote down this act of arrogance and bigotry.

What do you do with hermaphrodites?

Yes, "Queendom", because I AM A WOMAN!!!!!and i am straight!


Yeah, so is Cher.

Yes, "Queendom", because I AM A WOMAN!!!!!and i am straight!

You go girl!!
Guess she told you.

[QUOTE=New Hamilton]Even though I feel that Global Warming will affect far more people over the next...sadly...10 years than Transgender disassociation.[\QUOTE]


Coincidentally I voted in favor of all the issues involving environment.

The Darvainian people and government are insulted by this proposal. It would not only trample on the sovereignty of ours and other nations, but it would take away the rights of natural-gendered people for the sake of an even smaller group of transgendered. If it is passed it will be a psychological genocide on a global level, and if it passes we will personally deport every transgendered person in our nation in the name of our freedom of choice (for example if our business want to CHOOSE not to hire these people) and in the name of our sovereignty, that is our rights to decide our own social policy for these people.

This is insulting to our pride, our freedoms, and our independence as a nation, and we are absolutely disgusted the U.N has even considered passing this. In addition the whole notion is utter nonsense, and transgendered people are generally at least tolerated in our nation, but this resolution will increase hostilities towards them when they are seen as violating our freedom, and our right as a nation to make our own laws.

Even though I feel that Global Warming will affect far more people over the next...sadly...10 years than Transgender disassociation.

While I appreciate your vote for this resolution, I would like to request that you stop bringing up this environmental complaint every thread you enter into that discusses Human Rights. If you think it is such an important issue, give us an idea of how to fix it. Otherwise, stop complaining!

The esteemed delegate of the Forgottenlands raises an excellent point, for it demonstrates the very reason We oppose this proposal.

All things are Divine creation. Yet it is undeniable that some people are born blind, some are born without use of their limbs, some are born with defects of the mind. It is not so hard to imagine that some are also born confused about the nature of their sexuality.

The teachings of the Eternal Kawaii (may the Cute One be praised) say not to let the blind stumble, or the lame starve for lack of work, or the mentally deficient to be prey to their smarter brothers and sisters. They also tell Our people not to allow the sexually confused to be preyed upon by those who would use this weakness to abuse their sex.

Mutilation of the genitals, as the proposed under the tragic misnomer "sex reassignment surgery" is an abomination in the eyes of the Cute One, for it treats the Divine gift of sexuality as little better than a pair of shoes to be put on and cast off according to human whim, and places human ego in the place of the Creator's Will. To encourage the sexually confused to seek this abomination is a form of sexual abuse.

These are the teachings of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp). We realize that not all nations share Our peoples' faith in such matters. This resolution, however, demands of Our people to abandon their faith and accept a teaching contrary to that of their God. This is a direct assault upon the religious convictions of a sovereign NationState. Is such a thing to be allowed in the NSUN?

We urge all nations present--if you value your people's religious freedom, vote down this act of arrogance and bigotry.

What about the religious freedom of the citizen - specifically, the freedom to not practice a religion. What about their right to choose to act without the glare of a religion they don't believe in breathing down their neck? Why should they be refused treatment just because the religion you practice does not approve of it? If this is a religious issue, deal with it in your church. This is a civil rights issue - and while you have the freedom to practice your religion, you do not have the freedom to take that religion and impose it on others.

Further - I take severe issue with the idea that my statement proves that these people should be discriminated against or denied treatment as such. I find it completely shocking that you use what they were created as being as a reason to "fix them" rather than a reason to "help them be who they want and truly feel they should be". Why must everyone be the way you want them to be? Why can't they choose their own path?

Who do they honestly hurt by changing their gender?

As a strong supporter of individual rights and liberties, the Commonwealth of Kayros is proud to support the Transgender Equality Act. We urge all member nations to place the interests of humanity ahead of the interests of religion, or the interests of the state.

- President E. V. Ross
- The Commonwealth of Kayros

As a strong supporter of individual rights and liberties, the Commonwealth of Kayros is proud to support the Transgender Equality Act. We urge all member nations to place the interests of humanity ahead of the interests of religion, or the interests of the state.

- President E. V. Ross
- The Commonwealth of Kayros

Your voting for thier death warrent. Don't you feel proud? Or do you just break a few hundred thousand eggs to prove your point?


And support for forcing acceptance is as biased as those whom do not tolerate the issue.

In Character: The nation of TBW issues an order to secret police and military units.

Orders:
Round up all Homosexual and Transgender populus. Place individuals in interment camps and interigate to find suspected individuals in hiding. These individuals are to be treated humainly pending UN decision.
Upon A verdict of the issue being voted down they may all be set free to live as they where before interment including return of all properties.
Upon a verdict of the issue passing, these individuals are to be concidered enemies of the state and executed on spot. The bodies are to be recycled as medical waste and recycled immediately.

Your voting for thier death warrent. Don't you feel proud? Or do you just break a few hundred thousand eggs to prove your point?

A few deaths in your country for the freedom of many others from persecution. A fair tradeoff - one that I would be willing to support.

And support for forcing acceptance is as biased as those whom do not tolerate the issue.

Forcing acceptance? At the government level, certainly we are forcing it. At the citizen level - they are only required to accept it enough that they don't discriminate - their own opinions on the matter are immaterial.

In Character: The nation of TBW issues an order to secret police and military units.

Orders:
Round up all Homosexual and Transgender populus. Place individuals in interment camps and interigate to find suspected individuals in hiding.

Anyone care to guess how many resolutions were just broken by that order? Just off the top of my head, I can think of 4 - not all of them "discrimination prevention" resolutions.

These individuals are to be treated humainly pending UN decision.

Well, I'll give you credit for at least doing something


Upon A verdict of the issue being voted down they may all be set free to live as they where before interment including return of all properties.

Good

Upon a verdict of the issue passing, these individuals are to be concidered enemies of the state and executed on spot. The bodies are to be recycled as medical waste and recycled immediately.

*passes data on to anyone who is considering intervention on an account of genocide prevention

Your voting for thier death warrent. Don't you feel proud? Or do you just break a few hundred thousand eggs to prove your point?


And support for forcing acceptance is as biased as those whom do not tolerate the issue.

In Character: The nation of TBW issues an order to secret police and military units.

Orders:
Round up all Homosexual and Transgender populus. Place individuals in interment camps and interigate to find suspected individuals in hiding. These individuals are to be treated humainly pending UN decision.
Upon A verdict of the issue being voted down they may all be set free to live as they where before interment including return of all properties.
Upon a verdict of the issue passing, these individuals are to be concidered enemies of the state and executed on spot. The bodies are to be recycled as medical waste and recycled immediately.

We are truly horrified that a government could hold any part of its population hostage in order to force the United Nations to bend to their will. Were it possible I would call for your immediate expulsion, as well as military intervention to protect your people from your abhorrent government.

The Commonwealth of Kayros condemns your actions, but I doubt that the condemnation of every nation of free-thinking people on this world would mean anything to you.

- President E. V. Ross
- The Commonwealth of Kayros

A few deaths in your country for the freedom of many others from persecution. A fair tradeoff - one that I would be willing to support.




4 other nations are following suite along with thier friends nations. See what we have here is both a domino effect and an exponetial waterfall effect on a population you seem to love some much.

I urge all nations that do not agree to this dribble join me. Force them to see our point! If not, they will continue thier dictatorship of force feeding garbage on our great nations. How long will it be before the normal majority have no say! How long before the normal majority are forced to carry this dead weight.

We are truly horrified that a government could hold any part of its population hostage in order to force the United Nations to bend to their will. Were it possible I would call for your immediate expulsion, as well as military intervention to protect your people from your abhorrent government.

The Commonwealth of Kayros condemns your actions, but I doubt that the condemnation of every nation of free-thinking people on this world would mean anything to you.

- President E. V. Ross
- The Commonwealth of Kayros



Hello, dictatorship.

OMG!!! HOW DUMB IS THIS ACT! i do not like at all transexuals... you were born with your gender you should keep it!!

OMG!!! HOW DUMB IS THIS ACT! i do not like at all transexuals... you were born with your gender you should keep it!!


A voice of sanity! Join us Bob in rounding them up and putting them to death if it passes.

The Moon region have yet to decide on voting for or against this resolution.

OMG!!! HOW DUMB IS THIS ACT! i do not like at all transexuals... you were born with your gender you should keep it!!

You are not born with your gender; the fact is that gender, like race and other such labels are social constructs. There are more differences between individuals of the same 'gender' then there are between individuals of separate genders when looking at all people on average.

Genetically speaking you can find people with closer DNA make up of opposite genders, then of people within the same sex.

If you look at cultures around the world, instead of just at your own, you will quickly notice that people have different definitions of "gender" and have more then 2 genders. Many societies that have not been heavily influenced by the occident, such as portions of South America, Asia, and Africa, indigenous groups in North America and Australia, and well documented societies of antiquity believed there was more then 2 genders. I don't mean believed in more then 2 genders in the sense they thought there were multiple Gods that convened on Mt. Olympus, and that Satyrs and Centaurs roamed the land, but that members of their own society who have been recorded in history, were thought to be neither male nor female, that thought certain people were female despite 'male' parts, and I'm not talking bearded ladies at the circus, but that respected individuals in a community did not fit the ideas that many ignorant, and I say ignorant because I do believe they are lacking information and not that they are incapable of learning, as well as nations too stubborn to agree with modern science.

Science which backs up contemporary cultures as well as ones in antiquity that did not endorse a 2 gender policy, that you’re born with, and that gender was determined by anatomy alone.

There are numerous articles written by anthropologist, psychologists, biologists, geneticists, and other such people who have studied this very topic. As most of those assembled here are bureaucrats, tyrants, and people who's career paths and ways of life don't leave much time for keeping up with science, I don't expect everyone to agree with myself, nor most individuals who have higher levels of education and research in this topic.

Most of the intellectuals from the occident no longer agree with the outdated views which the masses here are displaying by calling transgender individuals disgusting or insane.

But I implore you, even if you don't agree that transgender people aren't insane or disgusting, would you vote down something that provided them with civil freedoms which those of you who are not transgender take for granted? Would you want to deny a bill which would make peoples lives more enjoyable?

Representatives from various nations have shown that they themselves are bigots. I can understand and respect those nations that vote against this for such reasons as not believing in free medical care for citizens, but the many representatives who are themselves being bigots and slandering transgender people here on the UN forums are prime examples of the individuals whom this bill is trying to protect transgender people from.

We are witnessing many nations who are fighting for their right to 'discriminate', which past UN bills shows a history of approving anti discrimination bills.

To those countries that seek to continue to discriminate against people you think are disgusting, I urge you to re-read past bills in the UN which are already limiting your power to do so, and realize we here at the UN will not tolerate such mind sets.

To those of you who believe that your sex is something you’re born with and you shouldn't change it, perhaps you'd like to try to pass bills preventing individuals from changing any part of their identity? No more legal name changes, no more hair dye, shaving, hair cuts, no removal of tails, tumors, impacted teeth, no nose jobs, no piercing, breast implants, painted nails, no vaccines, no aspirin, no insulin injections, heart transplants, blood transfusions, kidney transplants, fake hips, prosthetics etc? From shaving your unibrow, to receiving medicine, you’re altering the way you were born, be it for cosmetic or medical reasons.

Quit being so hung up over what gender or sex a person is, and worry more about people who's morals are so poor that they'll sleep with your spouse in your bed while your away at work, and then pretend to be your friend. Worry about politicians who take bribes or pass legislation in favor of those who endorse them that might not be in the countries best interest. Worry about the priest or teacher molesting your kid, and not about someone who just wants live life as the gender they feel they are.

Please if you’re going to vote against this bill, be it not for reasons other then that you think transgender people are disgusting.

Greetings colleagues,

It seems to me, that as drafted, this bit of legislation is too narrow. Here in the glorious PRFLG (Peaople's Republic of Finger Lickin; Goodness), medical science has progressed to the point that many citizens are pursuing not just transgender, but trans-species surgery.

For instance, my "Brother?" in-law Cletus is now part trans-gendered man, part ostrich, and part badger. He tends to sit in our backyard eating crickets.

I'd like to see this legislation beefed up a bit to include those like noble Cletus who have sacrificed not just their gender, but their humanity as well. Well, maybe not for Cletus' sake entirely - in his particular instance, sitting in the backyard eating crickets is somewhat of an improvement over his pre-surgery persona, which involved large quantities of door-to-door Bible sales.

Thank You, & The Gods Keep the Colonel-

Vera Griesy
Undersecretary of S&M (Sarcasm & Mockery)
People's Republic of Finger Lickin' Goodness

I beg you to Vote no! It is Barbaric to change your sex!! I BEG YOU TO VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yah see, God created people either male of female. By "changing" we are disrespecting the way God did it. Taking it into our own hands. Silly crap.

Heck, even if it's voted in, I'm not gonna accept it, I won't let no transgender people into my nation. They can go live in your little people loving countries with no values. KK

GG no RE nubs.

Greetings colleagues,

It seems to me, that as drafted, this bit of legislation is too narrow. Here in the glorious PRFLG (Peaople's Republic of Finger Lickin; Goodness), medical science has progressed to the point that many citizens are pursuing not just transgender, but trans-species surgery.

For instance, my "Brother?" in-law Cletus is now part trans-gendered man, part ostrich, and part badger. He tends to sit in our backyard eating crickets.

I'd like to see this legislation beefed up a bit to include those like noble Cletus who have sacrificed not just their gender, but their humanity as well. Well, maybe not for Cletus' sake entirely - in his particular instance, sitting in the backyard eating crickets is somewhat of an improvement over his pre-surgery persona, which involved large quantities of door-to-door Bible sales.

Thank You, & The Gods Keep the Colonel-

Vera Griesy
Undersecretary of S&M (Sarcasm & Mockery)
People's Republic of Finger Lickin' Goodness

The average nation does not have this technology - and several resolutions throughout history have been voted down because they are concerned about a technological monopoly held by a few governments rather than the majority. As such, I cannot support a resolution of this nature - even if it were brought forth to the floor.

4 other nations are following suite along with thier friends nations. See what we have here is both a domino effect and an exponetial waterfall effect on a population you seem to love some much.

I urge all nations that do not agree to this dribble join me. Force them to see our point! If not, they will continue thier dictatorship of force feeding garbage on our great nations. How long will it be before the normal majority have no say! How long before the normal majority are forced to carry this dead weight.

Wow - 4 nations choose to follow the path of Hitler (amongst other powerful Dictators and Tyrants) and send those who's beliefs or ideas the government cannot agree with to internment camps - ready to be killed should a need for the "final solution" arise.

As it stands, you continue to be in violation of multiple UN resolutions and the Empire of Forgottenlands DEMANDS that you cease your abuse of the rights of your citizens that have already been guaranteed by this United Nations.

I agree with most of the individuals that support this resolution.
my only disagreement here is this: why should cops be trained to counter anti-transgender violence, but not say, trans-species violence, or maybe racial or other socially motivated hate-crimes? this seems to be too narrow a point. it seems as though the author of this resolution is that it seems to be asking for special treatement. Equality and special treatment at the same time? i don't think so.

Article two: Considering that a transgender person is much more likely to be targeted for hate violence, law enforcement authorities should be encouraged to access anti-transgender training so they can adequately and sufficiently deliver justice to members of the transgender community.

bullcrap!

:headbang:


This is how my police will be trained in transgender hate crimes :sniper:



haha this is just a sick and twisted thing. i will not support this. my police will not have special training for a certain type of people. they will be trained to handle whatever. although hate crimes will not be tolerated, i cannot allow people to just change their sex at will. if the people in my country were to so demand it, the price would be $999,999,999,999,999.99

I will totally vote against this bill. This is retarded. I mean, are you going to give everyone the right to do whatever they want, just because you want equal rights. What if Farmer John over here wants to fuck a goat and you say no? What do you vote on, peoples rights or animals rights??


I am with Fulmer on this.

:sniper:

Now Now now. Don't become bashers.


Even if it passes, it's margin is so weak--it's ripe for a repeal.


I'm all for Civil rights but I believe there's way more pressing issues plaguing society.


We really don't need to address every nuanced position in sexual diversity.

unless French guys suddenly become the most targeted group of victims in the society. People are not going to be suddenly equal just because the law made it so. Its important to give a protected class status to transgender individuals, and I would say the same thing about gays as well; we have heard the prejudices that some police officers have against transgender victims. So I think that needs special attention.

The most targeted group in society? The whole point here, is to make them equal. Everyone is hated by somebody, and if we trained police forces to treat them all seperatly our economies would be far dead.

The Constitutional Monarchy of Aregon is against the resolution.

This bill proposes infringment on the natural rights of human beings and is a violation of the "Freedom of Conscience" Act passed in these very halls only weeks ago. Those who don't like transexuals shall have the freedom to express their views without fear of prosecution by a corrupt new world order.

I am not against transexuality or homosexuality. My nation welcomes marriage with any gender. It is a right of a person to choose to be transexual or homosexual, but it is also the right of someone to be against it. I believe this bill will stamp on the most basic principles of democracy, which is the freedom of speech, conscience, and expression. We cannot expect everyone to be noble and refrain from making comments. The social life of people is not the business of the government to dictate.

Protect our human rights!

wow..you are totally bullshitting. I told you that the police officers dont even have to access anti transgender discrimination trainning if they dont have to. Its entirely a volutneering activity, so obviously they dont have to "treat transgender people" differently than anyone else. And I do believe that some police officers treat male and females differently. For example, the male police officers would sometimes not do a body search on a female, instead a woman police officer would do that job. :rolleyes:

The Constitutional Monarchy of Aregon is against the resolution.

This bill proposes infringment on the natural rights of human beings and is a violation of the "Freedom of Conscience" Act passed in these very halls only weeks ago. Those who don't like transexuals shall have the freedom to express their views without fear of prosecution by a corrupt new world order.

I am not against transexuality or homosexuality. My nation welcomes marriage with any gender. It is a right of a person to choose to be transexual or homosexual, but it is also the right of someone to be against it. I believe this bill will stamp on the most basic principles of democracy, which is the freedom of speech, conscience, and expression. We cannot expect everyone to be noble and refrain from making comments. The social life of people is not the business of the government to dictate.

Protect our human rights!

This resolution does not stop anyone from expressing their disagreement with transgenderism. Read it first , than you shall speak.

*passes data on to anyone who is considering intervention on an account of genocide prevention

OOC: My opinion is hold off on that for a bit. If the kid wants to turn his nation's response into a true roleplay *and* if he is willing to take as much as he dishes out, they we can see about drumming up 20 or more players for a Pretenema Panel roleplay, but it is hard to find 20 UN players interested in even a good roleplay.

Meh. I just checked. The U.N delegate for the North Pacific has already voted against this resolution.

Then check the other large regions:

The East Pacific
The West Pacific
The South Pacific
The Pacific

Gatesville probably has already voted no, but I'm not sure. Europe, Canada, and NationStates might not have voted yet. NationStates (the region) might cast its vote yes already (their delegate is an earlier voter and loves human rights resolutions).

I also think it is still worth visiting the North Pacific. As was pointed out, even if your resolution passes, and I'm thinking it might, you'll want to establish goodwill and explain things to reduce the chances of a repeal.

Also ignore the godmoders that are likely going to be coming out. Spend your time appealing to nations that seem polite and neutral. They are your swing votes. :)

Finally, when your resolution closes on Thursday, do you mind if I start the NSWiki entry for it? However, even if I start the entry, I'm going to need help on your proposal campaign and the resolution debate portions.

Then check the other large regions:

The East Pacific
The West Pacific
The South Pacific
The Pacific

None of them have voted yet, neither have the delegates from The Rejected Realms or Lazarus. (I knew that bookmarking several of the large regions while working on my resolution would come in handy:))

Oh, and The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote against this resolution because we feel that this issue is covered by previously passed resolutions.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

As you may have seen by the poll result, Waterana abstained yesterday. That decision is final now and will not be changed.

We still feel this resolution is not needed due to previous resolutions and haven't seen anything come out in this thread to refute that.

I voted yay, though i am not sure as of yet which way the delegate of the islands voted...

--Rakua of The Virgin Islands of Ecchi

I voted yay, though i am not sure as of yet which way the delegate of the islands voted...

--Rakua of The Virgin Islands of Ecchi


Thank you for your support in bettering the lives of the transgender people. You might also want to urge your U.N delegate to support this resolution too! :)

We are prepared to equip all of our children, on their eighth day of life, with indestructible genitals in order to insure that this disgusting bill never becomes an issue for our country.

We maintain that mentally unbalanced people suffering from this sort of identity crisis belong in therapy and should not be encouraged. You are what you are, Popeye understood this. We suggest a new bill, requiring that all children be exposed to a heavy dose of classical Popeye cartoons, for their educational value!

We are prepared to equip all of our children, on their eighth day of life, with indestructible genitals in order to insure that this disgusting bill never becomes an issue for our country.

We maintain that mentally unbalanced people suffering from this sort of identity crisis belong in therapy and should not be encouraged. You are what you are, Popeye understood this. We suggest a new bill, requiring that all children be exposed to a heavy dose of classical Popeye cartoons, for their educational value!
http://www.csfgraphics.com/images/gallery/cartoons/gay_popeye_large.gif

Noooooooooo! It’s contagious! We must find a vaccine and some disinfectant eye drops!

The Armed Republic of the Armed RepublicII, feels strongly that this proposal should be struck down vehemently, and in addition the liberal pigs that came up with this document vile, should be quartered, drawn, hung and their quarters should be further quartered.

In fact, the our great Nation in all her resplendent GLORY, believes thatall proposals and laws that deal with these so called "Human Rights" should be repealed as this notion of rights is all the vain imaginings and wishful thinking of burgeoisie philosophers who sit on their asses and think about "freedom"

Greetings from the Republic of Jusma Kullailie,

We are a country who value the quality of our citizens. We also have high standards of morality and religious views.

So far we were not worried about not having a UN delegate. But after reading this one, we regret just because we would like to give as many NAYS against this resolution as possible. In fact we shall be the First (if possible) to repeal this resolution in the future.

although I voted yes, I agree that article 2 is debatable. :headbang:

The Oppressed People of Desoppressed voted For, but... WHAT'S THAT 2nd Artcle??? :eek: :confused: :mad:

As a strong supporter of individual rights and liberties, the Commonwealth of Kayros is proud to support the Transgender Equality Act. We urge all member nations to place the interests of humanity ahead of the interests of religion, or the interests of the state.

As a strong supporter of individual rights and liberties, no doubt you have already read the resolutions like Sexes Rights and Discrimination Accord, which cover the liberties "granted" by this resolution. This resolutions is unnecessary, and does nothing but pollute the UN resolution archive and prevent better resolutions being written.

Please reconsider your position - and rest assured that it has no negative effects on discrimination of transgenders.

the republic of confucius says bleh's stance on the matter is that the entire bill is pointless, as the human rights laws in place already state that discrimination against people of a certain gender is illegal. the only part that is in dispute at the moment is article 2, in which it is stated that member countries should provide additional training for police concerning the prevention of hate crimes against transexuals. this disrupts the equality of different groups.

The Armed Republic of the Armed RepublicII, feels strongly that this proposal should be struck down vehemently, and in addition the liberal pigs that came up with this document vile, should be quartered, drawn, hung and their quarters should be further quartered.

In fact, the our great Nation in all her resplendent GLORY, believes thatall proposals and laws that deal with these so called "Human Rights" should be repealed as this notion of rights is all the vain imaginings and wishful thinking of burgeoisie philosophers who sit on their asses and think about "freedom"

Hear Hear!

Greetings.

We of Roathin are totally confused by the following rather sinister clause:

"Law enforcement authorities should be encouraged to access anti-transgender training so they can adequately and sufficiently deliver justice to members of the transgender community."

We are reminded of the legendary excesses of the possibly mythological ogre named Hister or Hettler, who is said to have 'delivered justice' to members of the Jedi community by means of anti-Jedi training, thus wiping out a large number of Jedi.

We further note that while the originator of this Act mentions 'anti-transgender discrimination training', the phrase used in the Act lacks that key word as italicised.

Roathin therefore votes Nay, and encourages others to do likewise lest the transgender community be dealt with according to this particular sinister, heinous and egregious clause. Clandestine insertions of this nature in Transgender Acts should not be tolerated.