NationStates Jolt Archive

Hiss, boo. "Transgender" = a term thought up by some liberal trying to make excuses for people who are simply, uhem, "Wacko". To spare itself some grief in this forum, however, the Awesome Voice of Greeandmoria shall resist to use the term Wacko again, and instead, replace it with "Transgender".

The option of becoming a "Transgender" nutbag is only familiar to those born in the 20th century. At no other time in our world's past has this been an option to consider. The notion would have been struck down by our cave forefather men with their dinosaur bone clubs, along with the heads of their cave wives when it was time for cave shinanigans (note: the Pleasantly Fragrant People of Greedandmoria oppose all forms of domestic violence).

CONSIDER - "Transgenering" one's self is equivalent to mutilation:

mu·ti·late ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1. Disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of a conspicuous or essential part of the body.
2. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
3. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.

Are we condoning mutilation by passing this bill? Doesn't this parallel the death of one's natural identity? Is this not self destructive? Doesn't this put us on a slippery slope?

The Great People of Greedandmoria have no choice but to vote against this retched resolution with firey disdain and extremely irritating flatulation.

PS

On the theme of TRANSGENDER - Those Nations that choose to abstain from voting are IMPOTENT in the eyes of the Super Excellent People of Greeandmoria.

On the contrary, rather than condoning the death of one's natural identity, in the case of transgendered people, it is condoning their attempts to achieve their true, natural identity.

Transgendered people are not 'wacko'. To say such a thing is simply ignorant and uninformed. The details of this issue have bee set down several times before in this discussion. You should read the information before making these kinds of remarks.

Hiss, boo. "Transgender" = a term thought up by some liberal trying to make excuses for people who are simply, uhem, "Wacko". To spare itself some grief in this forum, however, the Awesome Voice of Greeandmoria shall resist to use the term Wacko again, and instead, replace it with "Transgender".

The option of becoming a "Transgender" nutbag is only familiar to those born in the 20th century. At no other time in our world's past has this been an option to consider. The notion would have been struck down by our cave forefather men with their dinosaur bone clubs, along with the heads of their cave wives when it was time for cave shinanigans (note: the Pleasantly Fragrant People of Greedandmoria oppose all forms of domestic violence).

CONSIDER - "Transgenering" one's self is equivalent to mutilation:

mu·ti·late ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1. Disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of a conspicuous or essential part of the body.
2. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
3. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.

Are we condoning mutilation by passing this bill? Doesn't this parallel the death of one's natural identity? Is this not self destructive? Doesn't this put us on a slippery slope?

The Great People of Greedandmoria have no choice but to vote against this retched resolution with firey disdain and extremely irritating flatulation.

PS

On the theme of TRANSGENDER - Those Nations that choose to abstain from voting are IMPOTENT in the eyes of the Super Excellent People of Greeandmoria.

Our cave forefather also beat his wife and told her to go and take care of the children as he did the "man's job" and went hunting. For some reason, we seem to have grown beyond that mentality since then - in particular, during the past century.

Listen cavefather's, and tolerance, and blah, blah, blah! Our nation is all for tolerance, that is not why we stand against this resolution, this clearly violates the sovereignty of every nation in the U.N.
Our businesses for example are allowed to fire or hire anyone the bloody well please for any reason, because it is their business, and they have the right to run their enterprise how they want. It is our belief that society and the free market should deal with discrimination not the government, for example if a large number of employees feels strong enough that their employer is a discriminator, they can strike and demand he change the policy, or boycots can be organized to punish discriminators. I understand why liberals and socialists do things differently in their countries, but we do things differently in ours because it works, and because it is in accordance to our constitution. Furthermore police training to deal with hate crimes?? Our police are trained to deal with crimes, violent crimes, whether they are "Hateful" or not is irrelevant. For example if you throw a brick at someone's head, you will pay fines and serve a prison sentance, but just because you throw a brick at someone's head because they are transgendered, you will still pay the same price. Quite frankly hatecrimes are just crimes, and we must view them as simply that, and to be honest there is no possible way a policeman can be trained to deal with the motive of a crime, only the crime itself, so "training" police to deal with hate crimes is useless, if not utterly impossible.

Furthermore anti-discrimination laws like this one will only make discrimination worse, by doing away with Darvainia's current laws, practices, traditions, and overruling our constitution itself in this matter, will only seek to anger and insult us. You're goal is tolerance, but my people are already tolerant, but they cannot remain so toward someone who is violating their rights. The same reason poor people despise the rich when they are given special treatment by the government, is the same reason our people will despise transgendered people for receiving such special treatment. If this resolution passes we will not blatantly refuse to abide by it for fear of retribution from the U.N compliance agency, but I will be very hard pressed to control the riots that ensue, and prevent the many more hate crimes that are committed because of this wellintentioned resolution.

-Wolfstein Beber, Chief Representative of Darvainia.

On the contrary, rather than condoning the death of one's natural identity, in the case of transgendered people, it is condoning their attempts to achieve their true, natural identity.

Transgendered people are not 'wacko'. To say such a thing is simply ignorant and uninformed. The details of this issue have bee set down several times before in this discussion. You should read the information before making these kinds of remarks.

Now this is just foolish. Those who mutilate their gender do not change their gender; they simply alter themselves to appear like the other gender. Biologically, they are still the same gender. And please don't try to con us about hermaphrodites--they serve to confirm the rule, not deny it.

Suppose after watching one too many "Rocky and Bullwinkle" cartoons, you wish to become a moose. I suppose you could find a surgeon to implant antlers in you, and even give you hormones to make you grow moose fur. Does that chnge your DNA? Hardly. It just makes you a freak.

Our cave forefather also beat his wife and told her to go and take care of the children as he did the "man's job" and went hunting. For some reason, we seem to have grown beyond that mentality since then - in particular, during the past century.

Sadly, we have devolved to the Orwellian point: where a political pressure group can demand that the rest of us acknowledge that "2 + 2 = 5", and will pummel us until we cave in.

I have discussed this many times, So I am just going to copy and pasted this from my previous discussion at another forum.



What about people who have Klinefelter's syndrome? Like males who have a XXY chromosomes? Or how about those that have a only single X chromosome? Are they males or females? And what about people who have XO, XXX, XXY, XYY ?
The reason I point out this is that abnormalities do happen and its easy to forsee a situation where there would be people whose gender does not correlate to their organs.

"there is also variation in all of these processes, a child can be born with a sexual anatomy that is typically female, or feminine in appearance with a larger than average clitoris; or typically male, masculine in appearance with a smaller than average penis that is open along the underside. The appearance may be quite ambiguous, describable as female genitals with a very large clitoris and partially fused labia, or as male genitals with a very small penis, completely open along the midline ("hypospadic"), and empty scrotum."


There is also something called the CAH. "The resulting child often has confusing genitals ranging from deformed female genitals to an appearance of male genitals. If the child is raised as male, following any "adjusting" surgery and given male hormones at puberty, the individual develops as a "normal" but sterile male with XX chromosomes. On the other hand, if the infant is surgically corrected to female and given female hormones, there is a 50/50 chance of lesbian or transgender expression. " So are they males or females?

There is also something called the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. "In this case, there is a normal amount of testosterone circulating in a XY chromosome fetus, but each cell of its body is unable to react to it. This is similar to Turner's Syndrome in that neither the mullerian or wolffian ducts (see above) mature and the external genitalia develops into an approximation of normal female genitals, but differs in that TDF stimulates the gonads into becoming functioning testicles in a XY chromosome body. The child is raised as a girl and is seen as a normal female until she fails to menstruate because she has no uterus. If her testes produce enough estrogen (excess testosterone is converted into estrogen), she develops into a completely normal appearing (but lacking a uterus and upper vagina), sterile female with XY chromosomes and internal testicles." Are they males or females?

Because we know that abnormalities do happen, how can we be sure that there is no such thing as people being born in the "wrong" bodies? Meanning that "brain sex" is different than the physical "sex"?
In the book, "Sexual Brain" , written by LeVay ( a Neuroanatomist) argues that hormone-induced brain differentiation can influence one's gender identities.

From another author: "As fetal development continues, male and female hormones then imprint the brain, nudging it toward masculinization or feminization.
"One of the things we believe is that it is more common for men to become female in transgender change than for females to become men," said Dr. Marshall Forstein, medical director of Fenway Community Health in Boston. "If something goes wrong in [the fetal development] process, or something is variable in that process, some of the brains of those men don't become masculinized at the appropriate development time: Their brains are female, even though their bodies are male."

These are not 100 percent proven FACT, but its still something to think about. We still dont know if homosexuality is caused by genetic or not, but maybe its something that we will never be able to be 100 percent sure about due to the fact that environmental factors will also make everything more complex and they cant be controlled in a strict sense. The thing that is still open to debate and probably always will is what causes transgenderism exactly. *Although I am sure there is a biological basis for someone who feels they are in the bodies of an opposite sex." But more importantly, i am more concerned about making the lives of the transgender people better.

While the good people of Blackpudding and its governement support life, liberty and all associated private adventures, we have decided to vote no to this one. For the most part we dont have a problem with people who have gender issues but I have the following points.

1. What do you care?!?!

2. Why should the taxpayers or private business people of my nation fork out for frivolous discrimination cases? If someone is refused work based on their gender this may be because they were unsuitable to do it in the first place and thought of using their gender issues as a battering ram. To use a rather schoolboyish example; a man going for a modelling job at a female modelling agency could sue under your proposals given that his gender was an issue in his refusal of employment. I wont have the industry and population of my nation held to ransom over someones private agenda.

3. I'm a firm believer in the theory that says the easier you make it for someone to do something, the more likely they are to take it. People are already using imaginary illnesses and mental conditions to make up for laziness, poor work, lack of personal and social responsibility. If this becomes enshrined in law I'm afraid it will just be another route for the lazy and apathetic, even criminal to go down in order that their behaviour be blamed on something or someone else.

4. My country already has an adequate health service, bolstered by a robust and compassionate mental health division. They can, and do, recommend varying courses of treatment to help people conquer whatever issues they may have. I will not have outsiders dictating how Blackpuddings populace are given their healthcare. They decide that, you dont.

5. Should this resolution pass, Blackpudding will not ratify it.

Good day.

We feel this topic has been covered before and request that the right honourable delegate from the state of origion refraine from calling session for such trivial topics in feture.

I must say that I feel compelled to vote against this resolution. My reasoning is not what most might think. It is not compelled by any socal or religous viewpoint that I feel must be enforced on others, but simply a desire to run my nation as I see fit.

The UN should NOT be nor do I believe it was ever MEANT to be a central government and lawgiving entitity for all nations in its pervue. I believe in the soverignty of each nation to determine their own laws and social policies. While I believe that GLOBAL issues such as polution, humanitarian aid, etc are things that would fall under the pervue of the United Nations, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY POLICY MAKING LEGISLATION AFFECTING AN INDIVIDUAL REGION FALLS UNDER THE DICTATES OF THE UNITED NATIONS. Why not just fire all the local governments and let the UN run your country for you, govern it, set its policies, enforce them, etc. Thats NOT what the UN is here for. A vote AGAINST this resolution is not a vote for close mindedness, a vote for hatred, a vote to put your personal views before the welfare of all nations, but instead a vote AGAINST this resolution is to PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS AS A SOVRIGN NATION. Protect your nation's rights!

Workmaina

Good evening.

We would like to share one observation we have made in our relatively short tenure as a UN member. During the course of every debate we have participated in, the arguement that the resolution violates national sovereignty is at some point presented.

We feel that the claim sometimes might be justified, sometimes it might be arguable, and sometimes it is, quite frankly, ridiculous. With this proposal, we feel that the arguement falls in the latter of the categories.

As the delegates should be aware, it is a fact that when a nation joins the UN, it relinquishes some of its sovereignty. In doing so, it makes it possible for the UN to create international law, which the member states then often have to implement into national law on a local level.

As to what issues should fall under the legislative authority of the UN, that would surely be debatable. However, issues concerning human rights has always been and should always be at the core of what the UN should legislate. These issues do without a doubt deserve the classification "global issues".

Now, concerning this particular resolution, we do not share the concerns of the delegate from Workmaina that this resolution violates national sovereignty. We refer to our previous statements, but wish to reiterate our belief that this resolution does not impose any new regulations upon UN-members, with the exception of the first paragraph of article 5. This because we believe that previous resolutions gives the same rights and obligations as what this proposal seeks to give.

And on that note, we would like to strongly condemn the nations who during this debate has threatened to summarily execute their citizens in flagrant disregard of international law. Any such actions are unacceptable.

Thank you for your time.

All Hail!

Lyn Thorsson
Imperial ambassador to the UN

In regard to the concern that this issue is not important or it violates national sovereignty. I would like to say that the U.N has a moral responsibility to promote and legislate on the issue of the equality and human rights for all minority groups. Considering the data that transgender individuals living in America today have a one in 12 chance of being murdered, according to the FBI’s “Uniform Crimes Reports, Crime in the United States 2000." ; considering that many transgender people up alone on the street, or take their lives sometimes because the person is cut off from his or her families and friends.Considering that gender stereotypes is an issue that affect MANY people who dont even considered themselves as being transgendered. It is nothing short of a human tragedy. And it demands an UNITED and immediate action.


Sincerely yours,
Hermione Granger, Spokeswoman of ROADP.

Your argument of statistics is irrelevant. There are enough laws already in existance to protect such rights that creating a special platform for a single group servers to only the such special interestes that persons like you create. The only thing you are going to accomplish by this is widening the gap of inequality, invaribly you will only incite people more than disuade. So as such, my Government will not submit to this level of abject Tyrany of special interest groups...which group shall this body protect next? How about people who wank-off to animal porn, why not? That is the level we desend to when we ignore that larger protections exist and we allow for special protections to be written in.
No we shall not submit, nor accept such pugent legislation to be enforced upon our people. If at such time this body decideds to return to making sensible desisions and not cater to special interests we may return. Now we must look to our own resolve and protect our Nations Soverinty. I suggest that other Nations who are of the same opion as ours do the same and not submit to this.


In regard to the concern that this issue is not important or it violates national sovereignty. I would like to say that the U.N has a moral responsibility to promote and legislate on the issue of the equality and human rights for all minority groups. Considering the data that transgender individuals living in America today have a one in 12 chance of being murdered, according to the FBI’s “Uniform Crimes Reports, Crime in the United States 2000." ; considering that many transgender people up alone on the street, or take their lives sometimes because the person is cut off from his or her families and friends.Considering that gender stereotypes is an issue that affect MANY people who dont even considered themselves as being transgendered. It is nothing short of a human tragedy. And it demands an UNITED and immediate action.


Sincerely yours,
Hermione Granger, Spokeswoman of ROADP.

As stated before this subject is already well catered for by previous legistation and this motion should be binned.
Also I would like to add that this is infact a matter which member states should deal internally as they and thier peoples see fit.

I disagree. The previous resolutions did not add "gender expression or identities" as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Also, the legalization of sex reassignment surgeries and the changing of one's legal gender were not mentioned. Some people say that this resolution go too far, some say that theres nothing new in this resolution. I disagree with both of these 2 arguments; this is a comprhensive resolution, no doubt about it. Its the only way to affirm the dignity and rights of the transgender people.

I have voted against the resolution for the usual national sovereignty reasons and because I dislike the sort of micromanagement of domestic affairs that this resolution represents. Just as a national government should not strictly define the preferred length of my toenails, the United Nations should not strictly define how each nation's police force deals with its transgendered population.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

The government of the Republic of Agnostic Deeishpeople believes that it is essential for everyone to support the Transgender Equality Act, it will be a CLOSE one, according to the government source. End the suffering and pain, vote for hope ,vote yes. Silence = Death.



Sincerely yours,
Hermione Granger, Spokeswoman of ROADP.

I have voted against the resolution for the usual national sovereignty reasons and because I dislike the sort of micromanagement of domestic affairs that this resolution represents. Just as a national government should not strictly define the preferred length of my toenails, the United Nations should not strictly define how each nation's police force deals with its transgendered population.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones



Transgender people are not toenails, they are human. And their desire for dignity and respect and rights transcend national borders.

End the suffering and pain, vote for hope ,vote yes. Silence = Death.

Transgender people are not toenails, they are human. And their desire for dignity and respect and rights transcend national borders.

Unfortunately, like their desires for dignity and respect and rights, my toenails should not be subject to an entity whose proper scope of authority is far above and away from them. Besides, you will find it difficult at best to argue that rights (and not airy-fairy desires for them) exist outside of a national context.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

The Principality of Denvais have decided to vote yes for this Equality Act, but we are not agreed on article 4, which says :

"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."

We don't mean that Sex Reassignment Surgeries and Hormonal treatments should be illegal for those who really wants it, but it would be better to get transgender people to accept themselves as they are and get others to accept them as they are. Transgender people shouldn't be needed to operate themselves to be accepted in the community. We don't think this article will help against discrimination of transgender people. It will just encourage transgender people to operate themselves, instead of letting them be accepted as they are.

The Principality of Denvais have decided to vote yes for this Equality Act, but we are not agreed on article 4, which says :

"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."

We don't mean that Sex Reassignment Surgeries and Hormonal treatments should be illegal for those who really wants it, but it would be better to get transgender people to accept themselves as they are and get others to accept them as they are. Transgender people shouldn't be needed to operate themselves to be accepted in the community. We don't think this article will help against discrimination of transgender people. It will just encourage transgender people to operate themselves, instead of letting them be accepted as they are.


First of all, I want to thank you for your support. Second of all, I appreciate your comment but I also know that SRS is absolutely a necessary operation for some transgender individuals and they will never be able to live fully without it.

Varengia has voted for the resolution, but has misgivings over the economic implications. We agree wholeheartedly that discrimination should be stamped out in all its guises, but we believe the method of choice should remain at the discretion of each individual member state.

In the interests of unity, we have quelled our misgivings and supported the act.

Varengia has voted for the resolution, but has misgivings over the economic implications. We agree wholeheartedly that discrimination should be stamped out in all its guises, but we believe the method of choice should remain at the discretion of each individual member state.

In the interests of unity, we have quelled our misgivings and supported the act.

Thank you for your support, I dont believe this resolution will have much economic implications. In terms of SRS, the government doesnt have to provide it for free if it doesnt want to. And as related to the anti-discrimination trainning, its up to the individual nation to decide what the non mandatory trainning will be consist of. For example, someone has mentioned that this could simply be a 15 minutes video.

Sincerely yours,
Hermione Granger, Spokeswoman of ROADP.

News Bulletin:

The NSUN Gazette has just received some confirmed reports of a covert operation into The Rogue Nation of The Big Warboski to free several people held at internment camps. Nearly 3 hours ago, a large fleet of unmarked helicopters and other VTOL aircraft descended upon several internment camps (we have confirmed 9 internment camps were assaulted, but the total tally is unknown at this time). Various homosexuals and transgender people had been held there after the Big Warboski ordered their police and military to begin collecting them.

In a nation-wide, publicly available order, the Big Warboski had decreed that they were all to be executed, should the Transgender Equality Act, a proposed resolution that is currently at vote by the General Assembly, be passed. The supporters of the proposal have held a narrow lead over most of the last week. Due to the sheer number of votes - in particular, key delegate votes from the larger regions - that have yet to be cast, few are yet calling this proposal as a passed resolution, despite the fact that only a day remains for voting.

"We simply couldn't run the risk and wait for the voting to end," stated one soldier involved in the assault, who wished to be reported under the alias "Fred". We had to intervene before they were given a chance to carry out their orders"

The operations were considered a huge success. An estimated 800,000 transgender and homosexuals were freed. Sources say that the assault team chose weapons designed to stun or incapacitated rather than kill for the mission. Still, there were some dead on both sides.

"If you turn a corner and find a guy who hasn't been knocked out standing right there, and he steals your gun with rubber bullets, it's just easier to pull a knife on him," stated Fred

Losses are estimated to be under 100. Sources also state that many who conducted the operation are reporting that there are no missing people.

"Unfortunately, we know we didn't get them all. However, we got as many as we could find," stated another soldier involved with the raid, who wished to remain anonymous. "We are protecting those that we can, and hope that those who couldn't be protected will find their own way to survive the horrors that are imposed upon them."

There are several rumors of other operations happening in other nations. It is public record that the Big Warboski was trying to encourage other nations of imposing similar situations upon their own citizens. It is unknown how many took up the suggestion. Reports of the successes of these operations vary and it is possible that numbers as high as 10 million were rescued through the various operations.

While no nation has claimed responsibility, in part or in full, for any of the operations, many analysts are suggesting that it must have been a coalition of several nations, just judging by the sheer size of the operation.

"How many aircraft do you think it takes to move 800 000 by air?" asked Military Analyst Gerald Rubech. "Most aircraft can't hold 100 people"

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.

The esteemed delegate of the Forgottenlands is aware of the nature of Our government, We hope? The Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii is dealing with this issue as is its right and duty as the chosen form of government for the Kawaiian people. And as for the imposition of religion--it is not Our nation that is imposing its faith upon others. It is the UN through this misguided resolution that is imposing its manufactured "faith" upon Our people. We merely wish to defend Our peoples' way of life.

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?

Nowhere have We said these people should be discriminated against. We only wish to help them in the way Our faith recognizes they should be helped--not in the way some UN bureaucrat demands.

Who do they honestly hurt by changing their gender?

Themselves. Is this not obvious? Truly it is said that the worst form of cruelty is standing aside while your neighbor destroys themselves. It is not right to demand such cruelty from Our people.

Listen cavefather's, and tolerance, and blah, blah, blah! Our nation is all for tolerance, that is not why we stand against this resolution, this clearly violates the sovereignty of every nation in the U.N.
Our businesses for example are allowed to fire or hire anyone the bloody well please for any reason, because it is their business, and they have the right to run their enterprise how they want. It is our belief that society and the free market should deal with discrimination not the government, for example if a large number of employees feels strong enough that their employer is a discriminator, they can strike and demand he change the policy, or boycots can be organized to punish discriminators. I understand why liberals and socialists do things differently in their countries, but we do things differently in ours because it works, and because it is in accordance to our constitution. Furthermore police training to deal with hate crimes?? Our police are trained to deal with crimes, violent crimes, whether they are "Hateful" or not is irrelevant. For example if you throw a brick at someone's head, you will pay fines and serve a prison sentance, but just because you throw a brick at someone's head because they are transgendered, you will still pay the same price.

Actually - the purpose of the training is so the police would actually charge the guy who threw the brick in the first place - sometimes to police think that someone who was discriminated against isn't human because they're also discriminatory

Quite frankly hatecrimes are just crimes, and we must view them as simply that, and to be honest there is no possible way a policeman can be trained to deal with the motive of a crime, only the crime itself, so "training" police to deal with hate crimes is useless, if not utterly impossible.

Furthermore anti-discrimination laws like this one will only make discrimination worse, by doing away with Darvainia's current laws, practices, traditions, and overruling our constitution itself in this matter, will only seek to anger and insult us. You're goal is tolerance, but my people are already tolerant, but they cannot remain so toward someone who is violating their rights. The same reason poor people despise the rich when they are given special treatment by the government, is the same reason our people will despise transgendered people for receiving such special treatment. If this resolution passes we will not blatantly refuse to abide by it for fear of retribution from the U.N compliance agency, but I will be very hard pressed to control the riots that ensue, and prevent the many more hate crimes that are committed because of this wellintentioned resolution.

-Wolfstein Beber, Chief Representative of Darvainia.

Just out of curiosity (and correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to be a very much "Laissez-faire" to life kind of politician - believing government should be minimized and such. Why did you join the UN and add an extra layer of government to listen to?

----------------------------------
Now this is just foolish. Those who mutilate their gender do not change their gender; they simply alter themselves to appear like the other gender. Biologically, they are still the same gender. And please don't try to con us about hermaphrodites--they serve to confirm the rule, not deny it.

Suppose after watching one too many "Rocky and Bullwinkle" cartoons, you wish to become a moose. I suppose you could find a surgeon to implant antlers in you, and even give you hormones to make you grow moose fur. Does that chnge your DNA? Hardly. It just makes you a freak.

And yet we let freaks exist - so let them be freaks

Sadly, we have devolved to the Orwellian point: where a political pressure group can demand that the rest of us acknowledge that "2 + 2 = 5", and will pummel us until we cave in.

I find it hilarious you turn try to turn this around by using a quote from a book trying to talk about taking away people's rights to think for themselves and believe what they want to believe against a resolution that's trying to let people who believe they are something believe they are that thing and become it. People who support your viewpoints (I can't remember if you've stated them) are trying to tell us that these people need psychological help for their very mental state is wrong an needs to be "fixed" - a concept heavily used Big Brother....in the Ministry of Love....to "fix" those who do not love the state.

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

While the good people of Blackpudding and its governement support life, liberty and all associated private adventures, we have decided to vote no to this one. For the most part we dont have a problem with people who have gender issues but I have the following points.

1. What do you care?!?!

Because (as is evident by the many many many posts on this thread) there are a bunch of these people who are being abused and outcasted and I want to see a stop to it

2. Why should the taxpayers or private business people of my nation fork out for frivolous discrimination cases? If someone is refused work based on their gender this may be because they were unsuitable to do it in the first place and thought of using their gender issues as a battering ram.

If that can be proven, case is tossed.

To use a rather schoolboyish example; a man going for a modelling job at a female modelling agency could sue under your proposals given that his gender was an issue in his refusal of employment.

And his case would be thrown out for they would have clear justification for the reasoning. If he were a man who had his gender changed to a woman, then he/she would have a case

I wont have the industry and population of my nation held to ransom over someones private agenda.

Read past resolutions before you utter nonsense. It is a rather standard clause in most discrimination laws - both in real life and in the UN

3. I'm a firm believer in the theory that says the easier you make it for someone to do something, the more likely they are to take it. People are already using imaginary illnesses and mental conditions to make up for laziness, poor work, lack of personal and social responsibility. If this becomes enshrined in law I'm afraid it will just be another route for the lazy and apathetic, even criminal to go down in order that their behaviour be blamed on something or someone else.

Care to explain this concern of yours? Unless it is attached to point 2 (which I'm guess it is - in which case this argument is invalid for the same reason), there is no logic to this argument.

By the way - if you have the legalities for corporations to counter sue if a lawsuit against them is made that losses, they can then counter sue the person for wasting their time and money.....

4. My country already has an adequate health service, bolstered by a robust and compassionate mental health division. They can, and do, recommend varying courses of treatment to help people conquer whatever issues they may have. I will not have outsiders dictating how Blackpuddings populace are given their healthcare. They decide that, you dont.

As long as the operations are available, you will see no effect on your health care service. Of that, I can assure you

5. Should this resolution pass, Blackpudding will not ratify it.

You don't have a choice in the matter. Read the FAQ. The Compliance Ministry ratifies resolutions on your behalf - whether you want to or not.

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

I must say that I feel compelled to vote against this resolution. My reasoning is not what most might think. It is not compelled by any socal or religous viewpoint that I feel must be enforced on others, but simply a desire to run my nation as I see fit.

The UN should NOT be nor do I believe it was ever MEANT to be a central government and lawgiving entitity for all nations in its pervue. I believe in the soverignty of each nation to determine their own laws and social policies. While I believe that GLOBAL issues such as polution, humanitarian aid, etc are things that would fall under the pervue of the United Nations, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY POLICY MAKING LEGISLATION AFFECTING AN INDIVIDUAL REGION FALLS UNDER THE DICTATES OF THE UNITED NATIONS. Why not just fire all the local governments and let the UN run your country for you, govern it, set its policies, enforce them, etc. Thats NOT what the UN is here for. A vote AGAINST this resolution is not a vote for close mindedness, a vote for hatred, a vote to put your personal views before the welfare of all nations, but instead a vote AGAINST this resolution is to PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS AS A SOVRIGN NATION. Protect your nation's rights!

The UN was set up this way because it has become a central government. Read the FAQ - I think Max Barry makes it clear that's what he's doing. Whether you feel that is at the national level or not is your own opinion, however.

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

The esteemed delegate of the Forgottenlands is aware of the nature of Our government, We hope?

I apologize, I am admittedly ignorant. It is possible you explained it to me at one point, but the shifting of various nations and delegates and your disappearance from the main set of boards has meant that my priority of understanding your nation and its politics dropped in favor of new faces that I was debating more regularly with.

The Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii is dealing with this issue as is its right and duty as the chosen form of government for the Kawaiian people. And as for the imposition of religion--it is not Our nation that is imposing its faith upon others. It is the UN through this misguided resolution that is imposing its manufactured "faith" upon Our people. We merely wish to defend Our peoples' way of life.

I ask, is giving someone the right to do something that harms no other than themselves and only effects those around them that choose to be effected (subconsciously or consciously) imposing a faith on a nation?

Nowhere have We said these people should be discriminated against. We only wish to help them in the way Our faith recognizes they should be helped--not in the way some UN bureaucrat demands.

He does not demand you help them that way, he demands that you make this option available for them. Should they choose the path of your faith to help themselves, than your nation has the right to accept that path and use it. However, should they choose a path that is opposite to what your faith holds, this resolution permits them to take that path, regardless of their faith or the faith of your nation. It is the choice of the individual, not the state or UN, that will lead to SRS.

Themselves. Is this not obvious? Truly it is said that the worst form of cruelty is standing aside while your neighbor destroys themselves. It is not right to demand such cruelty from Our people.

The worst form of cruelty is not to offer assistance. However, should they refuse assistance, you truly cannot do anything but watch.

PARADISE CITY, Kenny Memorial District (Allied News Service) -- The Omigodtheykilledkenny secretary of state laughed off a tabloid publication's Wednesday report that an unnamed country or countries recently undertook a secret operation to free detainees at internment camps in the Rogue Nation the The Big Warboski.

"It is simply ridiculous," Sec. Alex Tehrani told a news conference within hours of the report's release.

A publication calling itself the NSUN Gazette reported that 800,000 gay and transgendered persons being held by the Big Warboski were successfully freed from their detention centers in a surprise operation that took "under 100" casualties. The tabloid also reported rumors of operations in other countries that may have freed up to 10 million held under similar circumstances.

Tehrani denied the Federal Republic was involved in the reported operation, and in fact, denied any such operation was even possible.

"The very idea that such a large-scale operation to free nearly 1 million people could be executed so quickly, and take on such a ridiculously low number of casualties -- and all the while the invaded nation having no idea who had violated their soil -- is just so positively ludicrous, it boggles the mind," Tehrani said.

The Big Warboski, a U.N. member, claimed to be holding gay and transgendered persons against their will, threatening to execute them if a transgender-rights bill before the U.N. passes. The Federal Republic opposes the bill on national sovereignty grounds. The bill's sponsors cling to a very slender majority in the U.N. General Assembly; voting ends Thursday.

"The Gazette proudly labels itself 'The United Nations tabloid,' " Tehrani noted. "They have certainly lived up to the title."

We as nation governments should have the say in how we treat our citizens. If we chose to deny rights to any un-chosen "race", "sex", or "age" then so be it. let us as nations chose the rights are citizens have. Not other nations from the world voting.

We as nation governments should have the say in how we treat our citizens. If we chose to deny rights to any un-chosen "race", "sex", or "age" then so be it. let us as nations chose the rights are citizens have. Not other nations from the world voting.

Well then, aren't you asking to violate a heck of a lot of previously passed UN resolutions

Resptfull members of the U.N. The Holy Empire of Renzi has voted against the proposal of "Transgender Equality act". Don't get us wrong, we believe that the rights of a Transgender person should recogized....We Disagree with the articles 3 and 4 that it will have be bad for our economic policies

The Holy Empire of Renzis Parliament and the Emperror of Renzi has asked me to vote against this proposal, for the best of Renzi, the United Nations, and for the World :gundge:

We, at the NSUN Gazette, are insulted that someone would claim that our stories are in error or that our status as a tabloid newspaper reduces our credibility in any way.

1) We note that all details have been backed up with numerous sources. If we feel that the evidence is not concrete enough, we may note that a rumor is floating around, but it will not be reported as a confirmed report. If we have received a report that we, at the NSUN Gazette, feels credible, only then shall we report such information as being confirmed.

We do, however, note that most of our sources on this matter have requested that we keep their identities secret. In interest of keeping good relations with possible sources of future news, we are following their request.

2) We note that the term tabloid refers to the format of the newspaper, not the quality of the content. We are insulted that someone would claim that our quality is any less because we chose a tabloid format over a full-page newsprint format.

That said:

We acknowledge the point that this seems to be a rather marvelous feat. However, instead of questioning whether it is possible, we would like to congradulate the nations that conducted the operation on their quick thinking, planning any amazing ability to logistically organize this operation.

We also note that perhaps the reason these nations wish to remain unidentified is perhaps because they do not wish to actually have a war with The Big Warboski or may be afraid of any allies the Big Warboski may have. This would certainly explain why they chose a covert and anonymous operation as opposed to a visible assault.

We also note that perhaps the reason these nations wish to remain unidentified is perhaps because they do not wish to actually have a war with The Big Warboski or may be afraid of any allies the Big Warboski may have. This would certainly explain why they chose a covert and anonymous operation as opposed to a visible assault.If you don't want to start a war, don't invade a sovereign nation. Or if you will, and insist upon cowering behind the guise of a "tabloid" paper, don't make such fantastical claims. Also, take a newswriting class.

I have discussed this many times, So I am just going to copy and pasted this from my previous discussion at another forum.



What about people who have Klinefelter's syndrome? Like males who have a XXY chromosomes? Or how about those that have a only single X chromosome? Are they males or females? And what about people who have XO, XXX, XXY, XYY ?
The reason I point out this is that abnormalities do happen and its easy to forsee a situation where there would be people whose gender does not correlate to their organs.

"there is also variation in all of these processes, a child can be born with a sexual anatomy that is typically female, or feminine in appearance with a larger than average clitoris; or typically male, masculine in appearance with a smaller than average penis that is open along the underside. The appearance may be quite ambiguous, describable as female genitals with a very large clitoris and partially fused labia, or as male genitals with a very small penis, completely open along the midline ("hypospadic"), and empty scrotum."


There is also something called the CAH. "The resulting child often has confusing genitals ranging from deformed female genitals to an appearance of male genitals. If the child is raised as male, following any "adjusting" surgery and given male hormones at puberty, the individual develops as a "normal" but sterile male with XX chromosomes. On the other hand, if the infant is surgically corrected to female and given female hormones, there is a 50/50 chance of lesbian or transgender expression. " So are they males or females?

There is also something called the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. "In this case, there is a normal amount of testosterone circulating in a XY chromosome fetus, but each cell of its body is unable to react to it. This is similar to Turner's Syndrome in that neither the mullerian or wolffian ducts (see above) mature and the external genitalia develops into an approximation of normal female genitals, but differs in that TDF stimulates the gonads into becoming functioning testicles in a XY chromosome body. The child is raised as a girl and is seen as a normal female until she fails to menstruate because she has no uterus. If her testes produce enough estrogen (excess testosterone is converted into estrogen), she develops into a completely normal appearing (but lacking a uterus and upper vagina), sterile female with XY chromosomes and internal testicles." Are they males or females?

Because we know that abnormalities do happen, how can we be sure that there is no such thing as people being born in the "wrong" bodies? Meanning that "brain sex" is different than the physical "sex"?
In the book, "Sexual Brain" , written by LeVay ( a Neuroanatomist) argues that hormone-induced brain differentiation can influence one's gender identities.

From another author: "As fetal development continues, male and female hormones then imprint the brain, nudging it toward masculinization or feminization.
"One of the things we believe is that it is more common for men to become female in transgender change than for females to become men," said Dr. Marshall Forstein, medical director of Fenway Community Health in Boston. "If something goes wrong in [the fetal development] process, or something is variable in that process, some of the brains of those men don't become masculinized at the appropriate development time: Their brains are female, even though their bodies are male."

These are not 100 percent proven FACT, but its still something to think about. We still dont know if homosexuality is caused by genetic or not, but maybe its something that we will never be able to be 100 percent sure about due to the fact that environmental factors will also make everything more complex and they cant be controlled in a strict sense. The thing that is still open to debate and probably always will is what causes transgenderism exactly. *Although I am sure there is a biological basis for someone who feels they are in the bodies of an opposite sex." But more importantly, i am more concerned about making the lives of the transgender people better.

I am glad this topic has been risen and will like to quote the authors entire statement in hopes that more read it. Sex and gender go beyond basic male/female, and although I'm concerned that this bill doesn't go far enough in helping those with genetics that make determine sex very difficult; I would like to hope that this bill itself will be a step towards greater education of people on sex, as well as possibly a future bill or revision of this bill which can be more extensive and exact.

However I do feel this current bill is a step in a right direction, and that voting it down will seriously jeopordize any chance of future bills in this area. Especially since many in the United Nations refuse or simply don't know much when it comes to genetics, anatomy, or the extent of variation in the human species.

I must say that I feel compelled to vote against this resolution. My reasoning is not what most might think. It is not compelled by any socal or religous viewpoint that I feel must be enforced on others, but simply a desire to run my nation as I see fit.

The UN should NOT be nor do I believe it was ever MEANT to be a central government and lawgiving entitity for all nations in its pervue. I believe in the soverignty of each nation to determine their own laws and social policies. While I believe that GLOBAL issues such as polution, humanitarian aid, etc are things that would fall under the pervue of the United Nations, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY POLICY MAKING LEGISLATION AFFECTING AN INDIVIDUAL REGION FALLS UNDER THE DICTATES OF THE UNITED NATIONS. Why not just fire all the local governments and let the UN run your country for you, govern it, set its policies, enforce them, etc. Thats NOT what the UN is here for. A vote AGAINST this resolution is not a vote for close mindedness, a vote for hatred, a vote to put your personal views before the welfare of all nations, but instead a vote AGAINST this resolution is to PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS AS A SOVRIGN NATION. Protect your nation's rights!

Workmaina

I think that the UN was meant to protect the civil rights of people world wide. I believe such things as pollution and humanitarian aid are simply a part of human rights. Aside from protecting other species, in stopping pollution we are protecting the health and lives of all people. Humanitarian aid is about helping people who are suffering, be it from natural events such as an earthquake, or people who are starving due to those in power and not acts of nature. Humanitarian is defined as "One who is devoted to the promotion of human welfare and the advancement of social reforms; a philanthropist", and that is exactly what this bill does. Certainly the idea of national healthcare relating to transgendered individuals is arguebly pushing too far, but it is social reform which helps improvished people.

Prussia , Captial City of the Republic of Agnostic Deeishpeople, Millions of Deeishpeople have gathered at the Central Square witnessing the historical U.N vote that is taking place.

The current votes are broadcasted lives on several giant billboards. Many gatherers are setting up tents and staying overnight to watch as the vote progress. Families with small children, straight people, gay people, transgender people all crowded together in the central square, wishing and hoping that the U.N would pass the “Transgender Equality Act” or what is now called the “resolution of humanity” by many Deeishpeople.

“I was a transgender refugee; I came here to seek for a better life. Now there is a chance that my transgender brothers and sisters can have the same rights and freedom that I get to have in this country; I never thought I would witness this in my life time,” Lauren graham said with tears in her eyes.

“Its going to be a close one. The West pacific region hasnt voted yet and it has about 600 some votes. I hope it will pass. The U.N must take a stand now, we cant let this suffering continue for even one more moment. This resolution is the first of its kind, and its now or never,” Peter windfield said emotionally as he holds his transgender wife, Karol Dancefloor, in his arms.

A national poll conducted by KNN shows that 95.5 percent of Deeishpeople support this resolution proposed by the popular government lead by Dee Marx.

Various government officials, including cabinet members and the Prime Minister himself attended this gathering and gave many emotional and powerful speeches that received huge cheers from the crowds.

“I am a heterosexual, non transgender male and I am very proud to have bought this resolution before the U.N,” Dee notes, “ I believe that the United Nations will support this resolution which is essentially about affirming the respect and dignities that all individuals deserves no matter where they come from or what nationalities they have!” Dee exclaimed to a jubilant crowds.

Many gatherers are lighting candles; some are holding signs that read “Silence is Death" or "Just say No to Hate", while others are holding hands and sharing a moment of silence to remember transgender individuals who been murdered due to hatred in other countries;

Your argument of statistics is irrelevant. There are enough laws already in existance to protect such rights that creating a special platform for a single group servers to only the such special interestes that persons like you create. The only thing you are going to accomplish by this is widening the gap of inequality, invaribly you will only incite people more than disuade. So as such, my Government will not submit to this level of abject Tyrany of special interest groups...which group shall this body protect next? How about people who wank-off to animal porn, why not? That is the level we desend to when we ignore that larger protections exist and we allow for special protections to be written in.
No we shall not submit, nor accept such pugent legislation to be enforced upon our people. If at such time this body decideds to return to making sensible desisions and not cater to special interests we may return. Now we must look to our own resolve and protect our Nations Soverinty. I suggest that other Nations who are of the same opion as ours do the same and not submit to this.

This reminds me of the United States documentation which when read it seems pretty clear that All Men were created equal, and yet.... there were civil rights movements... and amendments... which had to further clarify that Everyone was equal. Granted if you read U.S. Supreme court cases, you'd see many respected judges did not feel 'the black man' or 'yellow' or 'red' men were even human, and women most certainly weren't men, and therefore not equal. Yet the United States, and Many other countries had to alter their constitutions, to specify certain minorities (including minorities that world wide were the majority) were indeed equal to 'white land owning literate men'. Granted certain minorities didn't need amendments specifically stating that they should now be considered equal, nor did they need supreme court cases. Some happened naturally over time. As late as 1890 Irish people were not 'white' people, infact they weren't people at all and not entitled to any rights here in America when they first arrived in this country. Many, many Irish claimed to be Protestant Irish from Ulster in the north, and British citizens, when they weren't.

Certain minorities have such well known histories of discrimination, that they are granted some sort of legal documentation specifically stating that they are indeed entitled to those very things promised to others that they were so often denied

Many of us here in the UN have voiced that we believe that the transgendered minority is one that needs such documentation. If the hordes of UN delegates here threatening to kill every transgendered citizen in their country and defy UN law isn't proof that transgendered are discriminated against... Then perhaps when the death toll starts raising (which I suspect many of these countries have pre-emptively started killing their transgendered communities fearing that this bill will pass) perhaps then you will feel guilty and think maybe that you should of voted for this bill, instead of against it. Its better to state something twice, then to let people think you never said it at all.

There are certainly MANY UN delegates that wish to execute or otherwise discriminate against transgendered, and considering the powerful political offices they hold... I think its better we pass this and make sure they realize that the previous legislation did include this minority group.

The Armed RepublicsII acknowledges that if this resolution does come to pass, our esteemed and GLORIOUS country shall with utmost certainty and respect obey the diktats.

AND OF COURSE, we shall provide medical care, from chosen practictioners of medicine, which our esteemed LEADER has recently handpicked. and our police force shall as article 2 advises, be trained in how to deliver justice to the party mentioned.

This proposal most definitely should not have made it past the first stage.

There are spelling errors, let alone the fact that he slipped up at the very beginning by referring to the transgender populace as the transgender people instead of the proper political legal jargon.

This proposal most definitely should not have made it past the first stage.

There are spelling errors, let alone the fact that he slipped up at the very beginning by referring to the transgender populace as the transgender people instead of the proper political legal jargon.

My suggestion is that your nation (and others that agree) remain active and in the future make constructive comments like this when the DRAFT proposals are being discussed. In this particular case, Agnostic Deeishpeople had a very long thread dedicated to JUST the proposal and *asked* for feedback. If there is a failure at work, it is the fault is shared amongst us all.

I'm usually pretty picky about formatting, and even the best resolutions have errors or mistakes.

Now my question is, are you going to vote against this resolution based on spelling errors or on its content? Or are you planning on voting in favour or against? The reason I ask is because I've been updating the NSWiki entries, and will only be including quotes from ambassadors that actually discuss the subject matter at hand, not its window dressing. Call me silly, but I'm a meat and potatoes kinda guy and given that nobody else has done much of anything with the UN material on NSWiki in eons, I don't think a protest that I've omitted tens of comments "But this has spelling errors" is going have much sway. ;)

Seriously, to everybody, give me a "diplomatic" roleplayed speech or two on the content of the resolution, and I'll find some of the more interesting comments from all three sides: pro, con, abstain, and try to work them in.

As an aside, I've not made my vote public yet, because I've not cast my vote.

My suggestion is that your nation (and others that agree) remain active and in the future make constructive comments like this when the DRAFT proposals are being discussed. In this particular case, Agnostic Deeishpeople had a very long thread dedicated to JUST the proposal and *asked* for feedback. If there is a failure at work, it is the fault is shared amongst us all.

I'm usually pretty picky about formatting, and even the best resolutions have errors or mistakes.

Now my question is, are you going to vote against this resolution based on spelling errors or on its content? Or are you planning on voting in favour or against? The reason I ask is because I've been updating the NSWiki entries, and will only be including quotes from ambassadors that actually discuss the subject matter at hand, not its window dressing. Call me silly, but I'm a meat and potatoes kinda guy and given that nobody else has done much of anything with the UN material on NSWiki in eons, I don't think a protest that I've omitted tens of comments "But this has spelling errors" is going have much sway. ;)

Seriously, to everybody, give me a "diplomatic" roleplayed speech or two on the content of the resolution, and I'll find some of the more interesting comments from all three sides: pro, con, abstain, and try to work them in.

As an aside, I've not made my vote public yet, because I've not cast my vote.


Hey , i just wrote an article!!

And yeah, i made a long thread. The simple fact is many people dont want to talk about this issue and are absolutely unwilling to talk about this issue until they are forced to.

"its now or never"

"silence is death"

these are the quotes that I love.

And of course I urge you to vote in support for this resolution. =D

The Armed RepublicsII acknowledges that if this resolution does come to pass, our esteemed and GLORIOUS country shall with utmost certainty and respect obey the diktats.

AND OF COURSE, we shall provide medical care, from chosen practictioners of medicine, which our esteemed LEADER has recently handpicked. and our police force shall as article 2 advises, be trained in how to deliver justice to the party mentioned.


Thank you. But I like to stress that no police officers have to attend anti-discrimination trainning if they dont want to.

I have no idea if this resolution will pass or not. The West pacific hasnt voted yet, and if it votes against this resolution, it will be almost exactly tied.

Hey , i just wrote an article!!

And yeah, i made a long thread. The simple fact is many people dont want to talk about this issue and are absolutely unwilling to talk about this issue until they are forced to.

"its now or never"

"silence is death"

these are the quotes that I love.

And of course I urge you to vote in support for this resolution. =D

Also keep in mind, that a limited few can view drafts. I'd have loved to comment on the draft but not being a regional delegate I can't.

Also keep in mind, that a limited few can view drafts. I'd have loved to comment on the draft but not being a regional delegate I can't.
It was discussed in this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434830) thread from 29 July - 2 August, and in this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=435671&page=1&pp=15) thread from 3 August - 13 August. You don't need to be a regional delegate to comment on a proposed resolution.

It was discussed in this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434830) thread from 29 July - 2 August, and in this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=435671&page=1&pp=15) thread from 3 August - 13 August. You don't need to be a regional delegate to comment on a proposed resolution.

Sory about that, new to the UN (obviously), only have to be a regional delegate then to vote on wether to add it to the docket of bills to vote on then?

Sory about that, new to the UN (obviously), only have to be a regional delegate then to vote on wether to add it to the docket of bills to vote on then?
Thats right. Anyone can come to the UN forum and discuss them, not just delegates.

Hey , i just wrote an article!!

OOC: I saw that, and it will certainly be referenced. :)

And of course I urge you to vote in support for this resolution. =D

Our Council of Mayors (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Council_of_Mayors) is still deliberating. The threats of war (OOC: and godmoding) actually tend to highlight that this is a significant decision. However, civil rights groups are camped out outside the Chamber of Mayors and are demanding we cast our vote in favour.

At the same time, many of our allies have voted against!

In response to the queries of various media outlets operting from Mikitivity, and with the hope of lending a different perspective to those delagate still debating if and how to vote, an anonymous inside source from the delegation from the Community of the Frozen Chosen has issued the following statement.

"While protecting transgendered individuals is very important, some grave concerns about the wording of this resolution and its ramifications have driven our delegation to formally abstain from voting.
First, we have been listening to delegates from nations with different, and in our opinion, more enlightened methods of handling gender issues (as well as species issues). The threat this reolution (specifically Article 5) may pose to their system frightens us.
Second, our legal team has pointed out to us some grammatical issues that may create loopholes.
any transgender person should receive the same right as everyone else residing in all U.N member countries.
The use of "right" instead of "rights" could lead to some creatively dispicable interpretations of what this "one right" of UN citizens is. Also, the recurring use of "should" make much of this resolution little more than a suggestion. Given the obvious opposition to allowing rights to transgendered people, I personally believe stronger language is warrented. Similar non-discrimination laws protecting the transgendered was recently passed in our community and the wording was quite absolute. Many members of our great nation would like to see similarly strong language placed before the UN. Furthermore, ourexperts have concluded that the term "anti-transgender training" meant to allow law officers to "adequately and sufficiently deliver justice to members of the transgender community", leaves room for a truely "anti-trangender" movement, training officers to abuse the transgender without causing a UN violation.
Finally, the presumption in Article 4, "Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally", stated as the responsability of the member nation, is harrowing. I am sorrowed that my delegation chose not to bring this issue to light due to our decision to abstain. This line opens the door for individuals to blame the nation for any psychological or emotional issues they may have. Is it the governments fault that my date stood me up last night? Can I sue my local government because I am anti-social? While the government should certainly do what it can to help, to imply that it is somehow legally responsibly for psychological and emotional problems is ludicrious. I'm sure it's not the intended reading, but will that stop someone looking for an excuse to blame the governmental leaders for their woes?

I consider this enough evidence to vote against the proposal, but due to the overwhelming support of transgender rights within our community the delegation has chosen to abstain, and unfortunately avoid debate on the issue as well. I hope the UN will avoid kneejerk voting and actually consider the resolution and weigh its flaws before letting it pass."

Anonymous reporter: "So, can you summarize you message to the delegates? Because a nice tasty soundbite for the morning news might be nice..."

Source: "Given the close margin everyone's vote counts. Read carefully, think, and don't make a choice you'll regret."

In other news, Horacio Doan, Deputy Director of Foreign Affairs for The Community of the Frozen Chosen, has issued a formal request to the NSUN Gazette to submit their evidence on the recently reported rescue of 800,000 gay and transgender individuals to the official Committee on Awards set to convene next week. the Committee would like to see if there is sufficient evidence to bestow a governmental award on the organizers of this heroic action, and if so, who the awards should be delivered to.

It is also rumored that many villages have been arranging accomadations for potential transgender refugees. While the shelters may be simple, may local charity organizations appear to be bracing for the possibiliy of genocide in many countries if this resolution passes. Some reports claim former transgender citizens of The Big Warboski may already be living in these rural camps. While the government has made no statement thus far, The Community of the Frozen Chosen has accepted the outcasts of other societies in the past with open arms.
Some staff members at the office of regional ambassador Kenny Lasalle, however, have mentioned concerns regarding retatiation for housing transgender individuals liberated from certain militaristic governments. That was the unofficial reported reason the Frozen Chosen has not offered to aid in staging liberation attempts, such as the one reported in The Big Warboski, or in officially helping to handle the large numbers of transgenders that may be rescued.

Statement released by the Prime Minister office.

"There is a historical vote that is taking place. When you vote yes to this resolution, you are supporting the rights of all transgender employees to be treated fairly by their employers; when you vote yes to this resolution; you are supporting one’s ability to act and dress without fear of not conforming to gender stereotype; when you vote yes for this resolution; you are sending the message that it is not okay for law enforcement officers to show bias against transgender victims of hate crimes and that they are worthy citizens that deserve equal protection; when you vote yes to this resolution; you are voting to support the transgender person who wants to be legally recognized for his or her true gender. And finally, when you vote yes to this resolution, you are voting to honor the many anonymous and unknown victims who have been discriminated against or murdered because of their gender identities.

Support the suffering and the dead; Stop the pain and discrimination – Vote Yes. "

In response to the queries of various media outlets operting from Mikitivity, and with the hope of lending a different perspective to those delagate still debating if and how to vote, an anonymous inside source from the delegation from the Community of the Frozen Chosen has issued the following statement.


OOC: Just to set the record straight, I own *one* puppet: Intl Red Cross. They've not posted in this thread, and only chime in on issues related to their charter or when players are proposing to expanding their role (and budget) ... amazingly something they tend to like. ;) Anyways, media posts aren't being pinned by my hand. I'll be writing a post - vote entry probably next Monday night.

The People's Republic of Cantt shall be resigning from the United Nations if this stupid resolution does infact go through...

To all members of this august assembly,

The Fiefdom of Tagheueria [henceforth referred to as Tagheueria] feels the need to make our stand clear on this issue, given how close the vote is right now. Tagheueria has voted against The Transgender Equality Bill placed before this house on the following grounds:

1. That the charter of the United Nations (henceforth referred to as the UN) underlines a determination to hold to a policy of 'non-interference in the internal affairs of states'. As such, while we accept that the UN has some jurisdiction over issues which are clearly of international concern e.g. pollution and war, we feel that this Bill is an unwarranted extension of the rights currently in place protecting the human rights of men and women. We are concerned about a slippery slope effect in which passing this Bill would set a precedent for the UN to continue its interference into areas which are out of its concern.

2. The legitimacy of transgender individuals' rights are not accepted universally, as can be seen from the substantial opposition already existing to this Bill. Unlike previous precedents of race and gender, where the international community acted almost unanimously to endorse one point of view (e.g. apartheid in S. Africa; womens' rights movement), the transgender community is one which is not recognised in many countries in the UN, and as such our stand is that passing this Bill would be imposing a value judgment on countries which are not ready to accept it.

3. The practical consequences of this Bill are detrimental. While we accept that the transgender community should not be subjected to abuse nor torture, in our opinion passing this Bill would only lead to a backlash from communities which are completely unwilling to accept transgender rights. In such a likely scenario, the lives of declared transsexuals would be compromised, and to impose this uniformly on all UN members would be to invite disruption of peace and stability which is likely to be even more detrimental to the safety of transsexuals.

Tagheueria is willing to implement a policy which recognises transsexuals as equals, but only when faced with support and recognition from the population , and we condemn the UN's attempt at implementing a 'one-size-fits-all' approach. This simply exceeds the boundaries and safeguards set forth in the UN Charter, and on such a delicate and controversial issue such as transgender rights, we feel compelled to oppose.

This is an official statement by the government of The Fiefdom of Tagheueria.

The delegation from the Allied States of Socratic Self-Doubt has cast its vote against the Resolution.

The ASSSD supports the notion that all citizens are equally valuable. For this reason, it endorses the emotional sentiment behind the Proposal. It applauds the Republic of Agnostic Deeishpeople and its compassionate appeal for the acceptance of transgendered minorities into the wider folds of their various societies.

However, because the Allied States holds all citizens in equal regard, it believes governments no more empowered to strip rights from one group than to strip them from another. Though transgendered persons are human beings and are therefore entitled to live however they may choose, so too are all citizens, and therefore are all citizens entitled to choose to hire, fire, promote, or train whomever they wish on whatever grounds they wish; and, as well, to choose to administer medical service to whomever they wish on whatever grounds they wish. The latter rights are indeed the equivalent of the former: to prohibit some men to do as they wish with their property, their money, and their skills is to deny those men their right to live as they choose. To support the Resolution is to crown government the supreme arbiter of right and wrong: it is a bold statement that the government has found the proper way to live, and yours is not it. It is to say: "You are not enlightened. We are enlightened." What is the UN to call itself God and elevate some life-choices scornfully above others? What is the UN to set the moral code?

The government of the Allied States of Socratic Self-Doubt therefore condemns this Proposal as further evidence of an apparent UN goal to cast all people in the same ideological mold. The ASSSD stands foremost for freedom of choice; the UN, it seems, for all its bombast, does not.

The UN cannot go on trampling the rights of men and proclaiming victory for freedom. The delegation from the Allied States votes No.

A vote for this resolution is a vote against the rights to run our regions autonomously.

Wow, I really don't think that this resolution will be passed..The gap that is between yay and nay is closing so rapidly...

I dont mind letting transgender ppl be equal in my country, but giving them extra funging, as said by Canada 6. It would be completely unfair, equality is important, but all ppl should do is enforce equality in having cross gender and cross nationality classes, that way ppl will grow up with the fact that there are ppl that will be different. The treatment should be allowed put it should only be in private surgery, not payed for by the goverment!
It is things like that that enfuriate me to the brink of quiting the U.N as no1 has a right to do this, as Tagheueria said,
This is a matter for the nation, and nation alone, to decide whether transgender ppl should be aloud!

MikeyMania

My suggestion is that your nation (and others that agree) remain active and in the future make constructive comments like this when the DRAFT proposals are being discussed. In this particular case, Agnostic Deeishpeople had a very long thread dedicated to JUST the proposal and *asked* for feedback. If there is a failure at work, it is the fault is shared amongst us all.

I'm usually pretty picky about formatting, and even the best resolutions have errors or mistakes.

Now my question is, are you going to vote against this resolution based on spelling errors or on its content? Or are you planning on voting in favour or against? The reason I ask is because I've been updating the NSWiki entries, and will only be including quotes from ambassadors that actually discuss the subject matter at hand, not its window dressing. Call me silly, but I'm a meat and potatoes kinda guy and given that nobody else has done much of anything with the UN material on NSWiki in eons, I don't think a protest that I've omitted tens of comments "But this has spelling errors" is going have much sway.

The Holy Empire of Gravlen would like to comment on the statement made by the honourable delegate from Mikitivity.

As a nation with a relatively small delegation present at the UN, we simply do not have neither the time nor the manpower to participate in every debate about draft proposals. We would very much like to, but at the present time we focus our attention at the official debates concerning the resolutions at vote. As such, we feel that our protests concerning a resolutions format and wording deserves to be taken seriously. We respectfully remind the delegate that it is, after all, the resolution as it is now that is subject for the debate and the vote, not the intentions behind it.

We refer to our previous statements in this matter, as well as the honourable delegate from The Frozen Chosen (#298) whom articulated many our concerns quite well.

So to sum up, our two main objections continue to be:
1) We feel that previous resolutions have covered all of the most important aspects of this resolution.
2) It is simply not written well enough. Spelling errors aside, the text is lacking.

If the UN was voting purely on the basis of the intentions of resolutions, we might very well have supported this proposal. As that is not the case, the vote of the Holy Empire of Gravlen continue to be against this resolution.

All hail!

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

Ambassador Alex Osprey
To the good peoples of the UN we send greetings.
Taflagar has many issues with the UN voting policy specifically the delegate system which we suspect has caused some of the problems with UN representation.
We would prefer one nation one vote but it appears such is not to be.
The trans-gender issue along with the Microcredit issue appears to be the UN attempting to meddle in national politics. Trans-gendered people in Taflagar have the same rights as anyone else and if trans-gendered are indeed equal why do they require special laws to protect them? Is discrimination of any group acceptable? If we pass this then should we not pass one for gay persons or people of different ethnicities? Why are we making special INTERNATIONAL laws for one special group? Because I am not a special group does that mean I will not get the same special treatment this group is asking for? Why do we need a special law when earlier UN legislation ALREADY covers the people in this issues?
These are the key questions that need to be answered.
We have no issues with this in Taflagar everyone is equal under our bill of rights and even within the UN this issue is already addressed in earlier legislation. To the Republic of Taflagar this is redundant and frivolous legislation that is a waste of this organizations time. The current proposal is a flawed piece of legislation that amounts to trans-gendered persons wanting to get national subsidies to have special cosmetic medical care done. If this proposal passes what next, the Penis enlargement proposal so that all men will be one foot equal? If I can show there is an increased suicide rate for small penis men we should enact immediate legislation for medical procedures to fix the problem? This existing bill has many problems but Taflagars biggest issue is with the trend that the UN legislation is following. We have misgivings about the delegate system giving fair representation to members. This may be the reason we are seeing what we consider special interest legislation. The other issue is if most of the rest of the world is not a part of the UN what is the benefit of the organization? Recently the anti-nuclear stance was repealed when it was pointed out that the UN was the only area at a disadvantage by the passage of the act.
Human rights issues do need to be addressed by this group but NOT as special interests, but for humanity in general. We of Taflagar view the purpose of the UN as an organization that need to attract membership by acting in ALL the parties best interest. If an issue comes to the floor it must be of benefit to all members and not a special interest group.
For Taflagar this vote will determine our continued participation in the UN.

To all members of this august assembly,

The Fiefdom of Tagheueria [henceforth referred to as Tagheueria] feels the need to make our stand clear on this issue, given how close the vote is right now. Tagheueria has voted against The Transgender Equality Bill placed before this house on the following grounds:

1. That the charter of the United Nations (henceforth referred to as the UN)

What charter is it that you speak of. I am not aware of a charter for the Nation States United Nations (henceforth referred to as the NSUN)

OOC: This is not the RL UN

underlines a determination to hold to a policy of 'non-interference in the internal affairs of states'. As such, while we accept that the UN has some jurisdiction over issues which are clearly of international concern e.g. pollution and war, we feel that this Bill is an unwarranted extension of the rights currently in place protecting the human rights of men and women. We are concerned about a slippery slope effect in which passing this Bill would set a precedent for the UN to continue its interference into areas which are out of its concern.

Human rights, by precedent of this NSUN, is accepted as an area worthy of interference by the NSUN

2. The legitimacy of transgender individuals' rights are not accepted universally, as can be seen from the substantial opposition already existing to this Bill.

Which is the reason this bill was put forth

Unlike previous precedents of race and gender, where the international community acted almost unanimously to endorse one point of view

We have rarely acted unanimously on anything - and I don't think women's or race rights were given anything close to unanimous consideration

(e.g. apartheid in S. Africa; womens' rights movement),

NSUN != RLUN

the transgender community is one which is not recognised in many countries in the UN, and as such our stand is that passing this Bill would be imposing a value judgment on countries which are not ready to accept it.

The intent of the bill - because whether those countries accept these people or not, they exist and they should be protected

3. The practical consequences of this Bill are detrimental. While we accept that the transgender community should not be subjected to abuse nor torture, in our opinion passing this Bill would only lead to a backlash from communities which are completely unwilling to accept transgender rights. In such a likely scenario, the lives of declared transsexuals would be compromised, and to impose this uniformly on all UN members would be to invite disruption of peace and stability which is likely to be even more detrimental to the safety of transsexuals.

I do not accept such an argument as justification against passing this resolution. While I know it exists, these people who are discriminated against by the passing of this resolution as "backlash" would have been discriminated against in the normal course of life. While we would see a huge "backlash" general assault on these people, it would continue and be continuous over time and the end result is more people would suffer before the world came to its senses and accepted these people as equals. In a similar note, we see the same things with homosexuals

As far as my government is concerned, any lives lost due to the passing of this resolution in the transgender or homosexual communities, they are lives already lost - for there is no guarantee that they would be any safer in those countries without this resolution

Tagheueria is willing to implement a policy which recognises transsexuals as equals, but only when faced with support and recognition from the population , and we condemn the UN's attempt at implementing a 'one-size-fits-all' approach.

When that time comes - and it likely won't without action by the state - too many lives will already be lost and too many souls will have been radically discriminated against. As such, I refuse to wait this long

This simply exceeds the boundaries and safeguards set forth in the UN Charter, and on such a delicate and controversial issue such as transgender rights, we feel compelled to oppose.

This is an official statement by the government of The Fiefdom of Tagheueria.


---------------------------
Ambassador Alex Osprey
To the good peoples of the UN we send greetings.
Taflagar has many issues with the UN voting policy specifically the delegate system which we suspect has caused some of the problems with UN representation.
We would prefer one nation one vote but it appears such is not to be.

This is a technical issue about the setup of the UN and is not justified as a question of discussion here. The Delegate votes have been an accepted form of representation since the UN was founded.

The trans-gender issue along with the Microcredit issue appears to be the UN attempting to meddle in national politics. Trans-gendered people in Taflagar have the same rights as anyone else and if trans-gendered are indeed equal why do they require special laws to protect them? Is discrimination of any group acceptable? If we pass this then should we not pass one for gay persons or people of different ethnicities?

Done and done, in fact, several times for gay people

Why are we making special INTERNATIONAL laws for one special group?

Because they have been excluded from past resolutions

Because I am not a special group does that mean I will not get the same special treatment this group is asking for? Why do we need a special law when earlier UN legislation ALREADY covers the people in this issues?

I know many people claim that, but I do not necessarily agree.

These are the key questions that need to be answered.
We have no issues with this in Taflagar everyone is equal under our bill of rights and even within the UN this issue is already addressed in earlier legislation. To the Republic of Taflagar this is redundant and frivolous legislation that is a waste of this organizations time. The current proposal is a flawed piece of legislation that amounts to trans-gendered persons wanting to get national subsidies to have special cosmetic medical care done.

There is no requirement whatsoever for nations to fund transgender people. Please re-read the text.

If this proposal passes what next, the Penis enlargement proposal so that all men will be one foot equal? If I can show there is an increased suicide rate for small penis men we should enact immediate legislation for medical procedures to fix the problem?

If they can be provided, they should exist. Whether you fund them is your nation's choice - just as it is your nation's choice to fund these procedures

This existing bill has many problems but Taflagars biggest issue is with the trend that the UN legislation is following. We have misgivings about the delegate system giving fair representation to members. This may be the reason we are seeing what we consider special interest legislation. The other issue is if most of the rest of the world is not a part of the UN what is the benefit of the organization? Recently the anti-nuclear stance was repealed when it was pointed out that the UN was the only area at a disadvantage by the passage of the act.
Human rights issues do need to be addressed by this group but NOT as special interests, but for humanity in general. We of Taflagar view the purpose of the UN as an organization that need to attract membership by acting in ALL the parties best interest. If an issue comes to the floor it must be of benefit to all members and not a special interest group.
For Taflagar this vote will determine our continued participation in the UN.

Gotta get to work, I'll debate the rest later

This resolution is about equality, plain and simple. There may be many excuses for opposing this resolution but I think the real reason for those who do is that they don't understand what it means to be transgendered and don't believe they're equal. I think it's hard for most people to understand exactly what it means to be transgendered, myself included. However, this does not cause me to believe they deserve any less than equality and acceptance. This bill might be comprehensive but it's certainly not too far reaching in its scope and that's why I voted yes.

I have been shocked at some of the Resolutions that have been passed during my membership to the UN but this one takes the cake. When did transgender equality become an issue one if they're true transvestite then we should not be able to tell the difference only if they were to tell us about it would it be known. To be frank it is not only unnecessary it is unreasonable the measure calls everyone of the transvestites sick and confessed so by all measures the bill itself is discriminative. Basically put I don’t agree with this bill and it should be voted down. :gundge:

The rogue nation of rakua beleives that instead of being a law, that this should become an issue each nation may take up within its own government

((a.k.a. make it an issue!!!))

The trans-gender issue along with the Microcredit issue appears to be the UN attempting to meddle in national politics. :(

But, but, but...

But I'm on your side!

The Holy Empire of Gravlen would like to comment on the statement made by the honourable delegate from Mikitivity.

As a nation with a relatively small delegation present at the UN, we simply do not have neither the time nor the manpower to participate in every debate about draft proposals.

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

Ambassador Hinderschmidt, you are thinking as an individual, when in fact there are likely other nations that share your nation's opinion on what constitutes a quality resolution.

I'm convinced that very few nations coming out and speaking against a resolution are likely to change the votes that have already been cast ... thus if you are looking to really improve the quality of UN resolutions, you need not participate in "every debate", just a few.

The nice thing about the UN debates is that you can filter subjects by number of posts or number of views. Topics, particularly proposals, that have a higher number of views are more likely to also have interested proponents whom will telegram campaign and get their idea into the resolution queue.

The solution isn't to complain about dotted i's and crossed t's, but find some allies and share the burden of looking for ways to provide input to UN draft proposals *before* those issues make it to the UN floor. The reason this is important, as many nations do in fact look straight into the "intent" of a resolution. The impact of resolutions is measured purely by a general change in our collective government's attitudes ... the text of a resolution is only important in how *future* resolutions deal with similar topics. (OOC: Game mechanics change our stats, but don't tell us EXACTLY how we implement resolutions, game _rules_ also indicate that the text matters when submitting future proposals -- i.e. the legal part is really a burden only for proposal authors, not nations that have very little time to participate.)

UN resolutions are but a statement and reflection of international will, and as such the words are in fact much less important than the meaning behind those words. That is why it is crucial that resolution authors be on hand to answer *questions* about their resolutions. None of our nations is a UN powerhouse, none of our nations can address and discuss every draft proposal, but if more nations spend more time on the draft legislation instead of only visiting the UN during debate time, together we can make "pretty" words to match our "nice" ideas.

Howie T. Katzman

I disagree. The previous resolutions did not add "gender expression or identities" as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Also, the legalization of sex reassignment surgeries and the changing of one's legal gender were not mentioned.

They did, mentioning "sexes" and "sexual orientation" several times (which could be interpreted as gender expression/identity). Also, matters of surgery should be left to medical experts, and not be legalized through a UN resolution. Apart from that, it's hardly an international issue. If SRS is forbidden by law, you go to another country. Simple as that. It's not as if transgenders are suddenly accepted in countries that oppose this legislation, and it's certainly not as if those countries will suddenly be a nice place to live for transgenders.

That a trasgender person make that change by choice.

Gay - Lesbians and hetro's are by natrual law.

We in Splurvia attest to those right and refuse to have our soveren rights trampled!

We in Splurvia attest to those right and refuse to have our soveren rights trampled!
There's not a whole lot this resolution makes nations do anyway. I mean, beyond the fact that much of it is already covered by previous resolutions, this resolution isn't exactly the most anti-sovereigntist piece of legislation out there.

The solution isn't to complain about dotted i's and crossed t's, but find some allies and share the burden of looking for ways to provide input to UN draft proposals *before* those issues make it to the UN floor.

However, sir, it is still difficult to keep up with the proposals and participate in each and every debate, and even if one does, the authors of the worst proposals tend not to listen to the criticism. I very much doubt that the author of this resolution would have listened to the only advise I would have had, which is "stop bothering with this resolution, it's pointless, already covered by earlier resolutions". Many authors and others here in the UN take the time to look at the archives to see what actually happened before they joined.

I think that is what Gravlen is trying to say, and personally, with more than a year's worth of UN experience most of which spent as a Regional UN Delegate, I have to agree with him.

The vote is extremely close. Everyone make up your mind and vote before server reset today.

The vote is extremely close. Everyone make up your mind and vote before server reset today.


how many hours left before the vote close and the server reset?, please

Whoa, big shift...


Votes For: 6,896

Votes Against: 7,085

The delegate of Anusland states that "And yet we let freaks exist - so let them be freaks....".

As if we were not letting them be freaks?

The delegate of Anusland goes on:
"I find it hilarious you turn try to turn this around by using a quote from a book trying to talk about taking away people's rights to think for themselves and believe what they want to believe against a resolution that's trying to let people who believe they are something believe they are that thing and become it."

And I find it utterly laughable that you, delegate of Anusland, are such a bad and shallow reader!

Such people are already allowed to believe "they are that thing and become it." However, this asinine and tyrannical law demands that we must all believe what these poor demented souls believe. In other words, if the Party demands that 2 + 2 = 5, than it must be so.

For starters, this tyrannical law demands that we "Acknowledge that Gender Identity Disorder is a recognized health issue that involves a person’s brain sex being different than his or her biological sex."

This is questionable to say the least, and raises the issue of mental disorder (hence the name).

Article 4 of this tyranny states that: "Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally therefore; Sex Reassignment Surgeries and Hormonal treatments should be legal and reasonably accessible"

In other words, compelling the rest of us to pay for them.

"to people who have GID. Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse treatments to a transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people."

In other words, compelling us to participate in their delusions.

"People who support your viewpoints (I can't remember if you've stated them)

I didn't, but I reasoned that they were implicit.

"are trying to tell us that these people need psychological help for their very mental state is wrong an needs to be "fixed" - a concept heavily used Big Brother....in the Ministry of Love....to "fix" those who do not love the state."

While these people probably DO need help, it is not our responsibility to give it to them, and we are happy to let them be. However, this tyrannical monstrosity demands that we must "help them" ("helping them" here defined as "indulging them").

"its now or never"

Elvis is Dead; buy the CDs instead.

"silence is death"

Then SHUT UP AND DIE! No sympathy for those with no responsibility.

The People of Sluggotopia feel that those minorities involved in a Transgendered lifestyle have just the same rights as any minority out there. Be it Black, Hispanic, Asian, German, Czech, Polish, Arabian..etc....it doesn't matter.

There is no right race out there, and we are all created equal. That is why We Love to Hate Each other. :fluffle:

However, sir, it is still difficult to keep up with the proposals and participate in each and every debate, and even if one does, the authors of the worst proposals tend not to listen to the criticism. I very much doubt that the author of this resolution would have listened to the only advise I would have had, which is "stop bothering with this resolution, it's pointless, already covered by earlier resolutions".

I think that is what Gravlen is trying to say, and personally, with more than a year's worth of UN experience most of which spent as a Regional UN Delegate, I have to agree with him.

While I agree that advice such as "don't bother" is not likely to be heeded, if the issue being debated is grammar, then what I've done in some cases it simply rewritten the proposed resolution and posted my corrected version in public view. If the author then refuses to accept pointers on typos, I've had my say and feel no shame pointing out the error again.

Constructive advise is something we need. It need not focus every proposal, but when a discussion on a proposal gets a few pages along, it probably is worth bringing up.

In other news, due to protests outside of the Council of Mayors by civil rights groups and complaints coming in from sovereign rights advocacy groups, my government plans to abstain from voting on this resolution. The turning point for my government came when early this morning a fight broke out between activists from both points of view.

The delegate of Anusland

Oh, this is going to be fun :D

states that "And yet we let freaks exist - so let them be freaks....".

As if we were not letting them be freaks?

I am curious as to why you believe it is necessary for one to be pushed into not being, as you so lovingly call it, "a freak". We protect "freaks of nature" - whether they be mentally/physically handicapped/deformed people, we protect people where the world is divisive on whether they are freaks or not (homosexuals and transgenders to name a few). We protect people that are not what this world considers to be perfect because we believe that they are still human beings and therefore still have rights.

The delegate of Anusland goes on:
"I find it hilarious you turn try to turn this around by using a quote from a book trying to talk about taking away people's rights to think for themselves and believe what they want to believe against a resolution that's trying to let people who believe they are something believe they are that thing and become it."

And I find it utterly laughable that you, delegate of Anusland, are such a bad and shallow reader!

Such people are already allowed to believe "they are that thing and become it." However, this asinine and tyrannical law demands that we must all believe what these poor demented souls believe. In other words, if the Party demands that 2 + 2 = 5, than it must be so.

No, no, no. You fail to understand the very basic logic of human rights. The entire concept is that the government ALLOWS these people to do what they do. The government doesn't have to believe them, they just have to believe that these people have the right to believe in what they want to believe in. We aren't forcing anyone to believe ANYTHING. We are forcing them to accept that these people believe in something.

To deny these people these rights is to say "your belief is wrong" and therefore are FORCING them to believe in what you believe. If you give them the right, you are not FORCING your people to believe in the same thing, just that they are required to accept this person as believing that and to not discriminate against them for that belief.

For starters, this tyrannical law demands that we "Acknowledge that Gender Identity Disorder is a recognized health issue that involves a person’s brain sex being different than his or her biological sex."

This is questionable to say the least, and raises the issue of mental disorder (hence the name).

Fine - call it a disorder. Perhaps you're even correct. That doesn't mean, however, that you can't let these people choose their method of seeking treatment for this disorder

Article 4 of this tyranny states that: "Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally therefore; Sex Reassignment Surgeries and Hormonal treatments should be legal and reasonably accessible"

In other words, compelling the rest of us to pay for them.

Tell me, where does it mention that you must PAY for these procedures? Only a local law would demand that. There is no statement saying that you can't force the individual to pay for them, just that if the individual has the money to pay for them, they be permitted to get the procedure

"to people who have GID. Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse treatments to a transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people."

In other words, compelling us to participate in their delusions.

*sighs*. We are giving the patient the right to choose his form of treatment - whether it be a physical change or a mental change - as opposed to the doctor's

"People who support your viewpoints (I can't remember if you've stated them)

I didn't, but I reasoned that they were implicit.

"are trying to tell us that these people need psychological help for their very mental state is wrong an needs to be "fixed" - a concept heavily used Big Brother....in the Ministry of Love....to "fix" those who do not love the state."

While these people probably DO need help, it is not our responsibility to give it to them, and we are happy to let them be. However, this tyrannical monstrosity demands that we must "help them" ("helping them" here defined as "indulging them").

No - it orders that you make the help available and protect them from being harmed.

Now - I do believe flamebaiting is illegal - which calling me "Anusland" would be classified as. Either grow up or piss off.

Whoa, big shift...

Votes For: 6,896
Votes Against: 7,085

That was the West Pacific weighing in -- over 600 votes right there.

Many of the feeder Delegates vote based on telegram and forum discussions. It is my highest recommendation that every region maintain an embassy with the feeder regions. :)

YES!! No is ahead of yes!! Maybe my hard no campaining worked off!!

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:


roflmfao HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA(BREATH)hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Not sure about the Pacific, but all of the other feeders have voted against - 1,800 no votes there. Looks bad for the resolution now...

I thought the world had got to a place where ensuring everyone had equal rights would be easy to do.

The Queendom of LGBTers pleads with you to vote for this bill

The trans community is an underrepresented subsection of community who have as mant rights as the rest of us adn deserve the right to let there birth certificatem match their gender identity adn gender expretion

I am urginf you to please do the right thing by your people adn vote for this bill

Queen Chris

The Christian Confederacy of Clan Collin can not, in good Biblical standards, vote for this bill that would grant legitimacy to such evil acts.
The Christian Confederacy of Clan Collin also urges all Nations to vote against this bill.

The celebrations are nonstop. It is a joyous day that this worthless peice of legislation was soundly defeated by this body of peers. I applaud all memebers who stood firm in their resolve that this issue should not become a law thrust upon us defying our sanctity as Soverign Nations.
We within in the lands of Cambrion stand firm in our commitment that everyone is equal within the eyes of the law and fully deserving of the protections provided therein. We will not however, stoop to special interestes that claim their choise of lifestyle demands greater protections than the rest of society. Now that this debat is behind us, let us look to the future, set aside such special interest legislation and move forward.

Glad to see that the resolution was defeated.

[Transgender Resolution] :sniper:

The Beautifully Natural People of Greedandmoria formally invite all Nay-Voting States to its house for a kegger. :D :) :cool:

This is a sad day indeed

Prussia , Captial City of the Republic of Agnostic Deeishpeople, Millions of Deeishpeople have gathered at the Central Square witnessing the historical U.N vote that is taking place.

The current votes are broadcasted lives on several giant billboards. Many gatherers are setting up tents and staying overnight to watch as the vote progress. Families with small children, straight people, gay people, transgender people all crowded together in the central square, wishing and hoping that the U.N would pass the “Transgender Equality Act” or what is now called the “resolution of humanity” by many Deeishpeople.

“I was a transgender refugee; I came here to seek for a better life. Now there is a chance that my transgender brothers and sisters can have the same rights and freedom that I get to have in this country; I never thought I would witness this in my life time,” Lauren graham said with tears in her eyes.

“Its going to be a close one. The West pacific region hasnt voted yet and it has about 600 some votes. I hope it will pass. The U.N must take a stand now, we cant let this suffering continue for even one more moment. This resolution is the first of its kind, and its now or never,” Peter windfield said emotionally as he holds his transgender wife, Karol Dancefloor, in his arms.

A national poll conducted by KNN shows that 95.5 percent of Deeishpeople support this resolution proposed by the popular government lead by Dee Marx.

Various government officials, including cabinet members and the Prime Minister himself attended this gathering and gave many emotional and powerful speeches that received huge cheers from the crowds.

“I am a heterosexual, non transgender male and I am very proud to have bought this resolution before the U.N,” Dee notes, “ I believe that the United Nations will support this resolution which is essentially about affirming the respect and dignities that all individuals deserves no matter where they come from or what nationalities they have!” Dee exclaimed to a jubilant crowds.

Many gatherers are lighting candles; some are holding signs that read “Silence is Death" or "Just say No to Hate", while others are holding hands and sharing a moment of silence to remember transgender individuals who been murdered due to hatred in other countries;


*Paces up and down in his office, wrangling with himself on the insde about the merits of lobbing an 8 Megaton Citykiller at their vigil.*

:gundge:
:eek:
:cool:
:confused:

They did, mentioning "sexes" and "sexual orientation" several times (which could be interpreted as gender expression/identity). Also, matters of surgery should be left to medical experts, and not be legalized through a UN resolution. Apart from that, it's hardly an international issue. If SRS is forbidden by law, you go to another country. Simple as that. It's not as if transgenders are suddenly accepted in countries that oppose this legislation, and it's certainly not as if those countries will suddenly be a nice place to live for transgenders.


So lets not pass gay rights law, since those countires will not suddenly be a nice place to live for homosexuals.

Anyways, the resolution is defeated.
Bigotry won the day.

Goodbye.

So lets not pass gay rights law, since those countires will not suddenly be a nice place to live for homosexuals.

Anyways, the resolution is defeated.
Bigotry won the day.

Goodbye.

*leaps at the blue button recessed into his desk.....only to be grabbed by two aides who pour me a triple JD and send down for two palace dancers*

On a more serious note; why do you turn into a child and turn on the people whom you were begging for votes not so long ago. Many of the nations here have adequate protections and facilities for the people covered by your [failed] proposals.

Anyway, the palace dancers are here. I bid you good day and good luck.

PS - Xenophobia would have been a much better insult.

*takes one last lingering look at the glowing blue button then diverts his attention to the young ladies. They are loading an AC/DC CD and they have Jack with them!*

Anyways, the resolution is defeated.
Bigotry won the day.
Well, the second statement doesn't follow from the first. I personally, and I believe at least a few others, voted against it due to the fact that Article 5 turns gender into a bureaucratic nightmare, and forces all transsexuals to get SRS or stay recognized as their original sex.
I didn't vote against it out of bigotry, I voted against it because while it is a step forwards for human rights in some places, in others it is a step backwards. If Article 5 were worded differently, I would have supported it.

The resolution has just been defeated by a very slim margin. Regardless of the positions defended on this resolution, I think I speak for everyone when I say that Democracy has won once again. Canada6 congratulates the UN of NS. :D

Darvainia's current head of state (in the absence of Chief Representative Beber), George Borgen Head of Parliament has issued the following statement, while surrounded by the applauses of thousands of Darvainians. "I am please to announce that the U.N has said no to special treatment for special interest groups, I am please to say they have chosen not to trample on the rights of foreign nations to make their own social and economic policies regarding discrimination. This no-vote on this resolution has not said yes to bigotry, but has said no to politicising it. I would also like to assure the transgendered and gay communities that here in Darvainian discrimination will not come your way because of this defeat, but in fact it will be lessened." he announced. "This is not a failure of tolerance and acceptance, this is a failure of political correctness, and a failure of faulty 'anti-discrimination' policies that would have only made the problem worse, and we are thankful that the global community has said no to giving special people, special treatment, and truly voting yess for real equality, thank you!"

A recent poll has shown that 80% of Darvainians are pleased with the results of the U.N vote for the reasons the Head of Parliament and their Chief Representative had expressed earlier. 5% have said "Those freaks got what they deserve" and 15% wish Darvainia would have stood up better for the rights of oppressed minorities, and voted for this bill. All in all though, life will go on, and most Darvainians are wiping sweat off their brows in relief.

BIGOTRY! You insolent swine how dare you! This has never been about bigotry. This has been about defeating ludacris laws set in motion for the pure interest of special interest groups, which duplicate existing precidence and add another layer of needless buracracy and red tape there by trampling over the rights of Nations to establish their own code of of laws for the defence of crimes.
Pamphilia et Lycia is a free society and we pride ourselves on creating an environmnet free of crime for all our citizens regardless of who they are. To create equality you must treat all as equal and not set them aside as "special".
No you pompus fool, Democracy has won the day, pitty you are so blinded by the special interest groups that line your pockets.

So lets not pass gay rights law, since those countires will not suddenly be a nice place to live for homosexuals.

Anyways, the resolution is defeated.
Bigotry won the day.

Goodbye.

"Those freaks got what they deserve."


Yup, Bigotry won the day.

How pathetic, yet not completly unsurprising...You read only want you want to don't you.. For those who want to read the whole quote and not the carfully edited part, you will see that the propagandist only bothered to pull out what he wanted the rest to read and not the full part saying that 5% of Darvanians population we polled saying that. Next time swine, post a full quote. You are a sad sad little man.


(Quote)A recent poll has shown that 80% of Darvainians are pleased with the results of the U.N vote for the reasons the Head of Parliament and their Chief Representative had expressed earlier. 5% have said "Those freaks got what they deserve" and 15% wish Darvainia would have stood up better for the rights of oppressed minorities, and voted for this bill. All in all though, life will go on, and most Darvainians are wiping sweat off their brows in relief.[/QUOTE]

So lets not pass gay rights law, since those countires will not suddenly be a nice place to live for homosexuals.

Anyways, the resolution is defeated.
Bigotry won the day.

Goodbye.

For the record, my nation has long been friends of the people from Groot Gouda, and I can assure you that there are few bigots there and that their government is in fact, one of the more liberal and responsible governments around. The people of Mikitivity are proud to consider them allies.

I like the fact that you've started a thread to try again. Given that the resolution did have 49% of the votes in favour, I'd like to suggest that any future proposal on this subject attempt to find some of the comments from moderate nations and focus on those.

For now our focus should be two-fold: (1) let's change subjects and prepare for tomorrow's resolution, and (2) try to narrow down the debate and see if there is a way to revisit this idea *after* some other ideas have their 5 days on the UN Floor. :)

I am in no mood to describes everything that I've heard.

I will say that many people who voted against this resolution simply do so because they are bigots. They have no respect for the transgender people and they have won. Its as simple as that.

Secondly, I am sick and tired of people complainning that their nations already protect transgender people, so does mine! This resolution seeks to protect transgender people who live in nations that dont have protection, you dumb piece of shit.

And someone has already said, the American constitution granted equal rights to everyone supposdly too, but that doesnt stop employers from firing transgender people.

Today is a SHAMEFUL and SAD day. The United Nations has turned its back on the suffering of the transgender people.

You continue to show us what a small small person you really are....Please by all means keep shoveling the dirt on yourself, infact I encourage it. If anyone here is shameful, it is you. To sink to such depths, how pathetic. Democracy won today plan and simple, and if that is somthing that you cannot accept, then perhaps your presence within these halls is nolonger nessesary.


I am in no mood to describes everything that I've heard.

I will say that many people who voted against this resolution simply do so because they are bigots. They have no respect for the transgender people and they have won. Its as simple as that.

Secondly, I am sick and tired of people complainning that their nations already protect transgender people, so does mine! This resolution seeks to protect transgender people who live in nations that dont have protection, you dumb piece of shit.

And someone has already said, the American constitution granted equal rights to everyone supposdly too, but that doesnt stop employers from firing transgender people.

Today is a SHAMEFUL day.

You continue to show us what a small small person you really are....Please by all means keep shoveling the dirt on yourself, infact I encourage it. If anyone here is shameful, it is you. To sink to such depths, how pathetic. Democracy won today plan and simple, and if that is somthing that you cannot accept, then perhaps your presence within these halls is nolonger nessesary.


Democracy won, so did Bigotry. :rolleyes:
Oh, and I think HIlter was "democratically" elected too. :)

I would just like to thank this assembly for making the outmost wise decision to vote down this measure.

This measure did not respect human biology, or human nature or even nature itself. It was aimed at further destabilising the ideals of the nuclear family and create a new sub-group of people, those who are neither men nor women.

I have renewed faith in this organisation.

I would just like to thank this assembly for making the outmost wise decision to vote down this measure.

This measure did not respect human biology, or human nature or even nature itself. It was aimed at further destabilising the ideals of the nuclear family and create a new sub-group of people, those who are neither men nor women.

I have renewed faith in this organisation.


See? Bigotry, right there. "Further destabilising the ideals of the nuclear family"

Because god knows, everyone should live in a nuclear family.

Noting the general mood regarding the resolution, I think the general consensus is to take it back to drafting stage and begin looking at the various components of it again. Bigotry didn't win the day, rashness lost it. Note the beliefs held by those who believe in equal rights for transgenders, and note some of the misconceptions held by those who believed in equality.

This resolution is salvageable, and I believe it should be salvaged.

Noting the general mood regarding the resolution, I think the general consensus is to take it back to drafting stage and begin looking at the various components of it again. Bigotry didn't win the day, rashness lost it. Note the beliefs held by those who believe in equal rights for transgenders, and note some of the misconceptions held by those who believed in equality.

This resolution is salvageable, and I believe it should be salvaged.


I respect your opinons and I can see legitimate reason why someone would not vote for this resolution. For example, the spelling and grammar mistakes. But other than that, its all bigotry. And I have read PLENTY of that in the past few days, believe me.

Funny, I could accuse you of the same thing just now. You are all ready to demand we respect the ideals and beliefs of a small subsect of society, and then scream bigotry when your proposal is struck down. Yet you have no respect and even less tolerance for anyone who thinks contrary to yourself.
It strips you of whatever remaining credibility you may have once had.


See? Bigotry, right there. "Further destabilising the ideals of the nuclear family"

Because god knows, everyone should live in a nuclear family.

Funny, I could accuse you of the same thing just now. You are all ready to demand we respect the ideals and beliefs of a small subsect of society, and then scream bigotry when your proposal is struck down. Yet you have no respect and even less tolerance for anyone who thinks contrary to yourself.
It strips you of whatever remaining credibility you may have once had.


Oh, how typical. The bigot is arguing that I should tolerate intolerance. :rolleyes: Yes, because this resolution totally takes away other people's right to live traditional lifestyles!

No you fool, again you fail to state a response on what was said. I said you were intolerant..not your proposal. I think glasses might be in order, or perhaps language lessons. And never once did I or my Government advocate inequality for all people, only the needless addition of more beurocratic red tape. So kindly take back your statment.


Oh, how typical. The bigot is arguing that I should tolerate intolerance. :rolleyes: Yes, because this resolution totally takes away other people's right to live traditional lifestyles!

You talk about human nature and biology! This indicates that they were not created in that way, that it is there choice to be subjected to prejudice, bigotary an hate because they are "differnt"

Just cos you dont understand a section of society doesn't mean you should condem it. Trans people are a wide and diverse section of society who cant be pidgeon-holed.

By nor passing this you have said to a section of socety they do not deserve the dignaty of having gender reassignment to allow them to have a matching gender identit adn exprestion, adn reflect this change in law.

I hope that one day you have an LGBT Child or Relative so that you may see the issues firsthand adn may in the future understand the issues we face on a daily basis.

I am out and proud gay man in the NS adn the real world, and in the real world i am an activist in the LGBT campaign trying to improve the lives of LGBT people across Scotland and the UK.

Solidarity to ALL LGBT people and Condemnation to all the people who are denying people in thier nations the basic human right to dignity.

Queen Chris
The Queendom of LGBTers

I am in no mood to describes everything that I've heard.

I will say that many people who voted against this resolution simply do so because they are bigots. They have no respect for the transgender people and they have won. Its as simple as that.

Then take a short break. Work on your nation's NSWiki entry, and let somebody else reread the resolution debates. It is hard to go back and read the comments, because while some of them are probably fair, many are not. I've been there myself ... and trust me, as a real-life water quality engineer, it is hard to not tell some 16-year old kid that his understanding of environmental policy is just a load of B.S.

But that is the nature of life, people are always forming opinions on things that they don't have a complete understanding ... thankfully most of us aren't so stupid to *ignore* the advice of our doctors, or else the human race would be in serious trouble. :)




Secondly, I am sick and tired of people complainning that their nations already protect transgender people, so does mine! This resolution seeks to protect transgender people who live in nations that dont have protection, you dumb piece of shit.

And someone has already said, the American constitution granted equal rights to everyone supposdly too, but that doesnt stop employers from firing transgender people.

Today is a SHAMEFUL and SAD day. The United Nations has turned its back on the suffering of the transgender people.

If they are complaining that their nations already protect transgendered people, then you need to find a loophole. :)

The Mitigation of Large Reservoirs was technically sound ... but the reason I dismissed complaints of "but my nation already has pristine rivers" was because I introduced "international standing" into my resolution. Standing is a legal concept that says that two parties in conflict can seek arbitration only if both of those parties actually has something to loose (i.e. a stake in the decision). International standing is just an extension of this legal concept at an international level.

For example, I can *not* sue you for spilling coffee on a third part, because I neither gained money for your sale of the coffee, nor was I inconvienced by the hot coffee spilled on some random person.

However, if you spilled that coffee on me, I could sue you. You've accidently hurt me, and the arbitration (i.e. court case) would be to find out what I might deserve.

UN resolutions are the same. The UN gets involved when the laws and policies of my nation might have a negative impact on the lives of the people of another UN member's nation. :)

In Mitigation of Large reservoirs the argument presented was that water resources do not stop at national boundaries. They are a shared resource. While you might have pristine water quality today, there was no agreement or statement to say, "Hey, but you *always* have to protect fish and water resources!"

What I think you need to do is consider finding a stronger argument for *international* laws on this or any other subject.

Here is a suggestion: tourist rights. :) Are tourists entitled to some of the rights from their home country when traveling abroad?

Another suggestion for the next time you try this, take a poll about "national transgendered anti-discrimination policies". How many nations in NationStates have laws to prevent discrimination? If the answer is some, but not most, then you'll probably see moderators saying, "OK, we see your point."

So while I understand how you are feeling setback here, give it time and look for the positive elements. :)

No you fool, again you fail to state a response on what was said. I said you were intolerant..not your proposal. I think glasses might be in order, or perhaps language lessons. And never once did I or my Government advocate inequality for all people, only the needless addition of more beurocratic red tape. So kindly take back your statment.



See? Bigotry, right there. "Further destabilising the ideals of the nuclear family"

Because god knows, everyone should live in a nuclear family.

I did not express intolerance in this post. The only intolerance I expressed is my intolerance to intolerance.

And I will say it again, I think its great that your country already protects transgender people. But this resolution is about protecting transgender people who dont have protections in other countries. If you cant see that, you might not be a bigot, but you are definately a fucking idiot.

I will give you a stick and you can shove it up yours.

Kindly go fuck yourself.

I feel it also need to be noted who close this resolution came to passing, it was a slim majority it passed by, not a land slide.

This is at least encoraging to see that there is still a lot of supprot for the Trans community in Nation States, just not enough unfortunatley

Queen Chris

I feel it also need to be noted who close this resolution came to passing, it was a slim majority it passed by, not a land slide.

This is at least encoraging to see that there is still a lot of supprot for the Trans community in Nation States, just not enough unfortunatley

Queen Chris


Maybe your esteemed nation can take on this cause? I will grant you the right to do so Or we can work on it together. I was suprised at how much works it involved; I will be glad if your region can help out. I am reluctant to go through this again because it is absolutely emotionally drainning, but I know how important this issue is.

Hmmm I do belive the Americans have a saying...Its called "Pot calling the kettle black" I belive. Your very statment bleeds intolerance, and disrespect for the views of others. And the fact that you have allowed yourself to degenerate into cursing, shows simply what a small pathetic little man you really are...you have my pity.

I am finnished with this now, you can go on to swear and insult me and the many others that voted against this tripe all you like. I shall not dignify you with any further responses.


I did not express intolerance in this post. The only intolerance I expressed is my intolerance to intolerance.

And I will say it again, I think its great that your country already protects transgender people. But this resolution is about protecting transgender people who dont have protections in other countries. If you cant see that, you might not be a bigot, but you are definately a fucking idiot.

I will give you a stick and you can shove it up yours.

Kindly go fuck yourself.

Mikitivity, I admire how dedicated you are to your U.N resolutions. You are very accomplished, definitely. Thank you for your advice.

Maybe if i add the clause "If your nation already have this, you can ignore it" at the end of every article. LOL.

Hmmm I do belive the Americans have a saying...Its called "Pot calling the kettle black" I belive. Your very statment bleeds intolerance, and disrespect for the views of others. And the fact that you have allowed yourself to degenerate into cursing, shows simply what a small pathetic little man you really are...you have my pity.

I am finnished with this now, you can go on to swear and insult me and the many others that voted against this tripe all you like. I shall not dignify you with any further responses.



Dont let the door hit you on your way out. :)

There is no such thing as true "tolerance," and I think it should be the UN's place to debate important issues such as defense rather than some hormone-imbalanced loser's right to wear high-heels and makeup.

It's sad that we're dealing with issues such as these with more important issues demanding our attention.

Some peoples ignorance and down right insensitivity is outstanding!

If this was a disscution of discrimintaion against women or the black community, it would be no issue. Sexual orientation adn the right to gender recgnition is (or should be) no different.

It is not about make-up and heels. That is a small part of the trans community, Transvestites. There are other people in th trans community who have conflicting gender expression adn biological gender (how the world sees them)to their gender identity (how they feel in themselves).

Please do not condem a section of society just because yoy dont understand them. At least make an informed choice, and then and only then will I accept yours as a valid opinion, and while i will not agree with it i will accept your views as your right to your own opinion!

Queen Chris

Advocate for the Trans Community

Hey Mik - Poll is 6% off?

Some peoples ignorance and down right insensitivity is outstanding!

If this was a disscution of discrimintaion against women or the black community, it would be no issue. Sexual orientation adn the right to gender recgnition is (or should be) no different.

It is not about make-up and heels. That is a small part of the trans community, Transvestites. There are other people in th trans community who have conflicting gender expression adn biological gender (how the world sees them)to their gender identity (how they feel in themselves).



you mean discussion........anyway, it technically is about women. it is about men wanting to be women. or women wanting to be men. either way it has to do with women. it is about someone wanting to become something they are not. something they were not born as and i am not ok with that. if you were meant to be something other than what you are you would have been born that way. the discrimination you are talking about is against something someone already is and has no power to change nor wants to change. people cannot just go change their sex and expect the world to be ok with that whether or not there is a law protecting them. it is un-natural.

you mean discussion........anyway, it technically is about women. it is about men wanting to be women. or women wanting to be men. either way it has to do with women. it is about someone wanting to become something they are not. something they were not born as and i am not ok with that. if you were meant to be something other than what you are you would have been born that way. the discrimination you are talking about is against something someone already is and has no power to change nor wants to change. people cannot just go change their sex and expect the world to be ok with that whether or not there is a law protecting them. it is un-natural.
I totally agree with you on that one!

I don't understand why people wanna change their sex anyway, I'm not against them, just the decision they've made. God made them male or female, why would you wanna change genders? It's just appalling to me why someone would want to in the first place!

“The cause of gender identity disorder is not known. It has been theorized that a prenatal hormonal imbalance may predispose individuals to the disorder. Problems in the individual's family interactions or family dynamics have also been postulated as having some causal impact.” http://blueprint.bluecrossmn.com/topic/topic100586865

What about people who have Klinefelter's syndrome? Like males who have a XXY chromosomes? Or how about those that have a only single X chromosome? Are they males or females? And what about people who have XO, XXX, XXY, XYY ?
The reason I point out this is that abnormalities do happen and its easy to forsee a situation where there would be people whose gender does not correlate to their organs.

"there is also variation in all of these processes, a child can be born with a sexual anatomy that is typically female, or feminine in appearance with a larger than average clitoris; or typically male, masculine in appearance with a smaller than average penis that is open along the underside. The appearance may be quite ambiguous, describable as female genitals with a very large clitoris and partially fused labia, or as male genitals with a very small penis, completely open along the midline ("hypospadic"), and empty scrotum."


There is also something called the CAH. "The resulting child often has confusing genitals ranging from deformed female genitals to an appearance of male genitals. If the child is raised as male, following any "adjusting" surgery and given male hormones at puberty, the individual develops as a "normal" but sterile male with XX chromosomes. On the other hand, if the infant is surgically corrected to female and given female hormones, there is a 50/50 chance of lesbian or transgender expression. " So are they males or females?

There is also something called the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. "In this case, there is a normal amount of testosterone circulating in a XY chromosome fetus, but each cell of its body is unable to react to it. This is similar to Turner's Syndrome in that neither the mullerian or wolffian ducts (see above) mature and the external genitalia develops into an approximation of normal female genitals, but differs in that TDF stimulates the gonads into becoming functioning testicles in a XY chromosome body. The child is raised as a girl and is seen as a normal female until she fails to menstruate because she has no uterus. If her testes produce enough estrogen (excess testosterone is converted into estrogen), she develops into a completely normal appearing (but lacking a uterus and upper vagina), sterile female with XY chromosomes and internal testicles." Are they males or females?

But because we know that abnormalities do happen, how can we be sure that there is no such thing as people being born in the "wrong" bodies? Meanning that "brain sex" is different than the physical "sex"?
In the book, "Sexual Brain" , written by LeVay ( a Neuroanatomist) argues that hormone-induced brain differentiation can influence one's gender identities.



From another author: "As fetal development continues, male and female hormones then imprint the brain, nudging it toward masculinization or feminization.
"One of the things we believe is that it is more common for men to become female in transgender change than for females to become men," said Dr. Marshall Forstein, medical director of Fenway Community Health in Boston. "If something goes wrong in [the fetal development] process, or something is variable in that process, some of the brains of those men don't become masculinized at the appropriate development time: Their brains are female, even though their bodies are male."

These are not FACTS, but its still something to think about. We still dont know if homosexuality is caused by genetic or not, but maybe its something that we will never be able to be 100 percent sure about due to the fact that environmental factors will also make everything more complex and they cant be controlled in a strict sense.

"With all due respect to the agnostic deeishpeople calling everyone who disagrees with you a bigot is not productive to your cause, it is degrading to yourself and the people who voted for your resolution. Just because someone votes against affirmitive action or say, slave reparations in the U.S does not make them racist, and nor does disagreeing with your pandering to special interest groups make us bigots. You and I don't disagree that bigotry is wrong, we disagree on how to deal with it. I believe society should work out these problems, and eventually good men will rise up and condemn it, and things will gradually change for the better. You believe that if you force the globe into submission, and force them to embrace your ideas of forcing people into toleration, that the problem will disappear instantly, but you are sadly mistaken. This would only make the problem worse as we have said earlier and repeatedly. You and I disagree, that does make us bigots, and you a civil rights activist, it makes you and me different individuals with different ideas, this is why the Freedom of Speech ideal works in nations all over the world. We are sad that you have been made so angry by the world's decision, and we are sorry this upsets you so, but you are being slightly childish, and screaming bigot every chance you get will do nothing to change that."

-The Darvainian Parliament

To the author of the resolution:

Your frustration with the decision is understandable and your response is logical (not welcome, but logical). However, I ask you to instead of looking at the failure of the resolution, look foreward. You have been given several reasons as to why the resolution failed - including misconceptions - and the narrow margin by which it failed means that this resolution is salvageable. As such, I encourage you to look foreward and at the edited version that we are crafting and cease worrying about this thread - for it shall only frustrate you further.

Violent flamewars and swearing.
On a UN forum.

I'm no moderator, but you people, who know who you are, should be ashamed of yourselves.

On topic, I voted no, as many people did, due to minor errors in writing, resulting in unacceptable loopholes and potentially disasterous technical issues. To place someone in a group, say 'no voters' and call them bigots is in itself bigotry. To say 'most of the no voters are bigots' is also bigotry. That's like saying, for example, 'most agnostics are idiots'. An unfair and untrue assumption.

To the author of the resolution:

Your frustration with the decision is understandable and your response is logical (not welcome, but logical). However, I ask you to instead of looking at the failure of the resolution, look foreward. You have been given several reasons as to why the resolution failed - including misconceptions - and the narrow margin by which it failed means that this resolution is salvageable. As such, I encourage you to look foreward and at the edited version that we are crafting and cease worrying about this thread - for it shall only frustrate you further.I think it bares repeating that if it had not been for article 2 I would have ferociously supported this resolution.

Minus the approximately 1,000 votes + a proposal has when it goes to queue.


This lost....


This will be a BIG repeal. I predict it to lose by 20 point.

Pass, 5% with the current level of debate. After we've addressed the redundancy issue, I'd say a minimum of 10% pass margin.

See? Bigotry, right there. "Further destabilising the ideals of the nuclear family"

Because god knows, everyone should live in a nuclear family.

Your obvious biasdness and narrow-minded thoughts shine right through.

I WISH everyone could live in a happy nuclear family. But as the world is today, many don't. The nuclear family is where you are happy, people growing up in happy families become happy people. People who grow up with two mother's tend to have a hard life. Its our job as leaders to ensure the very best start for the new men and women that come into this world, and that best start is in a nuclear family.

Your obvious biasdness and narrow-minded thoughts shine right through.

I WISH everyone could live in a happy nuclear family. But as the world is today, many don't. The nuclear family is where you are happy, people growing up in happy families become happy people. People who grow up with two mother's tend to have a hard life. Its our job as leaders to ensure the very best start for the new men and women that come into this world, and that best start is in a nuclear family.


Please stop imposing your values on me. Its not in the government's place to impose values or lifestyle choices on its people.

Please stop imposing your values on me. Its not in the government's place to impose values or lifestyle choices on its people.Jesus F#cking Christ, I can't believe you just said that! Click me. (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry?id=i0236100)

I'm glad this lost.


Not for the merits. But because we need to do other things.


Social justice needs to take a nap for a moment.


We must balance the UN.


We must raise the standard of living across the board...


You can't eat freedom. You can't drink it.



It's great, but it doesn't prevent cancer. It doesn't clear the skies. And no way does it stop a NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST or Global Warning.

And it doesn't save us form going extinct.


But it's great.

Hoorah! This one has gone down. I kept wondering why the resolution seemed to win until the last moment, despite there being more NAYS than YAYS in this thread!!

But who cares :)

:jump:

It lost ... This is a shame to the UN!

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda expresses its happiness with the failing of this resolution. The UN, though by a narrow margin, has spoken out against pollution of the UN with resolutions that are already covered by previous legislation, and micro-management which the UN doesn't need to do.

As we have stated before, discrimination is already covered so much by earlier resolutions that we do not fear the failing of this resolution. The situation for this group of people has not become worse than before; they merely won't have any special attention, in which they resemble many other groups in our society who nevertheless live together happily and protected by the law.

We hope that we can now continue with the UN to create great resolutions, which truly add to the UN in a positive way, instead of trying to do the same thing over and over again. The UN needs progress, and that is what I will contribute to. In my home region we take the UN seriously, and we have written several resolutions now which have brought the UN forward a few small steps. Let's continue that effort.

OOC: I vote against this resolution not because I or my nation are opposed to transgender rights, but because the draft wasn't up to scratch, sadly (please refer to my earlier posts - wherever they are - where I quoted objections from players who are themselves transgendered). I want to make it absolutely clear that I don't wish to be aligned with the small-minded bigots who have taken great glee in insulting and belittling those who are transgendered. Many of the comments I've read here have really pissed me off; I hope that the ignorance and vitriol comes from youth and ignorance. I suspect so.

AD, you kinda lost it with some of your responses, but this is clearly an emotional and personal topic for you, so I understand why. You really should learn to keep your emotions in check in these debates or matters will swiftly spiral out of control. I hope this hasn't been too draining for you.

I'll be glad when this topic disappears from the UN, frankly, because all it's achieved in my eyes is to highlight how blinkered and unpleasant some of you lot are. Really sad.

Greetings.

Despite the fact that we are effectively a tyrant, and well-qualified to be so, we are generally in favour of respecting human rights. Our tyranny is of the defensive variety.

We would like to assure the Agnostics that the reason we helped vote down the proposed Act was that article two would have had terrible repercussions against the very people it was intended to protect. Perhaps the Agnostics should objectively re-examine their proposal and start again.

There is no shame in losing for your ideals. What is shameful is to disburse blame without discretion and fairness.

With the debunking of this foul Act my nation sets free the detainee's. Once again all of TBW citizens are equal without a special law to make a target special interest group better than anyone else. Since education and college are already free to all in TBW, I have arranged for jobs for this group in our weapons and bioengineering facilities[disease control, DNA research, experimental cloning of bodily organs for transplants]. These are good jobs in TBW. Fair enough?

Please stop imposing your values on me. Its not in the government's place to impose values or lifestyle choices on its people.

And so it comes full circle. The esteemed delegate of ROADP begs for the very freedom of conscience they would deny Our people, had this proposal passed. We express Our gratitude to the enlightened delegates assembled, and congratulate them on their wisdom to reject arrogance and moral presumption. May the Cute One be praised!

Depressing end to this act.

Im glad to see so many people in favor of making sure racism and bigotry live on. All men are created equal. and thats in response to the word "human".

How depressing of you "yay"ers.

"Oh, this is going to be fun :D"

Well, the issue is over, so this may be moot. However, if my nation is to be regarded as a "dreamland" because we still believe in calling a spade a spade, the rule of law, and freedom of association, than I can only refer to nations such as yours as "Anuslands", because you like to take a dump over that which we hold dear.

"I am curious as to why you believe it is necessary for one to be pushed into not being, as you so lovingly call it, "a freak". We protect "freaks of nature" - whether they be mentally/physically handicapped/deformed people, we protect people where the world is divisive on whether they are freaks or not (homosexuals and transgenders to name a few). We protect people that are not what this world considers to be perfect because we believe that they are still human beings and therefore still have rights."

Pushed? Where did I ever state that? If anyone was doing the pushing, it was those of you trying to force the notion of gender mutilation upon the rest of us.

"No, no, no. You fail to understand the very basic logic of human rights. The entire concept is that the government ALLOWS these people to do what they do. The government doesn't have to believe them, they just have to believe that these people have the right to believe in what they want to believe in. We aren't forcing anyone to believe ANYTHING. We are forcing them to accept that these people believe in something."

Wrong wrong wrong. The resolution clearly forced those doctors who do not wish to participate in gender mutiliation to particpate in it, and it forces the rest of the citizenry to affirm gender mutilation. We already have "tolerance". What this resolution demanded was "affirmation", which is another matter entirely.

"To deny these people these rights is to say "your belief is wrong" and therefore are FORCING them to believe in what you believe."

How is expressing disagreement "forcing"??????