NationStates Jolt Archive

If you have any suggestion, write it here. The police trainning has been taken out.

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

Description: We, the United Nations, recognize the basic human rights of all individuals, including the transgender people and the gender non conformists. The Freedom to Gender Identity and Expressions Law seeks to extend civil rights and fair treatment to members of the transgender community and gender non conformists.

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

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, a transgender person to be any person who has a gender identity that does not match with his or her biological sex ; transvestites ; pre operative transsexuals and post operative transsexuals.

Defining a gender non conformist, "GNC", as anyone who doesn’t identify oneself as either a male or female; anyone who doesnt subscribe to the gender binary system; anyone who doesn’t fit the gender stereotype which society/laws impose upon a person’s birth sex.

Believing that gender is not the same as biological sex.

Noting that gender is composed of the feelings, attitudes and behaviors associated with being male or female; therefore, Gender is partially a social construction and no one has to live according to any societal concept of masculinity or femininity.

Defining Gender Identity as a continuum and it involves a person’s innate sense of self -sex while gender expression is also a continuum with femininity at one end and masculinity at the other end. Gender expression is the external presentation of a person’s gender; specifically, gender expressions include , but not limited to, the followings: clothing styles, appearances, mannerism , communication styles and hair styles.



Recognizes that Gender Dysphoria, also known as Gender Identity Disorder, is a psychological condition that can be diagnosed by a trained mental professional; people who are diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria suffer severe distress and discomfort due to conflict between their gender identities and their sexes at birth.

Convinced than people diagnosed with gender dysphoria should have the option to decide how they should be treated (or not be treated) as long as they are supported by team of health professionals ; the medication options for these individuals are to include therapy, sex reassignment surgery and its related medical procedures.



Acknowledges that many transgender people and GNC continue to be discriminated against in all areas of life, including in employment and health care.

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

Noting with Regrets, however, that none of the past human rights resolutions made any explicit mention on the rights to gender identity and/or expression.

Be it resolved that that the following articles be recognized and declared by the United Nations.

Article one: All people have the legal right to express their genders freely without being persecuted

Article two: All Transgender and Gender Non Conforming citizens must have the same legal protections and rights as every other citizens in any member nations.


Article three:

1) One’s gender identity and/or expression are not justifiable grounds for refusing to hire, neither promote or train, nor are they justified grounds for dismissal in any member countries. Everyone, regardless of their Gender Identities and/or Expressions should be judged solely by their work performances.

2) Declares that this Article does not apply to:
1. Situations where Employers wish to impose sex specific dress code on their employees. ( Except in U.N countries where sex specific dress code is banned)
2. Religious organizations.
3. Non-Profit organizations. (Except in U.N countries where For Profit organizations do not exist or are an anomaly)

Article four: The U.N does not condone or condemn sex reassignment surgery; however, therapy, sex reassignment surgery and its related medical procedures must be legal options available to anyone who is diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a trained mental health professional.

2] U.N countries reserve the right to determine who funds the sex reassignment surgeries and their related medical procedures.

3) Medical personnel cannot refuse to give medical attention, procedures or treatments, with the exception of SRS-related medical issues, to any transgender citizen or gender non conforming citizen.

4) U.N countries reserve the right to allow reasonable and justifiable grounds for discrimination in health care, but moral or religious reasons are not justifiable grounds for discrimination when a patient requires emergency medical attentions, treatments or procedures.


Article five: Any person who is diagnosed with gender dsyphoria and had undergone a legal sex reassignment surgery must be allowed to change his or her legal gender status. The issue of whether to grant pre operative and/or non operative transsexuals the right to change their legal gender will be left up for individual nation to decide.


Article six:

Urges:

1) All member nations to assess the prison situations for pre operative transsexual in the bid to be sensitive about the placement of pre operative transsexual inmates.

2) All member nations to consider putting pre operative transsexuals (in advanced stage of hormonal reassignment) in isolated cells if their personal safety are in danger.

Article seven: If any member nation has rights and protections that go beyond these the rights and protection enlisted in this resolution, the Freedom to Gender Identity/Expression Act will not remove those rights.

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

I'd get rid of the "duplicate" Description (highlighted in blue). Also, most of your clauses end in periods, the second one doesn't, so consider adding a period there. :)

Thanks, anything more?

And did you end up voting for or against? =D
:p

Mikivity, like myself, abstained on the resolution

I will edit this in like 3 hours

we fully agree with the resolution, we supported it

but maybe it was a little bit too strong (not for The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel) for the nation who are not used about this subject
for people with a classical education, and not used about this subject, this can be very difficult to understand {about my own life, i had a classical education and it tooks me a long time before i began to appreciate gays or trans, even if i had nothing againt them ever}
............The yuck factor.........

we are not here saying that this is the reason it didn't pass, because we liked it the way its was, we are just trying to help, maybe we are wrong

we will support it again strong or mild

Although we voted against the previous proposal, we did so for specific reasons which we stated during the debate. We agree with the comment of the distinguished delegate from Forgottenlands in another thread that this effort is indeed salvageable and congratulate the honorable representative from Agnostic Deeishpeople for attempting to do so.

We will be happy to try to assist in refining this draft. We would urge the representative from Agnostic Deeishpeople to avoid the temptation to rush the proposal into the approval process. We believe it deserves to be given time for all who have suggestions to make them.

We will be posting our suggestions as soon as we can find time to carefully study the text.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

My nation voted for the proposition. However we feel that perhaps a blanket resolution for all minorities weather they be racial, sexual, religious, disabled or Species Minorities to afford them all the same protection would be preferable to several individual proposals. However this would first require several repeals.

Repealing severals resolutions would not be realistic, in my opinon. The most realistic approach is to get a resolution thatspecifically caters to the transgender people.

I know a lot of people commented that we have issues of redundancy - can we see specific clauses of passed resolutions

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

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

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

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

Defining a transgender person to be any person who has a gender that is different than the sex that he or she is assigned at birth ;

So people that have already changed their gender?

any intersex person; anyone who expresses their genders in a way that do not with the societal expectations.

Is the latter part more of a "Gender Identity" concept?

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

Recognizing that no one has to comply with gender stereotypes of any given society.

Change that to believing - it isn't a right granted by the UN, so it isn't something that is guaranteed.

Acknowledges that Gender Identity Disorder is a recognized medical condition; GID occurs when a person has a gender identity that does not match with his or her anatomic sex.

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

Perhaps something along the lines that "believing people have the right to decide how they should be treated with physician consultation"

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

Singular on employment

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

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

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

Don't like that line. Perhaps "Be it resolved the following articles...."

Also, Nations is plural, and I would use "this" instead of "the"

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

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

Change article 2 to something like "One's gender identity or expression is not a justifyable grounds for refusing to hire, promote, train nor justified grounds for dismissal in all UN countries"

Article three:

1) Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally. Sex Reassignment Surgery and its related medical procedures must be made legal.

2) Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse any non-sex reassignment surgery related procedures or treatments to any transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people.

Two notes:
1) Possible addition: "Countries reserve the right to determine who funds the treatment" or similar

2) Possible addition: "Medical Personnel are permitted to refuse treatment for other, justified reasons"

Article four: Transsexual and Intersex Individuals who had undergone sex reassignment surgeries must be allowed to change their legal gender status. The issue of whether to grant pre operative transsexuals the right to change his or her legal gender will be left up for a nation to decide.

Good

I noticed you removed the original second clause. I was given a suggestion from a friend that you change the term used to "sensitivity training".... if you want to readd it. However, I'd float the possible idea past someone like Canada6, he's fairly reasonable in his ideas so he can weigh in his opinion on that comment (since it was the reason he voted against).

slaughter time?

:D

I say Submit it then approve my 'End Executions' resolution and i will approve this one.

It needs to be edited. It was panned for the first time by a significant portion of the UN because it was seen as being rushed without taking the proper time and consideration to edit it.

NO one change their genders. Its something that they are born with.



my changes:

Defining a transgender person to be any person who has a gender identity that does not match with his or her anatomic sex....


Defining a transgender person to be any person who has a gender identity that does not match with his or her anatomic sex; any person who does not fit the gender stereotypes of masculinity or femininity.

I am thinking about getting rid of the intersex individuals. I think they are related to transsexual but they are different. Transexualism: no variation of the reproductive system or sex chromsomes, but with a brain sex opposite to their physical sex. ( This doesnt mean that theres no biological basis for transexualism) Intersex: there is variation.


continue on..


Convinced than people with GID have the rights to decide how they should be treated (or not) with physician examination and consultation; the medication options for transsexual include, but not limit to, sex reassignment surgeries and its related medical procedures.




1) One's gender identity and/or expression are not justifiable grounds for refusing to hire, neither promote or train, nor are they justified grounds for dismissal in all UN countries. Employers shall retain the right to impose sex specific dress code and that shall not be this resolution.

I dont want to do this, but here it is. what do you guys think?


continue on

1] Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally. Sex Reassignment Surgery and its related medical procedures must be made legal.

2] U.N countries reserve the right to determine who funds the sex reassignment surgeries and their related medical procedures.

3) Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse any non-sex reassignment surgery related procedures or treatments to any transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people.


what other justified reasons can one refuse treatement to a transgender person if its not related to SRS?

and i also said that people with GID has the right to be treated (or not) they dont have to seek treatement if they feel that they can live as genderqueer or whatever.

It needs to be edited. It was panned for the first time by a significant portion of the UN because it was seen as being rushed without taking the proper time and consideration to edit it.


not that significant. It barely failed.

any person who does not fit the gender stereotypes of masculinity or femininity.


No:

1) Amazons (for example) have a rather different stereotype than what we would consider normal
2) What about tomboys or meterosexuals/flamboyant guys? They generally are not in a position where their "mental" gender is different than they're physical gender, they just have areas of interest or characteristics that are traditionally associated with the other sex. It's like defining all flamboyant men as being gay.

Convinced than people with GID have the rights to decide how they should be treated with physician consultation; the medication options for transsexual includes, but not limits to, sex reassignment surgeries and its related medical procedures.

includes -> are to include
limits -> limited

Add hormonal treatment and perhaps (though I cringe a bit) psychological assistance.

1) One's gender identity and/or expression are not justifiable grounds for refusing to hire, neither promote or train, nor are they justified grounds for dismissal in all UN countries. Employers shall retain the right to impose sex specific dress code and that shall not be considered in violation of the rights to gender expression that is specified in Article 2.

*wonders where there is a sex-specific dress code outside of schools.....

I dont want to do this, but here it is. what do you guys think?

Hey, it was my suggestion and I think your protection of employer's rights is good.

1] Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally. Sex Reassignment Surgery and its related medical procedures must be made legal.

2] U.N countries reserve the right to determine who funds the sex reassignment surgeries and their related medical procedures.

3) Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse any non-sex reassignment surgery related procedures or treatments to any transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people.

Good

What other justified reasons can one refuse treatement to a transgender person if its not related to SRS?

To list off a few:
1) Health concerns. If you are in a condition where your chances of survival are so considerably low, it is insane, you might as well put a gun to your temple for you'd have about the same chance of living - then I'd say the physician is in his right
2) Incapable of making this decision. If someone is:
A) too young
B) mentally handicapped
C) suffering from a mental problem that is neither GID or caused by GID (eg: MS? Alzheimers? stuff like that) that makes them mentally incapable of making this decision
3) Unable to pay

not that significant. It barely failed.

A significant portion opposed it for that reason, not a significant portion needs to have their votes changed. Please note the difference.

Oh - change the title.

this resolution has always been about protecitng masculine women and feminine men. It was never just about people who have or need to have SRS.

whatever the gender stereotypes is, people have a right to not conform to it, no?

and any nation can make up plenty of justified reasons to refuse treatment ot transgender people..if i write "or other justified reasons"

this resolution has always It was never just about people who have or need to have SRS.

whatever the gender stereotypes is, people have a right to not conform to it, no?

They have a right not to conform to them, but that doesn't mean they are transsexual.

and any nation can make up plenty of justified reasons to refuse treatment ot transgender people..if i write "or other justified reasons"

I am well aware of that concern, but it would be up to the patient to prove in a court of law that the justification for refusing treatment was because of discrimination to begin with. As far as I'm concerned, it is irrelevant. Doctors need to be able to operate at a responsible level and the reasons they are granted for refusing to treat patients I am not entirely aware of. Those that I listed are pretty much the logical ones - but I'm certain that doctors in many nations have other rights to refuse treatment of ANY surgery. Why should this surgery have any extra privelege that a doctor can't refuse it for the same reason as any other surgery?

this resolution has always been about protecitng masculine women and feminine men. It was never just about people who have or need to have SRS.

I just got what this line was referring to

I know that it wasn't about SRS specifically, but if you only have the one form listed, it won't appear that way. By listing off common forms of treatment, you are proving that your aim is to make it the patient's option on how to be treated, not the state's or doctor's. If you protect only SRS, it'll look like you are saying that you want them to be treated by SRS, which is not the case.

The edit is more a political move rather than an actual civil rights move.

Believing that Human right is a rooted in belief in human dignity,

That doesn't read right, get rid of that blue in I believe...


deserves to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of gender identities or expression.

I believe it should just be, "deserve".

They have a right not to conform to them, but that doesn't mean they are transsexual.



I am well aware of that concern, but it would be up to the patient to prove in a court of law that the justification for refusing treatment was because of discrimination to begin with. As far as I'm concerned, it is irrelevant. Doctors need to be able to operate at a responsible level and the reasons they are granted for refusing to treat patients I am not entirely aware of. Those that I listed are pretty much the logical ones - but I'm certain that doctors in many nations have other rights to refuse treatment of ANY surgery. Why should this surgery have any extra privelege that a doctor can't refuse it for the same reason as any other surgery?


" not all transgender people are necessarily transsexual."

This is a transgender equality act.. basically everyone is a bit transgender because gender is a cointinum.



you are proving that your aim is to make it the patient's option on how to be treated, not the state's or doctor's.

i am not sure what you are trying to say, why dont you tell me what the wordings should be like instead? It is obviously the patient's decision to have SRS , as long as he or she passes all the physical and psychological accessments that are required beforehand and that he or she is infacted diagnosed with GID. Obviously masculine women and feminine men dont have GID.


but I'm certain that doctors in many nations have other rights to refuse treatment of ANY surgery. Why should this surgery have any extra privelege that a doctor can't refuse it for the same reason as any other surgery?

Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse any non-sex reassignment surgery related procedures or treatments to any transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people.


notice it said "discrimination against transgender people" if medical personnel refuse treatement based on other reasons other than the discrimination against transgender people, than thats fine, this article doesnt stop doctors from making his or her judgement.

That doesn't read right, get rid of that blue in I believe...




I believe it should just be, "deserve".

thanks..theres always mistakes , huh?

lol

is this better:

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

The Proposal was barely defeated the first time, I will personally push for more support next time this is on the floor.

Constitutional Republic of Rotovia
Former UN Delegate

Thank you, Constitutional Republic of Rotovia! Its great to have your support!




P.S : I also added this to my resolution:

2) Under this resolution, Employers shall retain the right to impose sex specific dress code and that shall not be considered in violation of the rights to gender expression that is specified in this resolution. However, this resolution will not override any national laws that ban sex specific dress code nor will this resolution prevent national government to legislate law(s) against sex specific dress code.

Article five: If any U.N member nation has law(s) that go beyond the rights and protections that are enlisted in this resolution, the Transgender Equality Act will not remove those rights and protections.

If you have any suggestion, write it here. The police trainning has been taken out.


I have one question on why eduction of police was taken out.... I don't believe I saw references to eduction of a so called "normal" society on the needs of those this proposal effects.. That would be important toward better treatment of them. If one is taught about them by compitent educators they learn the truth about them.


Also situation.. Company hires a 'Male' for a position that is not suited for a 'Female' thus the 'Male' changes sex and becomes a 'Female'. In the process they no longer have the 'Male'ness that got them the position.. If we make it illegal to fire them how do we get rid of them... This would be some of the more physical jobs and not so much mental jobs.. where they even now argue women are not suited because they are weaker... and I'm not saying that women can't do a job.. but be realist here laws aready on the books force companies to hire so many women who are not able to do the job simply to meet a male/female equality in the work force. Same with promotions and all thus forgeting requirements to do the job and selecting the best person... male, female, other.. for the job...

Some now in real question women in military especialy due to current conditions. Thus it may be said one day that woman can't be in military... Yet this may set up for a man to change and later not by law be qualified to be in that job... I see us boxing ourselves into something here...

Or perhaps in some cases an extreme way for men required to military service to avoid such... and there will be fools who will use it... take off willie to keep out of military...

I have one question on why eduction of police was taken out.... I don't believe I saw references to eduction of a so called "normal" society on the needs of those this proposal effects.. That would be important toward better treatment of them. If one is taught about them by compitent educators they learn the truth about them.


[quote] Also situation.. Company hires a 'Male' for a position that is not suited for a 'Female' thus the 'Male' changes sex and becomes a 'Female'. In the process they no longer have the 'Male'ness that got them the position.. I we make it illegal to fire them how do we get rid of them...

"maleness"?
sex discrimination? what kind of a job that a man can do that a woman cant do and vice versa?
job abilities are not affected by one's sex or gender.



Some now in real question women in military especialy due to current conditions. Thus it may be said one day that woman can't be in military... Yet this may set up for a man to change and later not by law be qualified to be in that job... I see us boxing ourselves into something here... Or perhaps in some cases and extreme way for men required to military service to avoid such... and there will be fools who will use it... take off willie to keep out of military...

if a guy is willing to take female hormones and cut off his penis to escape military service, i 'd say, you go girl!

1. Appearing as, wishing to be considered as, or having undergone surgery to become a member the opposite sex.
2. Of or relating to a transgendered person or transgendered people.


Not the best, and it actually is about "transgedered", but...yeah

Anyways, it makes no reference to people that fall outside the cultural norms for a gender. As such, I feel to label such people as transgender as somewhat.....foolish on a political level.

Anyways:

i am not sure what you are trying to say, why dont you tell me what the wordings should be like instead? It is obviously the patient's decision to have SRS , as long as he or she passes all the physical and psychological accessments that are required beforehand and that he or she is infacted diagnosed with GID. Obviously masculine women and feminine men dont have GID.

I'm trying to say that by refering to multiple possible ways to treat people with GID rather than just SRS, it looks more like you're saying "these should be made legal so a patient has the right to choose which procedure they want" as opposed to "we want this to be legal because it is the right treatment". I know the latter statement is not what you mean by it, but it is what is implied. Like I said, I'm making the suggestion for the purpose of politics rather than the purpose of intent.

anyways - what you should write/add:

Add hormonal treatment and perhaps (though I cringe a bit) psychological assistance


notice it said "discrimination against transgender people" if medical personnel refuse treatement based on other reasons other than the discrimination against transgender people, than thats fine, this article doesnt stop doctors from making his or her judgement.

And I want you to explicitly make the note that it only applies to discrimination. The reason I want you to make this note is, again, because of a political necessity of the matter.

thanks..theres always mistakes , huh?

lol

is this better:

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

Better, but "Believing that human right is rooted in the belief in human dignity" still doesn't read right. The second "in" throws it off, but I don't know what you should put there instead :confused:.


How about,

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

That's the best I can do. :cool:

I understand that we are talking about a demographic that is less than .02% of the general population.


Not 2%, but .02%.

ISN'T THERE MORE PRESSING ISSUES?


CANCER CLUSTERS? maybe...Global Warming...it's a start..

I understand that we are talking about a demographic that is less than .02% of the general population.


Not 2%, bit .02%.

ISN'T THERE MORE PRESSING ISSUES?


CANCER CLUSTERS? maybe...

If you want to go write a proposal about Cancer Clusters, then people can take a gander at it. However, Agnostic has taken the time to write this, and almost had it passed, so he/she is looking at it again. They removed the part that made me vote against it, so I see no point in not helping to make it the best that it can be. If it fails this time around, maybe then I'll forget about it. :cool:

change the second "in" to "of"

New Hamilton: I have said this before, I will say it again - this is the resolution that was proposed. If we had a resolution about cancer clusters that was being ignored in favor of this resolution, fine, you have something to complain about. However, that resolution does not exist. There is no debate about it, there is no one putting an idea through on how to legislate about it. Until this idea is put forth, I see no reason to blast anyone for issues of "priority". We legislate as ideas come to us, not as we go through who makes up the largest percentage.

I acknowledge and respect your opinion about exceeding your power by writing a proposal. However, by doing so, you are also revoking your right to dictate what proposals the UN will discuss. The UN discusses proposals that are proposed - and we don't care about which one reaches the largest percentage, just that it does something and it is something worth discussing. You took my suggestion about suggesting proposal topics too seriously and instead of threads saying "here's some ideas for proposals, if you guys want to write a resolution about them....", you are instead choosing to use it as a new way to criticize people for their choice in topics of discussion.

If you think it is unworthy of the UN's time, that's one thing. However, that wasn't your comment. You said we had more important matters to deal with. Quite frankly, I've posted on at least 15 threads today - and I will post on any other thread that comes up in the next 10 minutes (before I go to bed) suggesting a new proposal tonight - and I will further post on any other proposal that comes up overnight. The UN debates any proposal worth consideration. This is no exception.

BTW, I voted FOR The Transgender Equality Act.


Mostly my region decided to do so...and that's my job.


I would have, as a member, voted against it. It's just not good allocation of UN's mission.


Yes. My people personally believe in freedom of all. Voting FOR it was not a hypocritical Political move without self-conviction.

I philosophically agree with the Resolution.




But I believe working this much time and energy on a group of people that at BEST is less than 1%.


Is a huge misappropriations of UN time and resources.



We need to be bold. Boldness that will affect every citizen in the UN.


Not just .02%. Or even 30% (the poor).



Sweeping steps.



Proposals that will make significant differences.

*sighs*

*points out the window at the people passing by

Let's see - out of those 80 people right there, I would say that the combined power of the UN has helped 70 of them. I would say that the combined power of the UN has affected all of them. I would say that the combined power of the UN has made more than half of them more secure and protected 90% of them at work from some level of problem or another. There is one resolution that I think helped more than 50% of them, and I can only think of two others that helped more than 30% of them. If we limited the UN to things that only make the most drastic changes, the UN would almost never legislate

Let the UN runs its course and legislate on what if feels needs to be legislated on. I would rather vote on something than be constantly waiting for that BIG thing to come forth. When that big thing does come forth, I shall congradulate the proposer for such a great idea and such an important idea, but that will not mean I will feel any more or less pleased because the UN passed such an important resolution. I have no intention of worrying about percentages of people helped. The UN has more time than it has resolutions worth voting on. We are wasting NOTHING.

If you want to go write a proposal about Cancer Clusters, then people can take a gander at it. However, Agnostic has taken the time to write this, and almost had it passed, so he/she is looking at it again. They removed the part that made me vote against it, so I see no point in not helping to make it the best that it can be. If it fails this time around, maybe then I'll forget about it. :cool:

I have a suggestion. Make a poll where nations can answer multiple answers and keep the results public. The question should be, "The removal of which of the articles of the Transgender Equality Act would you like to see?"

1. Article 1
2. Article 2
3. Article 3
4. Article 4
5. Article 5

People who want them all can and will vote for them all, but the articles that are least objected to are the strength. You can make the poll for the new draft.

The key here is to give it a few weeks. A vote again in August will probably just anger a few nations. We've got three proposals in the resolution queue, and that should mix up the debate for a while.

I have a suggestion. Make a poll where nations can answer multiple answers and keep the results public. The question should be, "The removal of which of the articles of the Transgender Equality Act would you like to see?"

1. Article 1
2. Article 2
3. Article 3
4. Article 4
5. Article 5

People who want them all can and will vote for them all, but the articles that are least objected to are the strength. You can make the poll for the new draft.

The key here is to give it a few weeks. A vote again in August will probably just anger a few nations. We've got three proposals in the resolution queue, and that should mix up the debate for a while.

Actually, VL's stuff is still making its rounds so I think we're up a bit on resolutions.

Certainly, I'd agree with the comment of don't submit this month. Next month, submission would probably be a bit more welcome. The extensive deadline also compels you to stay in the editing stage a bit longer - something that many of the resolutions naysayers will consent with (there were a lot of comments saying that this resolution was poorly written and spelling was horrendous)

the grammars might be bad but the spelling wasnt horrendous ! :mad:

And it doesnt matter if i submit it or not , the resolution is not going to get vote on until september anyways, at which time I will be back to school. I will give this a week or two or..three.

But if anyone thinks that they will not hear about this resolution again, they got another thing coming.

but thanks for the help so far!

this resolution affects more than just 0.2 percent.

theres plenty of cross-dressers, and gender outlaws. :) Including myself.


"Believing that human right is rooted in the belief of human dignity," ok now?

"Convinced than people diagnosed with GID by trained mental health professional have the rights to decide how they should be treated as long as they are supported by team of health professionals ; the medication options for transsexual are to include therapy, sex reassignment surgery and its related medical procedures. ' is this okay now?

"1) Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally. Therapy, Sex Reassignment Surgery and its related medical procedures must be made legal to any intersex person or any person who is diagnosed with GID by a trained mental health professional. "



"Acknowledges that there is not a single agreeable definition of transgender.

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, a transgender person to be any person who has a gender identity that does not match with his or her biological sex ; any person who acts, behaves , lives like the stereotype of the opposite sex; any intersex person; transvestites ; pre operative transsexuals and post operative transsexual. Now I want to know if anyone has a problem with this definition..

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

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

Acknowledges that there is not a single agreeable definition of transgender.

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, a transgender person to be any person who has a gender identity that does not match with his or her biological sex ; any person who acts, behaves , lives like the stereotype of the opposite sex; any intersex person; transvestites ; pre operative transsexuals and post operative transsexuals.

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

Recognizing that no one has to comply with the gender stereotypes of any given society.

Acknowledges that Gender Identity Disorder is a recognized medical condition; GID occurs when a person has a gender identity that does not match with his or her biological sex.

Convinced than people diagnosed with GID by trained mental health professional have the rights to decide how they should be treated as long as they are supported by team of health professionals ; the medication options for transsexual are to include therapy, sex reassignment surgery and its related medical procedures.


Acknowledges that many transgender people are discriminated against in all areas of life, including in employment and health care.

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

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

Be it resolved that that the following articles be recognized and declared by the United Nation.

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

Article two:

1)One's gender identity and/or expression are not justifiable grounds for refusing to hire, neither promote or train, nor are they justified grounds for dismissal in all UN countries.

2) Under this resolution, Employers shall retain the right to impose sex specific dress code and that shall not be considered in violation of the rights to gender expression that is specified in this resolution. However, this resolution will not override any national laws that ban sex specific dress code nor will this resolution prevent national government to legislate law(s) against sex specific dress code.

Article three:

1) Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally. Therapy, Sex Reassignment Surgery and its related medical procedures must be made legal to any intersex person or any person who is diagnosed with GID by a trained mental health professional.

2] U.N countries reserve the right to determine who funds the sex reassignment surgeries and their related medical procedures.

3) Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse any non-sex reassignment surgery related procedures or treatments to any transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people.



Article four: Any intersex person or any transsexual who had undergone a sex reassignment surgery must be allowed to change his or her legal gender status. The issue of whether to grant pre operative and non operative transsexuals or pre operative and non operataive intersex persons the right to change their legal gender will be left up for individual nation to decide.

i also add intersex people here, is that okay?

*sighs*

*points out the window at the people passing by

Let's see - out of those 80 people right there, I would say that the combined power of the UN has helped 70 of them. I would say that the combined power of the UN has affected all of them. I would say that the combined power of the UN has made more than half of them more secure and protected 90% of them at work from some level of problem or another. There is one resolution that I think helped more than 50% of them, and I can only think of two others that helped more than 30% of them. If we limited the UN to things that only make the most drastic changes, the UN would almost never legislate

Let the UN runs its course and legislate on what if feels needs to be legislated on. I would rather vote on something than be constantly waiting for that BIG thing to come forth. When that big thing does come forth, I shall congradulate the proposer for such a great idea and such an important idea, but that will not mean I will feel any more or less pleased because the UN passed such an important resolution. I have no intention of worrying about percentages of people helped. The UN has more time than it has resolutions worth voting on. We are wasting NOTHING.


But .02% is just ridiculous.



Next why do we protect people under the threat of Bagel cutting accidents?


Heck, if we are going to exam and judge EVERY nuance of possible social injustice while the Castle burns....



Don't mind me if I take my Nation to the Moon...it's gonna look the same since you're too bothered saving teenage three toed Liverpoolians who missed the Beatles due to foot surgery, instead of saving the planet.



Is the weather weird? Is it hot as hell?


Come visit me on the moon...you'll weight less :)

i told you its more than 0.2 percent of the people.

and would you like to tell me where you get the 0.2 percent from?

i told you its more than 0.2 percent of the people.

and would you like to tell me where you get the 0.2 percent from?

OOC: Um that's the running number. Now again I question that 10% they give gays.


But the .02% is based on op. cases.


Now if we're talking about Transvestite...well I don't want to be a wonk here but...this resolution doesn't cover that.




Alas...another Proposal....


Let the rain-forest burn. We must give everyone the right to wear pumps to work....WHY? Cosmo.

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, a transgender person to be any person who has a gender identity that does not match with his or her biological sex ; any person who acts, behaves , lives like the stereotype of the opposite sex; any intersex person; transvestites ; pre operative transsexuals and post operative transsexual.



One's gender identity and/or expression are not justifiable grounds for refusing to hire, neither promote or train, nor are they justified grounds for dismissal in all UN countries.

it covers everoyne under the rainbow.

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

Believing that human rights are rooted in the belief in human dignity, and that everyone, including members of the transgender community, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of gender identities or expression.

Acknowledges that there is not a single agreeable definition of transgender.

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, a transgender person to be any person who has a gender identity that does not match with his or her biological sex ; any person who acts, behaves , lives like the stereotype of the opposite sex; any intersex person; transvestites ; pre operative transsexuals and post operative transsexuals.

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

Recognizing that no one has to comply with the gender stereotypes of any given society.

Acknowledges that Gender Identity Disorder is a recognized medical condition; GID occurs when a person has a gender identity that does not match with his or her biological sex.

Convinced than people diagnosed with GID by trained mental health professionals have the right to decide how they should be treated as long as they are supported by health professionals; the medication options for transsexuals are to include therapy, sex reassignment surgery and its related medical procedures.


Acknowledges that many transgender people are discriminated against in all areas of life, including in employment and health care.

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

Noting with Regret, however, that none of the past human rights resolutions make any mention of the rights of the transgender person.

Be it resolved that that the following articles be recognized and declared by the United Nations.

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

Article two:

1)One's gender identity and/or expression are not justifiable grounds for refusing to hire, neither promote or train, nor are they justified grounds for dismissal in any UN country.

2) Under this resolution, Employers shall retain the right to impose sex specific dress codes and such codes shall not be considered in violation of the rights to gender expression that are specified in this resolution. However, this resolution does not override any national laws that ban sex specific dress codes nor will this resolution prevent national governments from legislating against sex specific dress code.

Article three:

1) Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally. Therapy, Sex Reassignment Surgery and its related medical procedures must be made legal to any intersex person or any person who is diagnosed with GID by a trained mental health professional.

2] U.N countries reserve the right to determine who funds the sex reassignment surgeries and their related medical procedures.

3) Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse any non-sex reassignment surgery related procedures or treatments to any transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people.

Article four:

Any intersex person or any transsexual who has undergone a sex reassignment surgery must be allowed to change his or her legal gender status. The issue of whether to grant pre-operative and non-operative transsexuals or pre-operative and non-operataive intersex persons the right to change their legal gender will be left up to individual nations to decide.
I corrected some spelling and punctuation (most likely missed some too). Did not change any content.

Corrected some spelling and punctuation (most likely missed some too). Did not change any content.


are you making a statement of fact? lol.......

I have a question , if anyone has any answer it would be great.

Should intersex be considered as transgender
I am thinking of renaming it to The Transgender/Intersex Equality Act.

are you making a statement of fact? lol.......

I have a question , if anyone has any answer it would be great.

Should intersex be considered as transgender
I am thinking of renaming it to The Transgender/Intersex Equality Act.
I think it does need a new title, maybe even a completely new one. I would hold off on submitting this for a while if you can. Let as many people as possible look at it and offer suggestions.

if a guy is willing to take female hormones and cut off his penis to escape military service, i 'd say, you go girl!

This is exactly why there is still separation of the sexes.. The solution would be if you want rights you have to be willing to work for them part of that comes in defending them.. in a military if needed. To say a female should not be in military simply because they feel they should not be in harms way because they don't have a penis is reverse discrimination as why should males be in military in harms way.. In this NS world you have seen how many feel about this issue.. I applude you effort to give it notice.. but to have and keep ones rights ones must be willing to fight for them... Sounds by your remark you are not will if you may break a nail doing it..

As I watch attempts to repeal Gay Rights and other current Resolutions I have to ask what will replace them and how will this one play on future resolutions that may pass.. to replace those folks are trying to repeal now...

The Transgender/Intersex Equality Act


Defining an intersex person to be anyone who is born with atypical chromosomes and/or atypical reproductive sexual organs and/or atypical mix of hormones.

This is exactly why there is still separation of the sexes.. The solution would be if you want rights you have to be willing to work for them part of that comes in defending them.. in a military if needed. To say a female should not be in military simply because they feel they should not be in harms way because they don't have a penis is reverse discrimination as why should males be in military in harms way.. In this NS world you have seen how many feel about this issue.. I applude you effort to give it notice.. but to have and keep ones rights ones must be willing to fight for them... Sounds by your remark you are not will if you may break a nail doing it..

As I watch attempts to repeal Gay Rights and other current Resolutions I have to ask what will replace them and how will this one play on future resolutions that may pass.. to replace those folks are trying to repeal now...


I dont know what you are trying to say.
I dont know if a woman can join the military or not in any given nations.
I dont know who would change their sexes in order to escape military service.
But theres all kind of weird people who will abuse anythign and everything and do things for the wrong reasons, hwo do u stop that?
and a guy who is faking it is probably not going to be approved by the mental health professionals.

i want to ask you guys if you think i should include intersex people in this resolution..they have slightly different issues than transsexuals..

most of the intersex people have been operated on when they were babies already ; but some of them might found their physical bodies disagreeable when they become adults, so they might have SRS too.

*sigh*

Following diagnostic work-up, newborns with intersex should be given a gender assignment as boy or girl, depending on which of those genders the child is more likely to feel as she or he grows up. Note that gender assignment does not involve surgery; it involves assigning a label as boy or girl to a child. (Genital “normalizing” surgery does not create or cement a gender identity; it just takes tissue away that they patient may want later.)



Surgeries done to make the genitals look “more normal” should not be performed until a child is mature enough to make an informed decision for herself or himself. Before the patient makes a decision, she or he should be introduced to patients who have and have not had the surgery. Once she or he is fully informed, she or he should be provided access to a patient-centered surgeon.

http://www.isna.org/faq/patient-centered


so there are pre operative intersex people, okay than.

OOC: Um that's the running number. Now again I question that 10% they give gays.


But the .02% is based on op. cases.


Now if we're talking about Transvestite...well I don't want to be a wonk here but...this resolution doesn't cover that.




Alas...another Proposal....


Let the rain-forest burn. We must give everyone the right to wear pumps to work....WHY? Cosmo.

The 10% for gays has been disproven. The guy who conducted that survey came under fire (for a number of his papers) for poor procedures for collecting statistics.

Other studies of a similar nature peg the number everywhere from 1-2%.

OOC: I'll repeat the comments made by transgendered individuals in the ACA. If you could address these, we'd be very grateful. Apologies if you've already made the appropriate amendments, I'm feeling a bit lazy today and haven't re-read the proposal.

I vote AGAINST this bill, as while it has great intentions, it forces us to take steps backwards in who is and is not recognized as whichever gender. Read article 5. It would force everyone to legally define who can be called what gender, and to force courts to define those transsexuals who have not or do not wish to go through with SRS as their original gender.
The Transgender Equality Act mentions intersexed people, then completely ignores them and excludes them in Article 5. It's a clear case of tyranny of the majority of the minority, or something. This transgendered delegate from AYWM presents a Nay vote.

As a side note, is it me, or does "law enforcement authorities should be encouraged to access anti-transgender training so they can adequately and sufficiently deliver justice to members of the transgender community" sound just about opposite of what it's supposed to mean?
The medicalization of Transsexualism under the heading of Gender Identity Disphoria is an outdated and poorly researched institution of oppression inflicted upon trans-people in 'civilized' nations. The wide array of possibility and diversity in gender expression transcends a narrow medical understanding of brain chemistry, chromosomes, and genetalia that may or may not fit into a rigid dualistic gender system. The fifth article of this proposal maintains this status quo of false duality and advocates assignment of gender and sex at birth, an institution which also excludes intersexed persons who were mentioned previously in this document.

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

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

Other transgender people, including cross dressers, feminine men, and masculine women will continue to be legally defined by their biological sex at birth.

For starters this fails to acknowledge a plurality of medical birth sexes of intersexed persons and other medical 'anomolies'. It allows governments to use sex/gender as a primary mode of identification just like many nations use race or class as primary identifyers and privelages those who fit into a dualistic M/F categories and ignores those who do not.

This article also privelages post-operative transexuals over all other trans persons.
We're against the transgender rights resolution not because we're against transgender rights--being transgendered myself, I'm particularly in favor of them--but because the resolution has some serious problems. (It fails to address the intersexed, and then in Article 5 it rules that you are legally whatever you were born with until such time as you have surgery, which is a damnably narrow and oppressive way of defining gender.)

That said, there is a school of thought that says we should vote for it because it's meant in a pro-transgender way, and that doing anything to show support is better than doing nothing. That's a hard decision to make. For one thing, if the resolution is badly worded (and this one is) then opponents of the spirit of the resolution could twist the wording in order to use it against itself. For example, a country could, from the letter of the law, create an "anti transgender" police force in order to "deliver justice" to the transgendered--by hanging them all. In this case, the potential for subversion justifies being picky about wording.
Hope these are of some assistance.

A question for the proposer.... In your latest draft, Articles 1 and 2 read:

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

Article two:

1)One's gender identity and/or expression are not justifiable grounds for refusing to hire, neither promote or train, nor are they justified grounds for dismissal in all UN countries.

2) Under this resolution, Employers shall retain the right to impose sex specific dress code and that shall not be considered in violation of the rights to gender expression that is specified in this resolution. However, this resolution will not override any national laws that ban sex specific dress code nor will this resolution prevent national government to legislate law(s) against sex specific dress code.

If Article One prohibits discrimination of any kind, why is it necessary to then specifically address workplace discrimination in Article 2? It seems to me that, if you pass a law banning vegetables, there's no need to pass another law banning carrots. I suggest that striking Article Two would leave the protection against discrimination in place while removing a potential target for objectors.

For the Ambassador to the United Nations:
Ærnoud B. Vlyminck
Minister for Justice and Attorney General

A question for the proposer.... In your latest draft, Articles 1 and 2 read:

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

Article two:

1)One's gender identity and/or expression are not justifiable grounds for refusing to hire, neither promote or train, nor are they justified grounds for dismissal in all UN countries.

2) Under this resolution, Employers shall retain the right to impose sex specific dress code and that shall not be considered in violation of the rights to gender expression that is specified in this resolution. However, this resolution will not override any national laws that ban sex specific dress code nor will this resolution prevent national government to legislate law(s) against sex specific dress code.

If Article One prohibits discrimination of any kind, why is it necessary to then specifically address workplace discrimination in Article 2? It seems to me that, if you pass a law banning vegetables, there's no need to pass another law banning carrots. I suggest that striking Article Two would leave the protection against discrimination in place while removing a potential target for objectors.

For the Ambassador to the United Nations:
Ærnoud B. Vlyminck
Minister for Justice and Attorney General

I think there are a alot of laws that specifically cater to workplace discrimination. And you HAVE to make it explicit. But thats a good question.

Workplace discrimination has two prongs to it:
1) Personal discrimination is treatment of co-worker/employee
2) Discrimination for hiring/firing/etc.

(1) would be covered by article 1, but (2) wouldn't - because justified reasons for firing/etc are blind to discrimination. It's the reason that when they write these laws, they actually refuse to mention "discrimination" in that article.

I bring your attention to one example that was put up on the vote thread: what if you're turning down a guy for a woman's clothes modeling job. Is that discrimination? Technically, yes. However, your justification is that, quite frankly, a man would be incapable of performing the job you are hiring for. As such, discrimination is generally ignored in hiring/firing/etc issues.

Agnostic Deeishpeople, we of Junenk, while completely unimportant in the big scheme of things, voted against this proposal the first time because it was, in our view, too strong. The UN should not, in our view, be determining such specific and possibly contentious issues for each and every nation. If the resolution had been toned down and more along the lines of previous anti-discrimination resolutions, it would have received our strongest support. The argument was not with the content, but with its potential to impact on our right of self determination, and as such we could do naught but oppose. We wish to remain a part of the UN, but recent resolutions are increasingly testing our resolve.

With a view to your most recent changes, it appears that it has had some of its more contentious issues removed, but if anything now appears to be mired in a series of compromises and bargained solutions, which, if anything, render it somewhat confusing and inherently tangled. We fear that this too will be defeated, despite our latent libertarian views, for the simple fact that it attempts to accomplish too much to satisfy too many.

We strongly recommend you consider revising to something simpler and more straightforward, if somewhat lacking in as much strength and specific focus of the current draft, to ensure a wider base of support. We wish you the best in getting your ideas through.

Nym Sudo, Ambassador at Large, The Long Lunch of Junenk.

Workplace discrimination has two prongs to it:
1) Personal discrimination is treatment of co-worker/employee
2) Discrimination for hiring/firing/etc.

(1) would be covered by article 1, but (2) wouldn't - because justified reasons for firing/etc are blind to discrimination. It's the reason that when they write these laws, they actually refuse to mention "discrimination" in that article.

I bring your attention to one example that was put up on the vote thread: what if you're turning down a guy for a woman's clothes modeling job. Is that discrimination? Technically, yes. However, your justification is that, quite frankly, a man would be incapable of performing the job you are hiring for. As such, discrimination is generally ignored in hiring/firing/etc issues.

We respectfully disagree. We believe that prohibited discrimination is prohibited discrimination -- regardless of whether it occurs in hiring/termination/promotion or in other workplace situations, such as assignment of hours of duty or provision of training opportunities. We continue to believe that Article One is sufficient to cover the issue and that Article Two will serve as nothing more than a handy target for those opposed in general to the proposal.

Taking your example.... A man applies for a job modeling women's clothes. I reject the application on the grounds that he is not capable of displaying the clothes in a manner that satisfies my requirements. That is certainly a "justified reason" for denying hire. Inability to perform the functions and duties of a position is clearly a valid reason for denial or termination of employment. It is not discrimination.

I am not sure if the following point has been raised or not, but here goes...

I am also against the discrimination to transgendered people and don't mind them in my country.

But, I am also against the official recognition of the new sex of transgendered people. Even if on the outside men who have been operated upon look like women, the fact still remains that they can NEVER give birth to a child. SO does that make them a complete woman??

Hence I would identify these people under MT and FT instead of M and F for their sex.

If the operated men can give birth, please excuse my ignorance

I am not sure if the following point has been raised or not, but here goes...

I am also against the discrimination to transgendered people and don't mind them in my country.

But, I am also against the official recognition of the new sex of transgendered people. Even if on the outside men who have been operated upon look like women, the fact still remains that they can NEVER give birth to a child. SO does that make them a complete woman??

Hence I would identify these people under MT and FT instead of M and F for their sex.

If the operated men can give birth, please excuse my ignorance


infertile women are women too? you dont give legal status to a woman based on if she has or has not given birth.

and... its EXTREAMLY unfair and disgusting to be identified legally as a transgender person. A person's shouldnt be defined by their transgender status and its none of anyone 's business.

Article one: One’s gender identity or expression must be included as a prohibited ground of discrimination; all transgender people and gender non conformists should receive the same rights and protections as everyone else residing in all U.N member countries.

Article two:

1) One’s gender identity and/or expression are not justifiable grounds for refusing to hire, neither promote or train, nor are they justified grounds for dismissal in all UN countries.

2) Under this resolution, Employers shall retain the right to impose sex specific dress code and that shall not be considered in violation of the rights to gender expression that is specified in this resolution. However, this resolution will not override any national laws that ban sex specific dress code nor will this resolution prevent national government to legislate law(s) against sex specific dress code.

Article three:


Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally. This resolution does not condone or condemn sex reassignment surgery; however,
therapy, sex reassignment surgery and its related medical procedures must be legal options available to anyone who is diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a trained mental health professional.

2] U.N countries reserve the right to determine who funds the sex reassignment surgeries and their related medical procedures.

3) Medical personnel cannot refuse to give medical attention, procedures or treatments, with the exception of SRS-related medical issues, to any transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people.

4) U.N countries reserve the right to allow reasonable and justifiable grounds for discrimination in health care, but moral or religious reasons are not justifiable grounds for discrimination when a patient requires emergency medical attentions or treatments.



Article four: Any person who is diagnosed with gender dsyphoria and had undergone a legal sex reassignment surgery must be allowed to change his or her legal gender status. The issue of whether to grant pre operative and non operative transsexuals the right to change their legal gender will be left up for individual nation to decide.

Article five: If any U.N member nation has law(s) that go beyond the rights and protections that are enlisted in this resolution, the Transgender Equality Act will not remove those rights.

We respectfully disagree. We believe that prohibited discrimination is prohibited discrimination -- regardless of whether it occurs in hiring/termination/promotion or in other workplace situations, such as assignment of hours of duty or provision of training opportunities. We continue to believe that Article One is sufficient to cover the issue and that Article Two will serve as nothing more than a handy target for those opposed in general to the proposal.

Taking your example.... A man applies for a job modeling women's clothes. I reject the application on the grounds that he is not capable of displaying the clothes in a manner that satisfies my requirements. That is certainly a "justified reason" for denying hire. Inability to perform the functions and duties of a position is clearly a valid reason for denial or termination of employment. It is not discrimination.


In the U.S, they have an Employment Non-Discrimination Act even when the U.S constitution already guarantees equal rights.

and employers have the right to impose sex specific dress code, i added that in my resolution.

infertile women are women too? you dont give legal status to a woman based on if she has or has not given birth.

and... its EXTREAMLY unfair and disgusting to be identified legally as a transgender person. A person's shouldnt be defined by their transgender status and its none of anyone 's business.

I will conceed that it is probably not appeasing to identify transgenders with a new sex, but I still stand by my first statement.


But, I am also against the official recognition of the new sex of transgendered people. Even if on the outside men who have been operated upon look like women, the fact still remains that they can NEVER give birth to a child. SO does that make them a complete woman??
From the above in addition to what you said...
I do know that you dont give legal status to a woman based on if she has or has not given birth. I just talked about the ability to give birth!! So you probably have misunderstood me there.

What I basically am trying to imply is that, although a man can look like a woman through operation, he is still not a complete woman and cannot perform what original woman through birth can. This includes, but is not limited to...
1) Give birth to a child
2) Lactate through her mamary glands
3) Have menstrual cycles

Hence, only if a person is woman by birth can he truly be a woman. Otherwise he is a semi-woman or a transgender.
BTW, in your example of infertility, the fact still remains that the infertile woman could have given birth. Only her medical condition prevents her from doing so.



Hence I would identify these people under MT and FT instead of M and F for their sex.
Well, I have told you why these transgendered people cannot be truly classified under Female or Male. But until your proposed resolution is passed, conservative people will still frown upon these transgenders. Probably every 9/10 transgenders can be recognised and they might be descriminated upon as not having a specific sex. So if they are given a proper legal sex classification, isn't that better than not having one at all. SO ISN'T THAT AN INCREASE IN HUMAN RIGHT IN ITSELF??



If I have said some thing wrong, CHALLENGE ME. Else please do the needful.

The people of Darvainia have examined this new, revised resolution very closely, and we congratulate you on a job welldone. We were adamantly opposed to the last one, but find this new resolution very acceptable. We will need input from the Darvainian citizens, and need to examine closer the pros and cons of the resolution when it is official debate on the U.N floor, but it looks hopeful that we could give this one a yes. My compliments to the agnostic deeishpeoples for finding a more reasonable compromise on this issue.

Jusma: I have a story for you. It is one that I use when anyone tries to make an argument regarding anything about gender specifics regarding reproduction because it is a rather....odd (and ironic) case. It concerns a friend of mine from High School.

On our last week of finals, his ex-gf (broken up about a month because she wanted to pursue a career elsewhere) informed him that she was pregnant. That friday, he got into an accident and ended up sterilized.

If one is to be determined as a man or woman because of their capability to reproduce, is he no longer a man? He is incapable of fertilizing an egg, but he already has. How would you classify him?

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

To determine a man or a woman based solely on their capabilities of reproduction is foolhardy at best. Numerous men and women throughout the world would all of a sudden lose their status as either man or woman revoked. Some of them end up in this situation because of choice or accident, some because a bloody government program of some form or another that was discrimatory in nature. I note that these government programs have been heard of in MANY industrialized, democratic nations - even in the past century (my own province included).

I neither accept nor support your belief of what constitutes a man or a woman.

I will conceed that it is probably not appeasing to identify transgenders with a new sex, but I still stand by my first statement.



From the above in addition to what you said...
I do know that you dont give legal status to a woman based on if she has or has not given birth. I just talked about the ability to give birth!! So you probably have misunderstood me there.

What I basically am trying to imply is that, although a man can look like a woman through operation, he is still not a complete woman and cannot perform what original woman through birth can. This includes, but is not limited to...
1) Give birth to a child
2) Lactate through her mamary glands
3) Have menstrual cycles

Hence, only if a person is woman by birth can he truly be a woman. Otherwise he is a semi-woman or a transgender.
BTW, in your example of infertility, the fact still remains that the infertile woman could have given birth. Only her medical condition prevents her from doing so.




Well, I have told you why these transgendered people cannot be truly classified under Female or Male. But until your proposed resolution is passed, conservative people will still frown upon these transgenders. Probably every 9/10 transgenders can be recognised and they might be descriminated upon as not having a specific sex. So if they are given a proper legal sex classification, isn't that better than not having one at all. SO ISN'T THAT AN INCREASE IN HUMAN RIGHT IN ITSELF??



If I have said some thing wrong, CHALLENGE ME. Else please do the needful.

Firstly, Darvainia,, I want to thank you for your comment. I have made many concession on this resolution but at the same time, I have also strengthen it. This is no longer just a transgender act, this is an act for anyone who has ever been harmed by gender stereotypes. I think most people fall into that category.

I would now like to address Jusma Kullailie’s concern.

I think it is impossible for transsexual people to live fully with dignity and respect if they are not allowed to integrate into the society, and the only way to integrate into the society , for most people, is to be allowed to be accepted into a certain sex category. I simply cannot accept the notion of legally defining people based on if they had SRS in the past or not. This is a private business and it is harmful and damaging; a transgender person deserves the privacy of not letting everyone knows if he or she has been born a certain sex or not. Not allowing transgender people to change their legal genders would go against the spirit of this resolution. Yes , there will be nations that will ignore this resolution, just as there will be nations who will not allow gay marriages even though the U.N demands it. Non compliance is an issue for all resolutions.

The same is with people who are intersex, there are legal females who have Xy chromosomes and there are "legal females" who lacks a uterus or processes an ambiguous sex organs. They are females and its none of any one's business if their bodies are not the same as the "average typical female." And their intersex status is nobody's concerns either.

Agnostic Deeishpeople, I acknowledge your experience as a UN member. Also the same for Forgottenlands. However, I still feel that you may have misunderstood me.

I merely gave the reproduction example as an example why an operation conducted by a HUMAN to make a man a woman is not 100% successful in doing so. We are a conservative nation who also give importance to religion. Hence there is a negligent number of transgender people and the methods for operating them in our country.

The bottom line is that ONLY GOD can create a proper woman (through the mother's child delivery). Some women (or men) created by GOD may not have the ability to give birth (Or perform other gender related activities), BUT NONE of the men converted to Women through operation can give birth (Or perform other gender related activities).


Never the less, RoJK also accepts the fact that some policies of certain nations will not always be acceptable to others. Should this proposal come for another vote, we shall rationally think over our decision with an open mind. In event that we are totally undecided, we may at worst abstain from voting.

We extend our well wishes and wish Agnostic Deeishpeople all the best for their future endeavours. We also wish to improve relations with the future of the two nations in mind and treat the indifference on this resolution as simply a discussion by two mature rulers of their nation.

I appreciate your concern. It is an issue that some people have to struggle with, I believe that there is a biological basis for gender dysphoria, so in a way, God did create trasngender people but it is obvious that God cannot decide who is a male or a female ; humans do. (this is noted in the cases of intersex babies, the surgeons , family decide what sex the baby shall have)

And I dont have alot of experience as a U.N member, I am learning just like you are. I am just a newbie in many ways. :D


Sincerely,
Hermione Granger, Spokeswoman of ROADP.

Defining Gender Identity as a continuum and it involves a person’s innate sense of self -sex while gender expression is also a continuum with femininity at one end and masculinity at the other end. Gender expression is the external presentation of a person’s gender; specifically, gender expressions include , but not limited to, the followings: clothing styles, appearances, mannerism , communication styles and hair styles.

does anyone has a problme with this ?

Agnostic Deeishpeople, I acknowledge your experience as a UN member. Also the same for Forgottenlands. However, I still feel that you may have misunderstood me.

I merely gave the reproduction example as an example why an operation conducted by a HUMAN to make a man a woman is not 100% successful in doing so. We are a conservative nation who also give importance to religion. Hence there is a negligent number of transgender people and the methods for operating them in our country.

The bottom line is that ONLY GOD can create a proper woman (through the mother's child delivery). Some women (or men) created by GOD may not have the ability to give birth (Or perform other gender related activities), BUT NONE of the men converted to Women through operation can give birth (Or perform other gender related activities).

My concern with using this policy of TM and TF is then you are segregating them on paper - allowing for people to more easily discriminate against them - especially from a position of authority where you have access to this information (eg: when you are applying for a job - it could be a way - illegal, mind you, but not able to be proven in a court of law, since employers have the right to refuse an interview if you put "Worked on" instead of "Participated in" on line 15 of your resume or something stupid like that - for the employer to decide not to even see this person for an interview). On the same note, your resume says male and you walk in with a dress skirt and blouse, makeup all done, and B-cup boobs......also easily segregatable (though, admittedly, much more difficult for the employer to refuse a job based upon that - but again, the Employer is at an advantage. Unless he has a history of refusing transgenders or something along that line, or it can be proven that you are unequivicably the best applicant for the job, he is in a position of power in a court of law.)

forgotten land, can u comment on my resolution please.

well i appreciate anyone else to comment on it.. :)

TBH, I've got this thread classified as third priority - resolution at vote is always first priority, new topics or topics dear to me are second priority. After the massive post on the resolution at vote topic, I'm catching up on second priorities, then I'll have supper, then I'll respond. Expect a response at the latest, 2 hours.

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

Description: We, the United Nations, recognize the basic human rights of all individuals, including the transgender people and the gender non conformists. The Freedom to Gender Identity and Expressions Law seeks to extend civil rights and fair treatment to members of the transgender community and gender non conformists.

....Ok

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

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, a transgender person to be any person who has a gender identity that does not match with his or her biological sex ; any person who acts, behaves , lives like the stereotype of the opposite sex; transvestites ; pre operative transsexuals and post operative transsexuals.

I still don't like the definition, but you don't seem to be listening to me on it

Defining a gender non conformist, GNC, as anyone who doesn’t’ identify oneself as either a male or female;anyone who doesnt subscribe to the gender binary system; anyone who doesn’t fit the gender stereotype which society/laws impose upon a person’s birth sex.

Put GNC in brackets

What if society doesn't give them a birth sex that fits the binary system?

Believing that gender is not the same as biological sex.

Noting that gender is composed of the feelings, attitudes and behaviors associated with being male or female; therefore, Gender is partially a social construction and no one has to live according to any societal concept of masculinity or femininity.

Defining Gender Identity as a continuum and it involves a person’s innate sense of self -sex while gender expression is also a continuum with femininity at one end and masculinity at the other end. Gender expression is the external presentation of a person’s gender; specifically, gender expressions include , but not limited to, the followings: clothing styles, appearances, mannerism , communication styles and hair styles.


Recognizes people who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a trained mental professional; these people have an overwhelming need to live fully as member of the “opposite” sex.

Convinced than people diagnosed with gender dysphoria should have the option to decide how they should be treated (or not be treated) as long as they are supported by team of health professionals ; the medication options for these individuals are to include therapy, sex reassignment surgery and its related medical procedures.

Acknowledges that many transgender people and GNC continue to be discriminated against in all areas of life, including in employment and health care.

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

Noting with Regrets, however, that none of the past human rights resolutions made any explicit mention on the rights to gender identity and/or expression.

Regrets->regret
"rights to gender identity" -> "rights for Gender Identity" (note the caps)

Be it resolved that that the following articles be recognized and declared by the United Nation.

I still like "this United Nations" - because it distinguishes more firmly with other United Nations. Regardless, it's "Nations" in plural

Article one: One’s gender identity or expression must be included as a prohibited ground of discrimination; all transgender people and gender non conformists should receive the same rights and protections as everyone else residing in all U.N member countries.

Article two:

1) One’s gender identity and/or expression are not justifiable grounds for refusing to hire, neither promote or train, nor are they justified grounds for dismissal in all UN countries.

2) Under this resolution, Employers shall retain the right to impose sex specific dress code and that shall not be considered in violation of the rights to gender expression that is specified in this resolution. However, this resolution will not override any national laws that ban sex specific dress code nor will this resolution prevent national government to legislate law(s) against sex specific dress code.

Article three:


Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally. This resolution does not condone or condemn sex reassignment surgery; however,
therapy, sex reassignment surgery and its related medical procedures must be legal options available to anyone who is diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a trained mental health professional.

2] U.N countries reserve the right to determine who funds the sex reassignment surgeries and their related medical procedures.

3) Medical personnel cannot refuse to give medical attention, procedures or treatments, with the exception of SRS-related medical issues, to any transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people.

4) U.N countries reserve the right to allow reasonable and justifiable grounds for discrimination in health care, but moral or religious reasons are not justifiable grounds for discrimination when a patient requires emergency medical attentions or treatments.

attention or treatment (in singular)

Article four: Any person who is diagnosed with gender dsyphoria and had undergone a legal sex reassignment surgery must be allowed to change his or her legal gender status. The issue of whether to grant pre operative and non operative transsexuals the right to change their legal gender will be left up for individual nation to decide.

Article five: If any U.N member nation has law(s) that go beyond the rights and protections that are enlisted in this resolution, the Freedom to Gender Identity and Expression Act will not remove those rights.

"member nations have" (in plural)
enlisted->listed

Content wise, same concern as before, but otherwise good.

same concerns? but...i included this!!



4) U.N countries reserve the right to allow reasonable and justifiable grounds for discrimination in health care, but moral or religious reasons are not justifiable grounds for discrimination when a patient requires emergency medical attentions or treatments.

and what is wrong with my definition of a transgender person?

Thanks for the spelling corrections!

I still take issue that just because they are outside the gender norms means that they are transgender. I noted your inclusion in article 4 and I thank you for that.

this resolution has always been about protecitng masculine women and feminine men. It was never just about people who have or need to have SRS.

whatever the gender stereotypes is, people have a right to not conform to it, no?

and any nation can make up plenty of justified reasons to refuse treatment ot transgender people..if i write "or other justified reasons"


Umm.... why do people have a right to not conform to things? Do you see this right as an inherent right? Because one could extend the argument and say that whatever the stereotype of justice is, a leader has a right to not conform to it, and so shouldn't be punished? Also -- why is this an international issue rather than an issue of individual state policy? :confused:

Umm.... why do people have a right to not conform to things? Do you see this right as an inherent right? Because one could extend the argument and say that whatever the stereotype of justice is, a leader has a right to not conform to it, and so shouldn't be punished? Also -- why is this an international issue rather than an issue of individual state policy? :confused:

You have a right to conform to any belief you want - but you must understand that no matter what right you may have and use, you still may not infringe upon another person's rights. You have this right as you have the right to choose - and thus you have the right to choose to act like someone else (and therefore, conform to them). However, this right does not extend to the point where you can infringe upon another person's rights.

infertile women are women too? you dont give legal status to a woman based on if she has or has not given birth.

and... its EXTREAMLY unfair and disgusting to be identified legally as a transgender person. A person's shouldnt be defined by their transgender status and its none of anyone 's business.

If we are fighting for the right not to conform to steteotypes here, then what's wrong with being a transgendered person, or better yet, why don't we just eleminate any designation of either man or woman and instead refer to everything in specifically gender-neutral terms. Which again might have some interesting future effects as children are indoctrinated into such a society.

What's disgusting about being identified as transgendered? Am I missing something here?

No:

1) Amazons (for example) have a rather different stereotype than what we would consider normal
2) What about tomboys or meterosexuals/flamboyant guys? They generally are not in a position where their "mental" gender is different than they're physical gender, they just have areas of interest or characteristics that are traditionally associated with the other sex. It's like defining all flamboyant men as being gay.


Umm... I thought all flamboyant men *were* gay? ;)

I still take issue that just because they are outside the gender norms means that they are transgender. I noted your inclusion in article 4 and I thank you for that.


thats why I made another cateogry , gender non conformists

because we are all gender non conformists to a different degree. I know some people might not want to be called a gender non conformist, but what else can i call it?

very few, if any of us, follows the gender norm completely, not to mention we dont even know what gender norm consists of exactly.

THis is no longer a transgender act, this is an act about the freedom to gender identity and expressions. It protects, basically, everyone.

thats why I made another cateogry , gender non conformists

because we are all gender non conformists to a different degree. I know some people might not want to be called a gender non conformist, but what else can i call it?

THis is no longer a transgender act, this is an act about the freedom to gender identity and expressions. It protects, basically, everyone.

And yet, gender non-conformists are included in the transgender definition?

oh shit..u are right..

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, a transgender person to be any person who has a gender identity that does not match with his or her biological sex ; any person who acts, behaves , lives like the stereotype of the opposite sex; transvestites ; pre operative transsexuals and post operative transsexuals.


ok so i take out this..

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, a transgender person to be any person who has a gender identity that does not match with his or her biological sex ; transvestites ; pre operative transsexuals and post operative transsexuals.

Defining a gender non conformist, GNC, as anyone who doesn’t’ identify oneself as either a male or female;anyone who doesnt privately subscribe to the gender binary system; anyone who doesn’t fit the gender stereotype which society/laws impose upon a person’s birth sex.



some nations might have people who dont require their citizens to have a "legal gender"
but this resolution should not ban nations from having only a "binary gender legal system" but at the same time, genderless people still have rights and protections even if the laws dont recognize that they dont want "legal genders"


this is what i believe, does this resolution convey that idea?

I have a suggestion. Make a poll where nations can answer multiple answers and keep the results public. The question should be, "The removal of which of the articles of the Transgender Equality Act would you like to see?"

1. Article 1
2. Article 2
3. Article 3
4. Article 4
5. Article 5

People who want them all can and will vote for them all, but the articles that are least objected to are the strength. You can make the poll for the new draft.

The key here is to give it a few weeks. A vote again in August will probably just anger a few nations. We've got three proposals in the resolution queue, and that should mix up the debate for a while.



I like this idea. Instead of actually writing proposals on principal, we can ensure that proposal writing is a popularity contest, or a summer boxoffice movie blockbuster. The least icky, least disturbing feel-good stuff will just fluff its way into law.

This could be a new and innovative way to design a new legal system. It's like combining the consumer research aspects of marketing with "The People's Court".

:rolleyes:

If we are fighting for the right not to conform to steteotypes here, then what's wrong with being a transgendered person, or better yet, why don't we just eleminate any designation of either man or woman and instead refer to everything in specifically gender-neutral terms. Which again might have some interesting future effects as children are indoctrinated into such a society.

What's disgusting about being identified as transgendered? Am I missing something here?


theres nothing wrong with being transgender, but at the same time, it puts people into dangerous when theres a "transgender or a gay" label being put on their foreheads, its a private business.

And u know..i would love to have a legal system that is completely gender neutrals, but its not realistic and wont get passed.

What if society doesn't give them a birth sex that fits the binary system?


than they have nothing to worry about?...

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, a gender non conformist, “GNC”, as anyone who doesn’t identify oneself as either a male or female socially and/or legally; anyone who falls outside of the gender binary system of male and female; anyone who doesn’t fit the gender stereotype which society/laws impose upon a person’s birth sex.

is this okay? i really want to know this, because i am confused on this one.

Revised.

Article one: All Transgender and Gender Non Conforming people should have the same legal protections and rights as everyone else in any member nations.

1) This article recognizes and allows member nations to differentiate Transgender/Gender Non conforming citizens only under the following conditions : 1. Where there is an emergency situation that significantly threatens the security of a nation 2. In times of an armed conflict between nations or communities/groups within a nation. 3. There is a serious physical threat to a large portion of a nation's populace.

2) A nation's right to legislate differential treatments do not , under any circumstances, include singling out Transsgender/Gender Non Conforming citizens for the purpose of physically harming, torturing and/or murdering them.






Article two:

1) One’s gender identity and/or expression are not justifiable grounds for refusing to hire, neither promote or train, nor are they justified grounds for dismissal in all UN countries. Everyone, regardless of their Gender Identities and/or Expressions should be judged solely by their work performances.

2) Declares that this Article does not apply to:
1. Situations where Employers wish to impose sex specific dress code on their employees. ( Except in U.N countries where sex specific dress code is banned)
2. Religious organizations.


Article three: The U.N does not condone or condemn sex reassignment surgery; however, therapy, sex reassignment surgery and its related medical procedures must be legal options available to anyone who is diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a trained mental health professional.

2] U.N countries reserve the right to determine who funds the sex reassignment surgeries and their related medical procedures.

3) Medical personnel cannot refuse to give medical attention, procedures or treatments, with the exception of SRS-related medical issues, to any transgender citizen or gender non conforming citizens.

4) U.N countries reserve the right to allow reasonable and justifiable grounds for discrimination in health care, but moral or religious reasons are not justifiable grounds for discrimination when a patient requires emergency medical attentions or treatments.



Article four: Any person who is diagnosed with gender dsyphoria and had undergone a legal sex reassignment surgery must be allowed to change his or her legal gender status. The issue of whether to grant pre operative and non operative transsexuals the right to change their legal gender will be left up for individual nation to decide.

Article five: If any U.N member nation has law(s) that go beyond the rights and protections that are enlisted in this resolution, the Freedom to Gender Identity and Expression Act will not remove those rights.

I like this idea. Instead of actually writing proposals on principal, we can ensure that proposal writing is a popularity contest, or a summer boxoffice movie blockbuster. The least icky, least disturbing feel-good stuff will just fluff its way into law.

This could be a new and innovative way to design a new legal system. It's like combining the consumer research aspects of marketing with "The People's Court".

:rolleyes:

You are of course aware that many of our governments have the ability to:

1) executive branch line-item vetos for individual clauses that our national legislative bodies pass,

2) make changes to bills (i.e. laws that aren't yet finalized) via line-item amendments.

Both at most of the cantons and at the national level (via our Council of Mayors), my government firmly believes in _democratic_ rule. For democracy to work, it is best to not just "assume" where we need to make compromises but to actually solicite direct feedback (which many of our nations call polls or elections).

You of course can refuse to vote, but clearly something was disliked by enough nations that the original version of the Transgendered Equality Act barely lost.

hold on a minute, individual nation can amend passed U.S resolution?

and Miki, you didnt tell me what u think about my resolution! :)

Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally. This resolution does not condone or condemn sex reassignment surgery; however,
therapy, sex reassignment surgery and its related medical procedures must be legal options available to anyone who is diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a trained mental health professional.

This bit of exposition seems out of place. It might fit in well in a preamble, but in the active section it seems a bit off-kilter.

hold on a minute, individual nation can amend passed U.S resolution?

and Miki, you didnt tell me what u think about my resolution! :)

Some nations can change their own domestic laws ... UN laws, that is another matter that has always been up for debate. We certainly have no power to change the actual text of UN resolutions once they reach the floor.

I was just really pointing out that getting feedback isn't a CNN or ESPN styled "poll", but a legitimate thing for ambassadors like ourselves to do. :)

As for your new proposed resolution, I'm still holding off a bit before commenting, largely because I want to reread the entire (25 pages) of posts from the previous resolution and get it into NSWiki early next week. My nation's value to the UN isn't going to be in endorsing an idea, but rather in its choice to spend time building a bit of PR for the UN itself by writing neutral POV Wiki entries that player created media outlets and new ambassadors can use to get up to speed! :)

(But also be rereading the entire debate and filtering out posts that have guns and such in them, I'm hoping I'll be better able to indirectly highlight the no-maybes and maybes that you and the other proponents can target as swing votes.)

p.s. NSWiki is a community resource, anybody can add content to it. What I'm doing is NO WAY official or not the type of thing you shouldn't feel free to say, "Hey, that is biased!" or "Hey, that isn't exactly right." NSWiki has a motto I love "Be Bold!" There are a number of admins that are even more neutral than me watch-doging NSWiki from actual vandalism ... and it should be fun.

very few, if any of us, follows the gender norm completely, not to mention we dont even know what gender norm consists of exactly. THis is no longer a transgender act, this is an act about the freedom to gender identity and expressions. It protects, basically, everyone.
... so let me get this straight, you're effectively saying everyone is to some extent a non-conformist to a stereotype which in practical terms doesn't actually exist outside our heads, and this resolution is designed to protect everyone from discriminating against everyone.

If this passes, I'll eat my hat. And Junenk will leave the UN. This is much akin to proving black is, really, just a shade of white. who knows what kind of trouble you'll get into at the next zebra crossing.

-- Nym Sudo, Ambassador at Large, Junenk.

... so let me get this straight, you're effectively saying everyone is to some extent a non-conformist to a stereotype which in practical terms doesn't actually exist outside our heads, and this resolution is designed to protect everyone from discriminating against everyone.

If this passes, I'll eat my hat. And Junenk will leave the UN. This is much akin to proving black is, really, just a shade of white. who knows what kind of trouble you'll get into at the next zebra crossing.

-- Nym Sudo, Ambassador at Large, Junenk.

Pretty much - and it does happen and it shouldn't be allowed so.....yeah

... so let me get this straight, you're effectively saying everyone is to some extent a non-conformist to a stereotype which in practical terms doesn't actually exist outside our heads, and this resolution is designed to protect everyone from discriminating against everyone.


-- Nym Sudo, Ambassador at Large, Junenk.


gender stereotypes do exist outside of our head....its partly socially constrcuted. And everything else, you got it right.

if anyone has any problem with a specific article, please tell me here, thanks. I would appreciate if you give your reason(s) too.

with the change to the definition, I happilly support this resolution

hehe yay one down a few thousands more to go. :p

Article one: All Transgender and Gender Non Conforming people should have the same legal protections and rights as everyone else in any member nations.

1) This article recognizes and allows member nations to differentiate Transgender/Gender Non conforming citizens by reducing or increasing rights only under the following conditions : 1. Where there is an emergency situation that significantly threatens the security of a whole nation 2. In times of an armed conflict between nations or communities/groups within a nation. 3. A significant number of citizens throughout a country are physically attacked and/or killed because of the legal rights and/or protection granted to transsexuals and gender non conforming people.

2) A nation's right to legislate differential treatments do not , under any circumstances, include singling out Transsgender/Gender Non Conforming citizens for the purpose of physically injuring, torturing and/or murdering them.



I especially want peoples opinon on this, thanks. I would REALLy appreciate it.

Article one: All Transgender and Gender Non Conforming people should have the same legal protections and rights as everyone else in any member nations.

1) This article recognizes and allows member nations to differentiate Transgender/Gender Non conforming citizens by reducing or increasing rights only under the following conditions : 1. Where there is an emergency situation that significantly threatens the security of a whole nation 2. In times of an armed conflict between nations or communities/groups within a nation. 3. A significant number of citizens throughout a country are physically attacked and/or killed because of the legal rights and/or protection granted to transsexuals and gender non conforming people.

2) A nation's right to legislate differential treatments do not , under any circumstances, include singling out Transsgender/Gender Non Conforming citizens for the purpose of physically injuring, torturing and/or murdering them.



I especially want peoples opinon on this, thanks. I would REALLy appreciate it.


To be honest I'm not sure I like the idea of a government having the right to decrease or increase rights for any group for any reason. When a group of people are granted rights of equality and protection under law, then they should never in any cirucumstances lose those rights, or have their groups rights raised above the rest of the population as that would just cause jelousy and unrest from the rest of the population and has the potential to increase violence towards transgender people.

I'm not writing this off however and would need to see how it fits in with the rest of your revised proposal.

One thing I'm not sure has been mentioned. I watched an episode of Law and Order SVU the other day and it raisied an interesting and very real problem for transgender people. It involved a transgender person accused of murder.

"She" was a woman in all respects except what was between the legs (was waiting for the operation) and was feminine enough to keep "her" boyfriend in the dark until he was told. This person was sent to a male prison. The end of the episode had "her" in surgery after being gang raped in prison. Perhaps a line requiring transgender people to be assessed on entry to a prison situation and allowing them to serve their sentence in isolation if it is felt they would be in danger from the other prisoners could be considered.

This is already covered under the discrimination accord - no need to add it.

Article three: The U.N does not condone or condemn sex reassignment surgery; however, therapy, sex reassignment surgery and its related medical procedures must be legal options available to anyone who is diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a trained mental health professional.

The statement that the UN does not "condone or condemn" the abomination known as "sex reassignment surgery" is belied in the very next sentence, where the the practice is insisted upon as a legal option. Enforcing such a rule is a de facto condoning of the practice.

We have been down this route before. It is for this very reason Our government so vigorously opposed the first incarnation of this resolution. If this offensive article is included, We will have no choice but to just as vigorously oppose this new version.

This is already covered under the discrimination accord - no need to add it.

..i thought each resolution is supposed to be judged and viewed seperately?

are you completley sure??

However, i also have something to add. In Canada, aboriginal people get special rights to fish or whatever.

So I am going to add..

UN countries reserve the right to give special rights to certain group(s) of people. These special rights should be judged on a case by case basis but the principle of equal application of the law should be respected as much as possible.

The Eternal Kawaii , I will have to agree to disagree.

water- thats a good point, but it might be too specific for U.N laws. Actually thats a really good idea.. thanks!

To be honest I'm not sure I like the idea of a government having the right to decrease or increase rights for any group for any reason. When a group of people are granted rights of equality and protection under law, then they should never in any cirucumstances lose those rights, or have their groups rights raised above the rest of the population as that would just cause jelousy and unrest from the rest of the population and has the potential to increase violence towards transgender people.

I'm not writing this off however and would need to see how it fits in with the rest of your revised proposal.

One thing I'm not sure has been mentioned. I watched an episode of Law and Order SVU the other day and it raisied an interesting and very real problem for transgender people. It involved a transgender person accused of murder.

"She" was a woman in all respects except what was between the legs (was waiting for the operation) and was feminine enough to keep "her" boyfriend in the dark until he was told. This person was sent to a male prison. The end of the episode had "her" in surgery after being gang raped in prison. Perhaps a line requiring transgender people to be assessed on entry to a prison situation and allowing them to serve their sentence in isolation if it is felt they would be in danger from the other prisoners could be considered.


u are right..

but what if violence eurpted in a U.N country because of this resolution? like transgender people being killed because of the passing of this resolution, maybe they are not ready


maybe i should just add article 6

Article 6) 1.) The U.N recognizes that immediate implementation of this resolution might cause an increase in volences against Transgender people and Non Gender Conforming People in some member nations that did not previously treated Transgender/Gender Non-Conforming People as equals citizens. These member nations might implement rights to Transgender/Gender Non conforming citizens at their own paces only under the following condition : 1. A significant increase in violences being committed against Transgender/ Gender Non Conforming people after the passing of this resolution.

^ ..

actually no, i dont like that. Forget it.

This is so difficult!

The statement that the UN does not "condone or condemn" the abomination known as "sex reassignment surgery" is belied in the very next sentence, where the the practice is insisted upon as a legal option. Enforcing such a rule is a de facto condoning of the practice.

I would disagree with you on two counts, one is a personal judgement call that SRS is not an 'abomination'.

Secondly i don't feel that it does condone it any more than for instance Gay marriage is condoned nor condemned by the resolution legalising it. It simply states that it should be a legal right.

Article one: All Transgender and Gender Non Conforming people should have the same legal protections and rights as everyone else in any member nations.

2) This U.N resolution does not prevent member nations to give special rights to certain group(s) in exceptional situations.These special rights should be judged on a case by case basis but the principle of equal application of the law should be respected as much as possible.


ok what do u guys think about this?

Article one: All Transgender and Gender Non Conforming people should have the same legal protections and rights as everyone else in any member nations.

2) This U.N resolution does not prevent member nations to give special rights to certain group(s) in exceptional situations.These special rights should be judged on a case by case basis but the principle of equal application of the law should be respected as much as possible.


ok what do u guys think about this? You might want to change that. From my interpretation it seems that a nation could segregate schools and send blacks to bad schools and whites to good ones for example. 'Should' does not mean 'Will'

yeah..but i dont know how to change it...AHHHHHHHH forget it.


Article one: All Transgender and Gender Non Conforming people must have the same legal protections and rights as everyone else in any member nations.

( so implying that if any special rights are given to a certain group, not everyone else has access to them, including transgender) thats all i am going to put. If anyone has any problem........tell me what and how i should change it.


Article 5.

Urges:

1) All member nations to assess the prison situations for pre operative transsexual in the bid to be sensitive about the placement of pre operative transsexual inmates.

2) All member nations to consider putting pre operative transsexuals (in advanced stage of hormonal reassignment) in isolated cells if their personal safety are in danger.

.

I have a radical idea to put to you. Its entirely up to you whether you give it any thought or not.

Instead of focusing on rights for transgender people, most of which in my opinion they already have under the Universal Bill of Rights (especially article 4) and other resolutions, why not concentrate on education and awareness instead.

Most prejedice and violence against minorities can be traced back to ignorance and lack of knowledge. If a nation erupts into violence at transgender people getting equal treatment under a nations law (or any other group for that matter), then there is obvioulsy very little information available to the public on that issue and myths, lies and half truths are winning the day. Its natural for people to be afraid of things they don't know or understand, and acting out violently is part of the fear. Making education on the transgender issue freely available and perhaps made a part of sex education in schools could well go a long way to reducing the violence and help the public as whole accept transgender people as the equals they are, not the freaks of nature some think they are.

Just something for you to consider :).

Theres no U.N resolution that protects transgender people.

the problem is, some member nations do not even recognize transgender as "human beings", they are considered freaks. We know this. Its real life stuff.

It must be explicit.

I would disagree with you on two counts, one is a personal judgement call that SRS is not an 'abomination'.

Secondly i don't feel that it does condone it any more than for instance Gay marriage is condoned nor condemned by the resolution legalising it. It simply states that it should be a legal right.

This is not a question of personal judgment, as the esteemed delegate of Tajiri_san describes it. SRS is the sexual abuse of people who are confused about the nature of their bodies. We have argued this point before during the previous resolution's debate, and Our point still stands. By insisting that it be a legal option, this resolution would have the NSUN put their stamp of approval upon this barbarism, in defiance of the rights of societies who wish not to have it imposed upon them.

Theres no U.N resolution that protects transgender people.

the problem is, some member nations do not even recognize transgender as "human beings", they are considered freaks. We know this. Its real life stuff.

It must be explicit.
What makes the delegation from Agnostic Deeishpeople so certain that the transgendered are not freaks? You cite statistics and supposed scientific consensus which argue in favor of the natural origins of the "transgendered" condition, yet the controversy persists. The real question is, can you prove the condition to be morally right? Can you look to people who consider it immoral, who are made uncomfortable by transgendered people, and tell them with any authority that they are wrong?

Suppose this condition is natural. Suppose it is irreversible. Does that keep people from being made uncomfortable by it? Haven't they got a right to be that way? Haven't they got just as much a right to be different in that regard as the transgendered have got a right to be different in theirs?

If a doctor refuses to treat a transgendered person because he dislikes transgendered people, who has the right to tell him that he must? If an employer wishes to fire a transgendered person because it is bad PR to employ one, who has the right to tell him that he cannot do so? Isn't free choice a universal right?

Perhaps the UN's real concern ought to be in making the world's populations more fluid, so that manifold utopias might be established and populated by their subscribing idealists. Perhaps that ought to be the cause championed by delegation from Agnostic Deeishpeoples.

the problem is, some member nations do not even recognize transgender as "human beings", they are considered freaks. We know this. Its real life stuff.

We rise in objection to this statement. The Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii does not deny the humanity of any person. On the contrary, it is the attitude of this misguided resolution which is denying these people's humanity. It does so by denying the Divinely-created nature of these people's sexuality, and encouraging them to treat their bodies as so much meat to be measured and cut by the butcher.

this reminds me...theres U.S republicans who say that gays have the right to marry...

marry people of the opposite sex.


I think there are so many possibilites that people can twist everything into their own advantages that it is important to states rights explicility

As stated in the other thread (the one with the nice poll of many options) We dislike the fact that employers or anyone, can allow sex specific uniforms.

Also I think that gender should be default identification, and that sex only matter in medical fields.

I.E. if there were Gender based uniforms (which we still feel is a horrible idea, as gender equality should allow a member of any gender to operate in any social situation as a member of any other gender or their own gender, ie a girl can wear a 'boys' uniform and not have to indentify as a boy, and vice versa).

any state/national id cards, passports, etc, should list gender and not sex, and have a not applicable option. The process of identification should be based on how a person actually looks or acts, and not how the socially constructed image of a particular gender or sex acts. I.E. a person does not throw or scream like a 'girl' but rather throws poorly, high pitch/shrill of a scream.

Also the cleaning up of the bill, as mentioned in the thread with the poll, in which a consistant and contrasting catagoriztion of articles, clauses and the like are laid out, ie.
I - Not a donkey
A) llama llama llama
B) Alpaca
1. Not a tortoise
2. Not a duck
3. Space Alien
a. that looks like an Alpaca
b. but not a llama
C) Llama-paca
II - Violent revolutions of the third kind

You dont believe in sex specific dress code, I dont believe in it either.
But some companies force people who have a penis to wear tie, what the hell can i do about it?



And i dont feel that we should even have a gender binary system.. theres alot of things that I dont feel we should have, that doesnt mean it is realistic.


I posted this on the opinon poll, I would appreciate if everyoen would post on the thread where there is a poll and abandon this one. Thanks. :)