NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been reading through past resolutions (mainly, Universal Bill of Rights (26) Sexes Rights Law (68), Rights and Minorities of Women (80), and Discrimination Accord (99)), and I am having difficulty seeing where this extensive "duplication issue" that people were stating throughout the entire debate exists. If someone could show and explain the relative articles in past resolutions and the transgender equality act, and how they are duplications of one another, it would be appreciated (though, admittedly, likely disputed).

The Sexes Rights Law


"...gender is not just a physical manifestation but also a mental manifestation, and recognises that people of self proclaimed gender are also equally protected by the regulations and recommendations bound here in"


This is the only thing that I've found. It is not sufficient.

The only thing that it guarantee is

"a) Equal wages for all sexes.
b) Equal benefits for all sexes."

It doesnt talk about wrongful dismissal, or discrmination in hiring or promotion or anything otherwise.

The above conditions are recommendations applicable within reason in that they are open to interpretation by a member states legal system in regards to each individual case, under the condition that the legal system must act in an un-biased fashion in regard to these cases.

And I dont know what this really means. What is considered "within reason"?

Anyways, this resolution didnt talk about adding gender identities and expressions as a prohibited ground of discrimintion, it didnt talk about the right to sex reassignment surgery, it didnt talk about changing one's legal gender, it didnt talk about protecting EVERYONE from gender stereotypes or unconventional gender presentation. So thats why i think it is insufficient.

I like to listen to others' opinons on this.




btw, My resolution is now renamed to "The Freedom to gender identity and expressions Act."

btw, My resolution is now renamed to "The Freedom to gender identity and expressions Act."
I'm not sure that will fit within the proposal title line.

I'm not sure that will fit within the proposal title line.


Heh. Ok another title than.. :headbang:

Heh. Ok another title than.. :headbang:
Perhaps remove 'The Freedom to'. After all reading the resolution (not to mention its categorisation) will tell people what it is for/against anyways.

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation. The act strikes me as little more than 500 words describing one, very limited, application of the above.

The UN should recognize that all people are created equal. The matter of race, sex, religion or sexual preference should not make anyone less equal. These are inalienable rights of all UN nation citizens.Again, we've established that regardless of sex (this doesn't limit "sex" to simply XX/XY) everyone's equal.

where cultures dominated by one or more sexes infringe upon the rights of one or more other sexes.Direct acknowledgement of multiple sexes.

Does Formally Recognise and Declare : That the rights of all sexes in society are equal, excepting only in the conditions below and that this equality must be preserved in the interests of the social and community rights of all citizens of Nation States United Nation member states.The Nation States United Nations does here-by greatly encourage each member state to establish a minimum of one centre for each sex in their borders, in which people of the sex of the respective designated centre could seek shelter, medical care, and counselling for both themselves and their children or other dependants if they should find themselves without a home or shelter or reasonable support or care, due to any sexually motivated violence or discrimination from the home or work-place, or from such violence or lack of care stemming from society at large.Both of these show that the Sexes Rights Law is forcing member nations to recognize and protect the rights of non-traditionally sexed citizens.

Combining these three Resolutions, it is painfully obvious that the protections sought by the new proposal is little more than grinding a personal axe. All the protections in the new law are present in previous Resolutions. This is like passing a law that states driving 1000mph is illegal when we already have perfectly good speed limit laws.

read my new resolution, thanks.

It does seem as if the universal "All humans treated equal" should work, however after the display of many nations represenatives durring the debates, I think enforcement of the original law, amending the original bill to include people transitioning so that the message is clearer, or a new bill would be needed specifically adressing the issue.

If nothing else, we certainly need more enforcement as many represenatives publicly expressed deep rooted discrimination and threatened the lives of their own citizens in session.

The act strikes me as little more than 500 words describing one, very limited, application of the above.

Equal under the law means they are not to be discriminated against by the state - makes no consideration for the actual general populace

Again, we've established that regardless of sex (this doesn't limit "sex" to simply XX/XY) everyone's equal.

Sexual identity does not equate to gender - which is what the Sexes Rights law addresses

Direct acknowledgement of multiple sexes.

Often, transgender feel they are merely on the wrong side of the binary gender classification system

Both of these show that the Sexes Rights Law is forcing member nations to recognize and protect the rights of non-traditionally sexed citizens.

Combining these three Resolutions, it is painfully obvious that the protections sought by the new proposal is little more than grinding a personal axe. All the protections in the new law are present in previous Resolutions. This is like passing a law that states driving 1000mph is illegal when we already have perfectly good speed limit laws.

Once again, we are talking about sexual identity, not what sex you are considered to be (whether it be government or societal belief), but what sex you believe you are/should be.

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

I had a suspicion this is where the misconception was.