NationStates Jolt Archive

Your opinon matters to me, so please vote on the poll!





Description: We, the United Nations, recognize the basic human rights of all individuals. The resolution seeks to reduce Gender Identity/Expression Discrimination in order to give transgender people and others their chance to live dignified lives.

Believing that human right is rooted in the belief of human dignity; everyone deserves to be treated with dignity regardless of their gender identities and/or expression.

Defining a transgender person as anyone who has a
a gender identity that does not match with his or her biological sex; transvestites; pre operative transsexuals and post operative transsexuals.

Defining Gender Identity as a person’s innate sense of self -sex; gender expression is the external presentation of a person’s gender.

Noting that Gender Identity/Expression Discrimination affect not only transgender individuals.

Recognizes that Gender Dysphoria, also known as Gender Identity Disorder, is a recognized psychological condition that can be diagnosed by a Mental Health Professional.


Convinced than people of legal age who are diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria should have the right to seek for different types of treatment.

Deeply disturbed that Gender Identity/Expression discrimination have taken and destroyed many lives.

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

Article 1: Everyone has the legal right to express their genders freely without unreasonable interference from the state.

Article 2:

1.) Gender Identity and/or Expression alone are not grounds for any form of discrimination in the work place unless such identity/expression are clearly proven to preclude satisfactory performance of required duties; Discrimination includes, but is not limited to, unequal treatment in hiring, training, promotion and termination, be the source from other employees or employer(s).

2) Declares that this Article does not apply to:

A.) Situations where Employers wish to establish sex specific dress code or bathrooms at work.

B.) Religious Institutions. (Except in their For-Profit activities)

C.) Non-Profit organizations. (Except in U.N countries where For-Profit organizations do not exist or are an anomaly)

Article 4:

A.) The U.N is neutral on the subject of sex reassignment treatments; however, sex reassignment treatments must be legal options available to people diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria by a mental health professional.

B.) U.N countries reserve the right to determine the source of funding for sex reassignment treatments.

C.) Health insurance companies do not have to include coverage for sex reassignment treatments but must not discriminate people simply because of their gender identities and/or expression.

D.) Gender identity and/or Expression alone are not justifiable grounds for hospitals and health care providers to refuse appropriate medical treatments to patients whose lives are at immediate risk.

Article 5: Any person who had undergone a Sex Reassignment Surgery must be allowed to change his or her legal sex. The issue of whether to grant non post-operative transsexuals or others the right to change their legal sex will be for individual nation to decide.


Article 6:

Urges:

A.) Member nations to consider putting pre operative transsexuals in isolated cells if their personal safeties are in danger.

B.) Member nations to accommodate gender diversity if they haven’t already.

Article 7: If any member nation has rights and protections that go beyond those enlisted in this resolution, the Gender Identity/Expression Act will not remove them.

It is waaay too long. It's turned into a sort of Grand Unified Resolution of Everything. Chock full-o-spelling errors too. You need to edit it down some. I'll look at it some more and offer specific suggestions.

i knwo it needs to be chopped down and i need to proof read it of course..but yeah, i guess i am looking for content wise comments.

I stand by my previous statements (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9485755&postcount=6).

i knwo it needs to be chopped down and i need to proof read it of course..but yeah, i guess i am looking for content wise comments.
I've been trying to look it over some more, and I don't even know where to start. I know that this is a matter of great importance to you. I realise that you've put a great deal of effort into it. But honestly, my advice is that you abandon it. Take some time off, try to come up with some new ideas and come back with a different proposal.

whats wrong with it?

I don't feel that employers should be able to impose gender specific dress codes and so article 2 does not sit well.

Also I'd recomend changing the numbering system. Ie. you use Article 1, and sometimes switch to spelling out the number. Not only that but the clauses of the articles you continue to use numbers. Personally I'd recomend this style

Article I - bla bla bla Except in case of:
A) radio activity
B) Acension into heaven, but not when:
1. Acension is cause due to rocketships
2. Acension due to huge stairs however;
a. accept when stair cases or spiral stairs

By switching between Roman numrels, letters, numbers, lower case letters, switching between periods and perenthisis etc. as well as indenting, things become prettier and less confusing.

Plus we recommend running all bills through spell check (cut and paste it into a word processor, edit, and cut and paste back into the box) unlike we did on this entry, because I'm le tired.

Otherwise it does seem better then the last, though still could use some work

I already did a spell check on it.
Thanks for your other comments..

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?

:sniper:

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 oppose this for the reasons brought up in the first discussion of this matter back when this was just a first draft proposal. You know, the usual national sovereignty reasons. Interesting re-write though.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I stand by my previous statements (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9485755&postcount=6).


I dont agree with your statement.

All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Some nations dont consider transgender people as a human being.


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.


It could be limited to XX and XY, if a local court wants to interpet it that way. Theres simply no way of knowing unless it is not stated clearly.


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

Direct acknowledgement of multiple sexes.



dominates? Thats very vague. And its not just about sex, its about gender identities.

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.

It's not just about sex, its about gender identities and they are not always the same thing.


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.


"encourage" so its not mandatory. Nothing in the above paragraphs call for any mandatory actions. And again, gender is not sex.

I oppose this for the reasons brought up in the first discussion of this matter back when this was just a first draft proposal. You know, the usual national sovereignty reasons. Interesting re-write though.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones


I would hope that you would describe it more other than that it is "interesting"

:)

No for the same reason as Texan Hotrodders but I do have a suggestion for you.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)
Change the part in parenthesis to (Except in U.N countries where sex specific dress codes are banned)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Thank you.

I would hope that you would describe it more other than that it is "interesting"

:)

I can. And since you asked so nicely...it's interesting in that it attempts to be sovereignty-friendly but fails miserably because it still makes domestic law, particularly Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, Article 4 (Clauses 1,3, and 4), and Article 5. Article 6 is fine with me. Article 7 seems irrelevant for legislative purposes but important for voters to know.

Given the pervasive nature of my objections, I doubted there was much reason to waste my time and yours going into further detail, but I can if you like.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I already did a spell check on it.
Thanks for your other comments..

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?

:sniper:

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.

What I'm thinking is that companies provide a "nuetral" uniform (one that any gender or non gender having person coudl wear), be that an option while still having a strict uniform for every gender, or by having only one set uniform.

I.e. men can wear a suit comprised of pants, shirt, tie, etc, women can wear skirt, stockings, shirt, etc, and either gender could wear say... a toga. Or that all employees be required to wear a specific uniform regardless of sex (I believe Mc Donalds does that? could be wrong), where say everyone has to wear blue coveralls, black shoes, and a hat.

Perhaps this is grounds for seperate bill altogether, but I don't think companies/governments, etc, should be able to enforce a uniform that has such an effect as to seperate people based on sex/gender/race/religion/age/etc. yes... sorry for the tangent, but initially I was trying to suggest that you add into your bill that gender nuetral option be forced even in uniforms, but perhaps I should save that for an altogether different bill

What I'm thinking is that companies provide a "nuetral" uniform (one that any gender or non gender having person coudl wear), be that an option while still having a strict uniform for every gender, or by having only one set uniform.

I.e. men can wear a suit comprised of pants, shirt, tie, etc, women can wear skirt, stockings, shirt, etc, and either gender could wear say... a toga. Or that all employees be required to wear a specific uniform regardless of sex (I believe Mc Donalds does that? could be wrong), where say everyone has to wear blue coveralls, black shoes, and a hat.

Perhaps this is grounds for seperate bill altogether, but I don't think companies/governments, etc, should be able to enforce a uniform that has such an effect as to seperate people based on sex/gender/race/religion/age/etc. yes... sorry for the tangent, but initially I was trying to suggest that you add into your bill that gender nuetral option be forced even in uniforms, but perhaps I should save that for an altogether different bill

Texan Hotrodders was just telling me that the orginal resolution is ALREADY too invasive and you want me to force companies to provide gender nuetral uniforms..

lol.

I wish theres stuff like that in real life though. That would be cool.

Texan Hotrodders was just telling me that the orginal resolution is ALREADY too invasive and you want me to force companies to provide gender nuetral uniforms..

lol.

I wish theres stuff like that in real life though. That would be cool.

OOC: I would be interested to see what the uniforms would be, but I don't think they would help much as long as the social construction of gender was still in place. People would still find ways to differentiate, such as hairstyle, piercing, and so on.

OOC: I would be interested to see what the uniforms would be, but I don't think they would help much as long as the social construction of gender was still in place. People would still find ways to differentiate, such as hairstyle, piercing, and so on.

He or she is not saying that people wont differentiate, but he or she is merely suggesting that you dont have to be a male or a female; you can simply be identified as a person. I love that idea, I would wear that uniform.
:)

oh and i just use the binary gender pronoun, sorry. He or she or she/he or he/she. lol. The english language is very limiting when it comes to gender diversification.

Article 6:

Urges:



3.) Member nations to look beyond the gender binary system by exploring ways to accommodate gender neutrality and diversity.

I added this on my resolution because I believe that represents the essence of my resolution.

Lodisia doesn't believe that the UN should even have the power to enforce such issues (Which it doesn't anyways)

The Imperial States of Lodisia feels that this proposal like most others that go before the UN are a breech of national sovereignty. The United Nations should not a be tool for others to force their beliefs about sexuality on other nations, which may be completely against it in the first place.

We applaud the continued efforts of the distinguished representative from Agnostic Deeishpeoples to enact this legislation. We also recognize that the length and complexity of the current draft springs from the attempt to accommodate the many objections raised to the previous proposal. The proposer quite rightly recognizes that the draft needs to be tightly edited to remove grammatical errors, improve parallelism, and eliminate tortuous wording. And the proposer is also quite right that substantive issues need to be decided before that can be done. You simply cannot do a proper final edit on a document with constantly shifting substance.

We have two substantive objections to the draft which would preclude our voting in its favor as it stands. We will discuss those in a subsequent posting in hopes they can be satisfactorily eliminated. If that can be done, we will be happy to assign an experienced editor to suggest editorial revisions when the proposer is satisfied with the substance of the draft .

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

W support the intent of this draft and have only two substantive objections:

-----

Article 3:

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.

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 codes are banned)

2.) Religious organizations.

3.) Non-Profit organizations. (Except in U.N countries where For-Profit organizations do not exist or are an anomaly)

We believe that employers have the right to determine what constitutes satisfactory job performance in return for the wages they pay. We also believe that they should not discriminate against employees or prospective employees for reasons other than inability to perform the job satisfactorily. We suggest that Article 3 be replaced with the following:

Article 3. Gender identity and expression alone are not justifiable grounds for refusal to hire, denial of promotion or training, or dismissal from employment unless such identity or expression precludes satisfactory performance of required duties.

-----

Article 4:

1.)The U.N does not condone or condemn sex reassignment surgery; however, therapy, hormone Replacement 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 hormone replacement therapy, sex reassignment surgery and its related medical procedures.

3) Medical personnel cannot refuse to give medical attention, procedures or treatments, with the exception of SRS-related medical issues, based on one's gender identity and/or expression.

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.

We hold an unwavering belief that individual medical professionals have the right to perform their professional duties in accordance with their personal moral and ethical standards and religious beliefs, as well as the ethical standards of their profession. We believe that Section 3 of this article is an unwarranted and unconscionable denial of this right. (We also find sections 3 and 4 to be mutually contradictory.) We recommend replacing Article 4 with:

Article 4. Appropriate medical treatments, to include sex reassignment surgery, hormone replacement therapy, and related courses of treatment must be legal options, reasonably available to those diagnosed with gender dysphoria by competent mental health professionals. The determination of sources of funding for such treatments is reserved to individual nations.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I vote no because of Article 2, section 2.

Religous institutions shouldn't be able to freely excercise sexism.

No - several wording changes are needed plus a full editing once you feel you've added and removed everything you need. Remind me when that comes around and I'll try to edit it for you. Anyway, content wise:

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 doesn’t subscribe to the gender binary system; anyone who doesn’t fit the gender stereotype that society/laws impose upon a person’s birth sex.

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 hairstyles.

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 to be treated)

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 Regret that none of the past human rights resolutions made any explicit mention about one’s right to gender identity and/or expression.

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

Article 1:

Bold the entire thing again and lose a head

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

Article 2: All Transgender and Gender Non Conforming citizens must have the same legal protections and rights as every other citizens in any member nations.

This article is duplication. Remove

Article 3:

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.

2) Declares that this Article does not apply to:

1.)

List these as either a, b, c or roman numerals

Situations where Employers wish to impose sex specific dress code on their employees. (Except in U.N countries where sex specific dress codes are banned) [/QUOTE}

No - its still not justifyable grounds. However, Employers have the right to enforce gender specific dress codes if the nation permits it

[QUOTE] 2.) Religious organizations.

3.) Non-Profit organizations. (Except in U.N countries where For-Profit organizations do not exist or are an anomaly)

Non-profit? Why?

Article 4:

1.)The U.N does not condone or condemn sex reassignment surgery; however, therapy, hormone Replacement 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 hormone replacement therapy, sex reassignment surgery and its related medical procedures.

Change to "UN Countries reserve the right to determine who funds any form of treatment for GID" (or whatever your other term was)

3) Medical personnel cannot refuse to give medical attention, procedures or treatments, with the exception of SRS-related medical issues, based on one's gender identity and/or expression.

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 5: 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 6:

Urges:

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

2.) Member nations to consider putting pre operative transsexuals in isolated cells if their personal safeties are in danger.

3.) Member nations to look beyond the gender binary system by exploring ways to accommodate gender neutrality and diversity.


Article 7: If any member nation has rights and protections that go beyond the rights and protection enlisted in this resolution, the Freedom to Gender Identity/Expression Act will not remove those rights.

The rest is good content wise.

W support the intent of this draft and have only two substantive objections:

-----

Article 3:

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.

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 codes are banned)

2.) Religious organizations.

3.) Non-Profit organizations. (Except in U.N countries where For-Profit organizations do not exist or are an anomaly)

We believe that employers have the right to determine what constitutes satisfactory job performance in return for the wages they pay. We also believe that they should not discriminate against employees or prospective employees for reasons other than inability to perform the job satisfactorily. We suggest that Article 3 be replaced with the following:

Article 3. Gender identity and expression alone are not justifiable grounds for refusal to hire, denial of promotion or training, or dismissal from employment unless such identity or expression precludes satisfactory performance of required duties.

-----

Article 4:

1.)The U.N does not condone or condemn sex reassignment surgery; however, therapy, hormone Replacement 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 hormone replacement therapy, sex reassignment surgery and its related medical procedures.

3) Medical personnel cannot refuse to give medical attention, procedures or treatments, with the exception of SRS-related medical issues, based on one's gender identity and/or expression.

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.

We hold an unwavering belief that individual medical professionals have the right to perform their professional duties in accordance with their personal moral and ethical standards and religious beliefs, as well as the ethical standards of their profession. We believe that Section 3 of this article is an unwarranted and unconscionable denial of this right. (We also find sections 3 and 4 to be mutually contradictory.) We recommend replacing Article 4 with:

Article 4. Appropriate medical treatments, to include sex reassignment surgery, hormone replacement therapy, and related courses of treatment must be legal options, reasonably available to those diagnosed with gender dysphoria by competent mental health professionals. The determination of sources of funding for such treatments is reserved to individual nations.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs


I appreciate your careful consideration of my resolution. But how is it right to refuse medical treatement to someone based one 's gender identity /expressions?
[
Also, if I add.."satisfactory performance of required duties", than basically this gives the loopholes for any employers to fire any one because he or she doesnt "look" right for the job and thus cannot give "satsifactory performance"

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

Article 2: All Transgender and Gender Non Conforming citizens must have the same legal protections and rights as every other citizens in any member nations.

i should remove article 1?

meh, I guess so.

Non profit organizations..because some people might only want to hire people to advocate on behalf of a cause, be it political or racial. And they only want to hire like minded people to join their advocay. Meh.

Sorry - article 1 keep (though it needs gramatical editing)

The Goblin would like to officialy declare our 'gender nuetral' recomendation as a case of 'things that sound good at the time, especially when that time is nearly 3am'. Although we do wish that was the case, we officially recogonize that it has no chance at getting UN approval although we made it a law in our own nation... because we can lol.

We'll try to keep give further advice in more coherant hours, or after several shots of expresso and a diet of raw sugar and coffee beans.

Anyway this bill is looking much better, and like it has a better chance of passing. I think many nations were turned off to the whole paying for the SRS idea, and given the fairly close vote, wish the bill the best of luck.

I vote no because of Article 2, section 2.

Religous institutions shouldn't be able to freely excercise sexism.

Although we feel the same way, much like with my thinking companies/schools shouldn't be able to impose people to wear a gender specific uniform, that many many nations will argue contrary to how we think.

We don't believe that religions should be able to freely excerise sexism as you said, but try convincing Christians, Muslims and Jews to allow female priests/cardinals/bishops/decons/preachers/rabi (probably not spelling that right), and likewise.

Nations will insist their religions have the right to be sexist, and defend the religions right to do so. We can ban religions from being sexist in our own countries but convincing the international community would be a hard battle. One that if anything should come up in a seperate bill, although I believe that bill would never pass.

If anything we could reccomend tagging on things like "we urge religious institutions not to discriminate based on gender", but once again I think that will harm this bills chance of passing. I know it seems like a coward stance to not fight for these rights, but we need to try to win as many civil rights as we can without overstepping our bounds in the UN.

I hope that you enforce such a noble law in your own nation, as will I, and encourage your region and any other nations, but I don't think its a UN battle that could be won at this time.

I have a question guys..

Ausserland say that

the right to perform their professional duties in accordance with their personal moral and ethical standards and religious beliefs, as well as the ethical standards of their profession.

And I agree...but what if a doctor refuse to treat a patient solely becuase she is a transsexual?

I 'd say in EMERGENCY situtation..


4.) Health care providers cannot refuse to treat patient who requires emergency medical attentions, treatments or procedures solely because of one's gender identity and/or expression.

"Article 3. Gender identity and expression alone are not justifiable grounds for refusal to hire, denial of promotion or training, or dismissal from employment unless such identity or expression precludes satisfactory performance of required duties." Ausserland


"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." original

Perhaps instead Article 3 clause 1 should read;

A persons gender identity and/or expression are not grounds for any form of discrimination in the work place, including but not limited to; hiring, training, distribution of materials and/or workload, termination, be the source from other employees or employer.

I have a question guys..

Ausserland say that

the right to perform their professional duties in accordance with their personal moral and ethical standards and religious beliefs, as well as the ethical standards of their profession.

And I agree...but what if a doctor refuse to treat a patient solely becuase she is a transsexual?

I 'd say in EMERGENCY situtation..


4.) Health care providers cannot refuse to treat patient who requires emergency medical attentions, treatments or procedures solely because of one's gender identity and/or expression.

Be it White Castle or the Hospital I don't think there should be any discrimination be it a transexual customer/patient, a worker, or even the boss (then again its generally not a good idea to discriminate against your boss)

I think that clause would be important anyway, as medical facilities can be run in numerous ways. They can be run by government, corperations, religious groups, medical guilds, single owner who knows, healthcare might even be left to individual doctors and have no larger framework or rules to work by.

In any of these cases, there is a chance that the person in control of healthcare might refuse treatment. I.E. if its a theocracy, with church run state churches and that religion doesn't believe in equal treatment for would be patients that are or are mistaken for transgendered (perhaps a butch female gets into an accident, they suspect her of being transexual or otherwise unworthy of their treatment).

Someone might even recommend a neighborhood doctor, and when the transgendered patient arrives, the doctor might refuse to treat that person. Assuming that doctor had the ability to save their life and chose not to, they could be responsible for that persons death. A clause like the one you just stated would require them to provide treatment. I'd consider rewording the clause to be the best treatment the doctor could provide at the time, otherwise prejudice doctors could do half ass treatement, or pretend to treat the patient.

I have a question guys..

Ausserland say that

the right to perform their professional duties in accordance with their personal moral and ethical standards and religious beliefs, as well as the ethical standards of their profession.

And I agree...but what if a doctor refuse to treat a patient solely becuase she is a transsexual?

I 'd say in EMERGENCY situtation..


4.) Health care providers cannot refuse to treat patient who requires emergency medical attentions, treatments or procedures solely because of one's gender identity and/or expression.

Quite frankly, I outright disagree on his opinions regarding article 4.

In regards to religious institutions, I actually like urges, but unfortunately, this resolution already has enough enemies (though, I admit, a lot of them are going to be the bible thumpers)

What does need to happen is we need to find some way to word that so future resolutions can override that clause should a future resolution tell Religious institutions to **** off and stop discriminating against people.

I guess some nations would accept the bill, but then again, there are still theocrosies and dictatorships thriving. (real and fiction) :headbang:

Plus, look how much progression we've made so far. There are more and more women becoming important in religion everyday. I disaprove mainly because my nation is democraticly socialist, meaning civil rights are upmost important. That includes private business and religous institutions.

Religon is accepted, but it is not excepted from following government regulations. They shall be taxed and treated as a regular business. (maybe a small tax break) If people are allowed to freely discremenate against women in a religious institution, they will freely do it otherwise. They could then state something along the lines that its against thier religon to treate women fairly. Like I said, nobody should be except from equality, especially institutions that people base thier beliefs on.

And businesses and schools shouldn't be required to wear uniforms anyway. Any outfit is fine as long as its healthy and deosn't incite violence. People should be free to express themselves any way they want, as long as nobody is hurt or denied based on sex or sexual orientation. :fluffle: Is also allowed in a workplace as long as it deosn't counter produce.

Our suggested text:

Article 3. Gender identity and expression alone are not justifiable grounds for refusal to hire, denial of promotion or training, or dismissal from employment unless such identity or expression precludes satisfactory performance of required duties.

Also, if I add.."satisfactory performance of required duties", than basically this gives the loopholes for any employers to fire any one because he or she doesnt "look" right for the job and thus cannot give "satsifactory performance"

We disagree completely that this provides some sort of loophole. Non-performance of job duties and unsatisfactory performance are clearly justified grounds for disciplinary action, including dismissal. (That presupposes that other remedial means, such as counseling and remedial training have been provided, if required.) The burden of proof in litigation rests on the employer to clearly demonstrate the grounds for the action.

Employers pay wages to employees in return for performing work satisfactorily. To expect the employees to be willing and able to perform the work isn't discrimination in any form. It's simply proper recognition of the right of the employer to expect satisfactory work for a proper wage.

Government or private health insurance companies cannot deny coverages for people simply because of their gender idenities or expression.

1.) Health insurance plans do not have to include sex reassignment surgery, hormone replacement therapy, and related courses of treatment.

2.) Gender identity and/or Expression are not justifiable gounds for health providers to refuse treatement to patients whose lives are at immediate risk.

Our suggested text:

Article 3. Gender identity and expression alone are not justifiable grounds for refusal to hire, denial of promotion or training, or dismissal from employment unless such identity or expression precludes satisfactory performance of required duties.



We disagree completely that this provides some sort of loophole. Non-performance of job duties and unsatisfactory performance are clearly justified grounds for disciplinary action, including dismissal. (That presupposes that other remedial means, such as counseling and remedial training have been provided, if required.) The burden of proof in litigation rests on the employer to clearly demonstrate the grounds for the action.

Employers pay wages to employees in return for performing work satisfactorily. To expect the employees to be willing and able to perform the work isn't discrimination in any form. It's simply proper recognition of the right of the employer to expect satisfactory work for a proper wage.

ok, but how does one's gender identity or expression affect job performance?

"Article 3. Gender identity and expression alone are not justifiable grounds for refusal to hire, denial of promotion or training, or dismissal from employment unless such identity or expression precludes satisfactory performance of required duties." Ausserland


"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." original

Perhaps instead Article 3 clause 1 should read;

A persons gender identity and/or expression are not grounds for any form of discrimination in the work place, including but not limited to; hiring, training, distribution of materials and/or workload, termination, be the source from other employees or employer.


I like your definition..but i still dont know how one's gender identity and expression can hurt job performances.

We disagree with several provisions and articles in this proposal. Our laws only recognise the male and female sexes, as does our religious traditon. There is no seperation between our church and state;thus while we understand the spirit in which this was proposed, we oppose on grounds of our national and religious heritage.

I like your definition..but i still dont know how one's gender identity and expression can hurt job performances.

I don't think gender identity and/or expression can hurt job performance either, unless your job is you get paid to breast feed children, or your a professional sperm/egg donator, and technically gender idenity/experssion wouldn't hurt those only sex would... Anyway I hope I didn't word my definition as to sound that gender could effect performance.

I've heard certain people make claims that female fire fighters are given less rigorous testing then males though I can't say wether this is true or not. I believe it was regarding the average women and average man's ability to lift and carry people. The arguement I believe was that although some women are capable of carrying the same amount through proper excercise and good genes, but that less women will make the cut due to being on average less likely. And so theory the debate was wether to make the requirements the same for both sexes, or to lower it for women so that more women could become fire fighters. I don't know if this is still in practice or if it was just a rumor as I have little knowledge of Fire Fighters.

Once again gender indentity wouldn't play a role, but the persons sex, so I don't think it would even be needed to be included in this bill. Infact I don't think anything I said here does lol,

but I just wanted to state that I didn't think gender would play a role in job performance, although sex could in very rare and special circumstances.

Also, wether my suggestion for the clause is used or not, I'd like to recommend at least mentioning some of the additional forms of work place prejudice such as short supplies, because that could lead to being inable to perform just like lack of training, and comapnies could say they fired the person legimately, when in truth they sabotaged any chance of the individual to be able to perform as well as others. A very key thing though is to not limit the prejudice to the list in the bill, as people will attempt to think up ways around any legislation, but you also have to battle it being too vague. Personally I would hope juries would recognize not giving one employee the same materials as another, it would be crazy to think they could perform as well.

One double standard in many work places that I personally hate and have had trouble with, is men not being allowed to have long hair, when women are (though it maybe have to be tied back or even in a hairnet), or allowing women to have pierced ears but not men, and so on, but like with uniforms, including this would probably harm the bills chance of passing.

no, because you're trying to be everything to everyone. get some more focused articles that don't necessarily try to please everyone, but would actually get something done.

Thank you Goblin.

I think GENDER alone cannot hurt performances. I mean, if you are working in a customer service job, how you look can hurt your performances. I mean, ugly people might not perform better, its impossible to discriminate in these situations. And i totally agree with the men not allowed to have long hair, its very sexist.

Anyways, I am trying to save life here..

If you cant find work, you have no money, you end up on the streets and become a sex worker. You get STDs and you might get killed by a clients. Thats how it is now.

If you cant find a doctor that will treat you, you die. Thats how it is now for transsexuals.

If you cannot change your sex even after you had an SRS, than theres no freedom at all for individuals with Gender identity disorders.


How can one survive WITHOUT health or MONEY?

they are the most fundamental things, its not about pleasing people.

Everything in this resolution is important in order to save the lives of transgender people. ANd believe it doesnt go far enough. And how am i Not getting things done..?

We have bigger fish to fry.


Let's get to this issue when Global Warming becomes Y2K.

We have bigger fish to fry.


Let's get to this issue when Global Warming becomes Y2K.


How about you write one than. :)

any questions or concerns?

oh and i just use the binary gender pronoun, sorry. He or she or she/he or he/she. lol. The english language is very limiting when it comes to gender diversification.

Might I suggest "they" as your gender nuetral pronoun?

I actually found this..


subject pronoun he she xe
predicate pronoun him her xem
possessive pronoun his hers xyr


on here.. http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Xe_%28pronoun%29

lol.

This type of legislation will never go through. It only enrages people who think that you are born with what you are born with and changing it is not going to change who you were born as.

You are right, its not going to change who you are , but its going to change your legal sex, as defined by the laws. And its also going to change lives, meanning, it will reduce the suffering of people with gender dysphoria. That makes all the differences in the world.

I think anyobody shoudl be allowed to be a man if they want to and be a women if they want to.

People who descrminate people cos they are different are idiots. Let these people be themselves.

We oppose this proposal for numerous reasons, Articles 4 and 5 being the main ones.

The Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii does not recognize the so-called condition "gender disphoria", and regards it as quack pseudoscience invented by an arrogant medical-psychological cabal that rejects the Divine origins of sexuality. Its purpose is to exploit the sexually confused to promote an agenda of false belief in the human control over existence. We further condemn the so-called practice of "sexual reassignment surgery" as a form of sexual abuse against these confused individuals.

We recognize that Our beliefs on the origin and nature of sexuality are not shared by all NationStates, but We reserve the right not to have Our moral and cultural values trodden upon by the NSUN through this misguided resolution. We encourage all other nations with similar regard to their own unique cultures to do likewise.

We oppose this proposal for numerous reasons, Articles 4 and 5 being the main ones.

The Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii does not recognize the so-called condition "gender disphoria", and regards it as quack pseudoscience invented by an arrogant medical-psychological cabal that rejects the Divine origins of sexuality. Its purpose is to exploit the sexually confused to promote an agenda of false belief in the human control over existence. We further condemn the so-called practice of "sexual reassignment surgery" as a form of sexual abuse against these confused individuals.

We recognize that Our beliefs on the origin and nature of sexuality are not shared by all NationStates, but We reserve the right not to have Our moral and cultural values trodden upon by the NSUN through this misguided resolution. We encourage all other nations with similar regard to their own unique cultures to do likewise.

While I can understand your believe in SRS (I disagree of course, but fine), I wonder why you would condemn the concept of Gender Dysphoria - I would've thought nations like yourself would've used such a classification as a mental condition worthy of treatment (probably at a psychiatric level) rather than to claim it doesn't exist. All it claims is that you believe you should've been born a different sex than you actually were.

While I can understand your believe in SRS (I disagree of course, but fine), I wonder why you would condemn the concept of Gender Dysphoria - I would've thought nations like yourself would've used such a classification as a mental condition worthy of treatment (probably at a psychiatric level) rather than to claim it doesn't exist. All it claims is that you believe you should've been born a different sex than you actually were.

That the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii does not recognize "gender dysphoria" per se does not mean that We do not recognize sexual confusion in general. Our objection is to the claim that such confusion is a medical condition that can be treated by the destruction of the perceived "wrong" sexuality in favor of a "right" one. This is a denial of the Divine gift of sexuality, and an act of arrogance and hubris by the ones who support such "medicalization" of what rightly is an issue of mind and spirit.

destruction of the perceived "wrong" sexuality in favor of a "right" one.


Its not about sex, its about gender. Anyways, your "method" wont work. All it would do is to keep people miserable and they will continue to hate themselves.

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel will support this proposition once again

but we wanted to focus on stats (with microsoft winword):

words: 800
characters (without spaces): 4470
characters (with spaces): 5320
lines: 107
:confused: :(

Ok....that screws it all up

You'll need to cut off a HECK of a lot of characters - 1500-2000 I think.

i will probably cut the introduction, i wont cut the meaty stuff in the articles.

article 3 infringes on our economic freedoms therefore we would vote against it, but other than that it seems like a reasonable resolution.

The UN is not some kind of transgender society! Please stop micromanaging countries through the UN. Write a daily issue instead. This is a nonsensical resolution. We don't need anymore transgender proposals. This is an international governmental body, please concentrate on really international issues, instead of small issues that have no significance on an international level.

The UN is not some kind of transgender society! Please stop micromanaging countries through the UN. Write a daily issue instead. This is a nonsensical resolution. We don't need anymore transgender proposals. This is an international governmental body, please concentrate on really international issues, instead of small issues that have no significance on an international level.

The best statement I have ever read.

People being killed becasuse they cant access basic health care and people being forced to work in sex industry because no one will hire them are not small issues to me.

This resolution gives considerable power for nations to decide how they will treat gender variant people. All this resolution does is to ensure that everyone will have a chance to live a dignified life. So I am afraid I will have to disagree that this resolution is a "small" issue.

As to economic freedom, my resolution is carefully thought out. Employers would not suffer ; all they have to do is to not discriminate simply because of someone's gender identity/expression and THAT is a stance I will defend at all times. No one should have to suffer economically because of who they are, its an abuse of human rights and power and the U.N must not tolerate it.

The Principality of Ynys Dywyll hereby orders the complete and immediate expulsion of all transgendered peoples, and open same sex couples from our borders. We further place a ban on so called sex reassignment procedures. We will not allow corrosive liberal foreign powers to set aside our centuries of Religious and Moral piety.

Given by my hand
HSH Steffan Rishart ap Daniel I
Grand Prince of Ynys Dywyll
Lord of the Isle

Its not about sex, its about gender. Anyways, your "method" wont work. All it would do is to keep people miserable and they will continue to hate themselves.

Actually it is neither about "sex" nor "gender". It is about religious freedom. Our objection to this proposal lies in the fact that it is promoting an atheistic dogma disguised in the cloak of medical science. Putting the NSUN's stamp of approval upon this dogma would force it upon every member state, in violation of the moral concience and religious codes of those states' people.

While We sadly recognize that many states present would have no problem with such a dogma, the Eternal Kawaii must and shall stand for Our right not to be forced to bow to it.

The Principality of Ynys Dywyll hereby orders the complete and immediate expulsion of all transgendered peoples, and open same sex couples from our borders. We further place a ban on so called sex reassignment procedures. We will not allow corrosive liberal foreign powers to set aside our centuries of Religious and Moral piety.

Given by my hand
HSH Steffan Rishart ap Daniel I
Grand Prince of Ynys Dywyll
Lord of the Isle

The representative of Forgottenlands and (currently) temporary Delegate of the United Nations of Aberdeen wish to remind the Principality of of Ynys Wywyll that he would be in violation of several UN resolutions - the least of which would be the half-a-dozen resolutions that protect the rights of same-sex individuals. It is also debatable genocide as you are, as a government, purposely persecuting a single minority group of individuals.

Actually it is neither about "sex" nor "gender". It is about religious freedom. Our objection to this proposal lies in the fact that it is promoting an atheistic dogma disguised in the cloak of medical science. Putting the NSUN's stamp of approval upon this dogma would force it upon every member state, in violation of the moral concience and religious codes of those states' people.

While We sadly recognize that many states present would have no problem with such a dogma, the Eternal Kawaii must and shall stand for Our right not to be forced to bow to it.


:yawn:
If you dont have gender identity disorder, you couldnt possibly knwo why someone would want to go through a sex reassignment surgery.

This resolution gives considerable power for nations to decide how they will treat gender variant people. All this resolution does is to ensure that everyone will have a chance to live a dignified life. So I am afraid I will have to disagree that this resolution is a "small" issue.

We agree that this is no SMALL issue. This resolution has FORCED us to set aside the religious, moral, and ethical standards which are the bedrock of our Devout and Conservative society. Gender variance is an abhorrence to us and will continue to be such.

The representative of Forgottenlands and (currently) temporary Delegate of the United Nations of Aberdeen wish to remind the Principality of of Ynys Wywyll that he would be in violation of several UN resolutions - the least of which would be the half-a-dozen resolutions that protect the rights of same-sex individuals. It is also debatable genocide as you are, as a government, purposely persecuting a single minority group of individuals.

His Serene Highness has taken into account the admonitions of the Right Honourable Representatives of the Forgotten Lands, and The Eternal Kawaii. Therefore, in compliance with UN Resolutions, our previous bans are repealed effective now. Though we make no apologies for our earlier actions.

Respectfully Submitted,
Llwlyn ap Rhys , Esq.
UN Representative

People being killed becasuse they cant access basic health care and people being forced to work in sex industry because no one will hire them are not small issues to me.

Nobody can be forced to work in the sex industry. There's a resolution preventing that. Also, if I recall correctly basic healthcare is also ensured by the UN.

This resolution gives considerable power for nations to decide how they will treat gender variant people. All this resolution does is to ensure that everyone will have a chance to live a dignified life. So I am afraid I will have to disagree that this resolution is a "small" issue.

The amount of transgenders as opposed to other groups that need help (I'm mainly thinking of children and elderly people here, and the poor) is extremely small. Also, this resolution forces all sorts of assumptions and rules upon nations that they should think of themselves.



It isn't. Because the resolution shouldn't even be in the UN.

[quote]Employers would not suffer ; all they have to do is to not discriminate simply because of someone's gender identity/expression and THAT is a stance I will defend at all times. No one should have to suffer economically because of who they are, its an abuse of human rights and power and the U.N must not tolerate it.

But no employer should be forced to accept everything just because people want to do them. If a company feels that someone who might suddenly express a different gender is not good for the company, then they are fully entitled not to hire that person. And that goes beyond clothing.

Your fear of economic suffering is also unfounded. If your unemployed are suffering so much, do something about that. If you can't even garantuee a decent life for your economically disadvantaged, you shouldn't even start about protecting a small percentage of people. That's discrimination, even.

Lastly, discrimination is also a way of thinking. You can't just go for a law forbidding stuff when the citizens aren't ready. It's easy to say "employers shouldn't discriminate", but if the co-workers do, then what's the point? And a national government disliking certain groups may follow your little resolution, but they certainly won't actively campaign against discrimination (but possibly put all transgenders in isolation cells, for safety). And if they do campaign, they won't be elected next time.

Your resolution is flawed, useless, and should be a daily issue instead of a UN resolution. So why aren't you going to write one of them? Or is your vision on this subject so clouded that you aren't able to write an issue that gives more options that what you want to force down people's throats?

Your resolution is flawed, useless, and should be a daily issue instead of a UN resolution. So why aren't you going to write one of them? Or is your vision on this subject so clouded that you aren't able to write an issue that gives more options that what you want to force down people's throats?
Actually Groot, there is an issue about transgendered people, I got it a few days ago.

Actually Groot, there is an issue about transgendered people, I got it a few days ago.

Isn't that the one where you can allow "genderqueers" or something? I think I had that once or twice. I don't know how much it is doubled with this resolution though. But if it is, this resolution is pointless and the author can stop putting effort in this.

I am wondering if anyone can proof read my resolution, I am ready to propose it to the U.N.

:yawn:
If you dont have gender identity disorder, you couldnt possibly knwo why someone would want to go through a sex reassignment surgery.

The time to ask a suicide why he's trying to blow his brains out is after you've disarmed him.

Agnostic Deeishpeople, please correct me if i'm wrong, but haven't you recently proposed another resolution in regards to non tradidional gender roles? I'm beginning to wonder why you are so fixated on gender roles, lack thereof, and sexual preferences. There are already plenty of resolutions in effect that adequatly provide human rights to poeople of varying gender assignments and sexual preferences. This is getting to the point of outlandish.

Isn't that the one where you can allow "genderqueers" or something? I think I had that once or twice. I don't know how much it is doubled with this resolution though. But if it is, this resolution is pointless and the author can stop putting effort in this.
Here's the issue in question.
#66: Transsexual Demands Recognition in Chosen Gender [Melmond; ed:Enodia]

The Issue
After the tabloid magazine "The Bun" outed a supermodel to have been born male, the state has anulled her marriage to her husband.

The Debate
1. "I have gone through 20 years of internal pain about my external appearance and I put so much effort and money into finally having the world see the real me!" says transsexual activist @@RANDOMNAME@@. "The government needs to recognize my true gender as well as cover the surgeries and medicines needed to get me where I am today!"

2. "Transsexuals are delusional if they think they will ever be members of their gender they wish they were." says right-wing radio show host @@RANDOMNAME@@. "It is a biological fact that our gender is determined by our chromosomes, anyone who tries to act like the gender they are not should be immediately arrested and taken to a psychiatrist!"

3. "You know everyone, gender isn't a black and white proposition," states self-identified "genderqueer" @@RANDOMNAME@@ "There are XX males, XY females, and many people who have ambigious sexual characteristics or just don't feel they belong in the category male or female, the government must recognize our existence!"Looks to me like everything is pretty much covered.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: and I just noticed that this issue was edited by none other than the late, great Enodia. :eek:

U.N resolutions are seperated from "daily issues." Thank you.

Please approve my proposal here:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/82317/page=UN_proposal/start=60

U.N resolutions are seperated from "daily issues." Thank you.That's not the point Groot was asking about the issue that covers this topic so I posted it here.

Please approve my proposal here:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/82317/page=UN_proposal/start=60
No

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Agnostic Deeishpeople, please correct me if i'm wrong, but haven't you recently proposed another resolution in regards to non tradidional gender roles? I'm beginning to wonder why you are so fixated on gender roles, lack thereof, and sexual preferences. There are already plenty of resolutions in effect that adequatly provide human rights to poeople of varying gender assignments and sexual preferences. This is getting to the point of outlandish.

I have proposed a similar resolution in the past, that one failed so I am submitting a new one...is this called a fixation? Its up to you to decide.

There are already plenty of resolutions in effect that adequatly provide human rights to poeople of varying gender assignments .


really, where?

I am wondering if anyone can proof read my resolution, I am ready to propose it to the U.N.

I have done, and it's not ready to be proposed to the UN ever.

U.N resolutions are seperated from "daily issues."

You don't understand my point. But that's okay, because you have a huge plate in front of your head that stops reasonable arguments about why you shouldn't bother the UN with this.

This issue does not belong in the UN. There is no reason why my country should have the exact same legislation as another country, especially the way you are proposing it. Your resolutions are only usefull to show to aspiring authors as how not to do it. This is something that is adequately covered by a daily issue, and that's the perfect place, because the UN shouldn't be concerned about detailed things. National governments can, and that's why a daily issue is the best solution to put your ideas.

Besides, your resolutions are discriminating. You are taking one particular group of people and give them additional rights and privileges. That alone is a reason not to support this resolution.