NationStates | Dispatch | URA Recommendation: Vote FOR "Transgender Self-Determination"

Dispatch → Bulletin → Campaign

by The Federation of URA World Assembly Affairs. 2 years 219 days ago. 58 reads.

URA Recommendation: Vote FOR "Transgender Self-Determination"

URA World Assembly Recommendation

Transgender Self-Determination

Grateful that this august body has amply protected the right to a medical gender transition (see GA#91, 457, 467, and 571), but

Noting that international law does not yet explicitly recognise the right of sapients to legally self-identify as their chosen gender, rather than have to undergo a medical transition which may be unavailable to them, and

Seeking to expand Alternatives to Transgender Hormone Therapy in member states...

The General Assembly hereby:

forbids member states from restricting by any means the right of their inhabitants to change their gender (including by requiring those inhabitants to undergo any medical procedure before their new gender can be legally recognised), except as provided in Articles b and c,
clarifies that members may, at their discretion, restrict gender changes:
1. where expressly allowed by prior and standing international law, or
2. to set a reasonable time period immediately after changing one's gender during which further changes thereof cannot occur,
requires members to prevent gender changes made without the free and informed consent of the person whose gender is to be changed,
demands that no charges be imposed on any application filed for an official gender change made pursuant to Article a, and
requires members and their government agencies, including state-funded schools, to respect the preferred name, pronouns and gender identity of those who interact with them.

This General Assembly resolution was written by Tinhampton to improve the rights of transgender people. You can find the drafting thread on the forums here.

The United Regions Alliance recommends that you vote FOR the resolution

This resolution requires member states to allow citizens to change their legally-recognized gender with no restrictions or preconditions. Additionally, government agencies are required to respect preferred names and pronouns. While some have expressed concern that GAR#457 "Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities" already mandates member states to allow changing one's legal gender, the URA agrees with the author's assessment that malicious member states may impose preconditions for changing legal status that make such changes practically infeasible. Seeing no other significant issues with this resolution, the URA is supportive of its measures to protect the rights of transgender individuals.

The following comments were given during discussion on the Link URA Discord server:

Lands End voting member TESDAI wrote,

TESDAI wrote:

I will be voting for unless someone can convince me otherwise. Seems like a good proposal to ensure the Civil Rights of the citizens of Nationstates.

The Sportsbook voting member Davelands wrote,

Davelands wrote:

The only issue I see is clause e. If I change my pronoun from he/him to [Expletive Deleted]face/[Expletive Deleted]face does that mean that official institutions are required to refer to me that way in documentation? I'm fine with the proposal, just want to point out the catches in it.

To which TESDAI replied,

TESDAI wrote:

I’m not sure the existence of neopronouns ([Expletive Deleted]face/[Expletive Deleted]face in Dave’s example) is a good enough excuse to not pass this resolution. I’m also not going to die on a hill of “neopronouns are bad”, because frankly it’s not something I worry myself over anyways, nor do I think it has that much impact on the proposal itself.

I doubt anyone is choosing random pronouns just for haha and giggles. I’d assume any nation where this proposal has an effect would still have societal or cultural transphobia, and choosing haha and giggles neopronouns is likely to have a much larger negative effect than the laughs they get out of it. Most people that transition already know the negatives associated with doing so, but those negatives are much less severe than those they experience with dysphoria identifying as the wrong gender.

I also don’t think we can realistically go about not allowing “neopronouns” in a proposal like this in a space such as NS as some nations WA contain other species and languages.

TESDAI also shared a campaign telegram sent by Gesmagro from The Pacific, which reads,

Gesmagro wrote:

Hi there,

I see you've approved the GA proposal "Transgender Self-Determination".

I'd like to ask you to consider removing your approval, please.

This probably isn't the reasoning you were expecting, and I want to state unequivocally I don't ask this out of any opposition to transgender rights.

I myself am a transgender woman, and I ask this for a combination of two reasons: this proposal is ineffective and doesn't actually accomplish anything, and further, that every time a trans-positive proposal passes, we see the transphobes come out of the woodwork spreading transphobic views and trying to repeal it. The recent passage of GA#571 "Access To Transgender Hormone Therapy" is a perfect example - transphobic voices were heard sitewide, and even though in this case GA#571 was an excellent proposal mandating cruicial protections that passed with a healthy margin, dozens of repeal attempts were made against it over the next month.

In this case, the proposal makes a weak argument to start with, with the main purpose already covered by an existing resolution, GA#457 "Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities" which mandates the following:

"MANDATES that all member nations must allow each of their citizens to choose or change their own gender, and that member nations must officially recognise and accept the individual's chosen gender."

If this proposal passes, it will only serve as a springboard for transphobic voices to argue for a repeal. There is also the following concerning cause present, which may actually act to forbid individuals from being allowed to self-determine their gender, and such exemptions should not exist in a trans-positive proposal endorsed by the General Assembly: "Clarifies that members may, at their discretion, restrict gender changes: where expressly allowed by prior and standing international law"

Again, I ask you to please consider removing your approval.

Thanks!

Autropolis delegate Suvmia wrote,

Suvmia wrote:

Hmm, after reading that I do agree with them
I've withdrawn my support from the resolution, but I would be happy to support a rewrite that has a bit more teeth.

Internal voting results

Turnout: 17/28 members
Weighted turnout: 85.21%