[GA -Passed] Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robespierre

Robespierre

The MacMilitant
Pronouns
He/him
TNP Nation
Francois Isidore
Discord
themacmilitant

ga.jpg

Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Morover | Onsite Topic​
The World Assembly, by the advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof, and by the authority of the same, hereby:

Submits the following as fact:

  1. Transgender and gender non-binary people are real.

  2. Their experiences are not the product of "mental illness," "confusion," "disease," or anything of the sort -- rather, their understanding of their relationship to the world in the lens of gender does not correspond with their biological sex.

  3. Their first-hand accounts of this understanding are real; each person is in the best position to understand and discern their own gender identity.

  4. Any distress arising from this real disconnect between sex and gender is referred to as gender dysphoria -- like any mental condition, it ought to be treated.

  5. Further, it ought to be treated in a manner that respects the fundamental facts: that transgender and non-binary individuals' experiences are real, and that their gender identity is not the same as their birth sex.

  6. One such way to resolve the distress is through hormone therapy, and the choice to pursue or not to pursue such treatment ought to rest firmly in the hands of the individual, rather than in the hands of the state.
Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "hormone therapy" as a medical treatment involving the use of naturally occurring hormones for the purpose of altering one's secondary sex characteristics to more accurately reflect their gender identity,

Requires all member-states to legalize hormone therapy for all consenting individuals,

Requires all member-states to have an affordable, easy-to-access way for its transgender population to access hormone therapy,

Forbids any member-state from denying a transgender person access to hormone therapy as a punishment or as part of a punishment for a crime,

Forbids any member-state from forcing an individual to undergo hormone therapy.

Co-Authored by United Massachusetts
Click to expand...
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
 
I mean, I guess? The proposals is pretty nonspecific and doesn't really do that much but there's nothing that objectionable.

My only potential issue is (and Im not sure why these clauses arent numbered)
Requires all member-states to have an affordable, easy-to-access way for its transgender population to access hormone therapy,
Click to expand...
In that this could set a bar too high for more underdeveloped nations but I suppose that could be taken as the lack of ability to comply rather than noncompliance.

My question to the author would be if they are preparing more indepth resolutions or if this is going to be it.
 
TlomzKrano:
My only potential issue is (and Im not sure why these clauses arent numbered)
Requires all member-states to have an affordable, easy-to-access way for its transgender population to access hormone therapy,
Click to expand...

In that this could set a bar too high for more underdeveloped nations but I suppose that could be taken as the lack of ability to comply rather than noncompliance.
Click to expand...
So, this was actually discussed rather heavily in the discussion thread, and the general consensus is that it would be either a nonissue or negligible.

Firstly, and this is what I believe is more prevalent in this situation, the wording of the proposal makes it so that the member-state itself does not need to supply the hormone therapy - only that it needs to be made available. This means that the government can hire private agencies (and, more likely, they will come of their own accord) to supply hormone therapy affordably.

Secondly, it was mentioned that underdeveloped nations would already likely be in violation of several other GA resolutions, therefore it shouldn't be a reason to vote against this proposal. I don't know if I necessarily agree with this, but it's worth keeping in mind.

My question to the author would be if they are preparing more indepth resolutions or if this is going to be it.
Click to expand...
Honestly? I don't know. I don't have the same education as many other GA authors, and I'm not seeking to make the major resolutions that more prominent names make. I just want to make proposals and resolutions that I believe should be passed, and if that means having less in-depth resolutions, I'm fine with that, so long as it gets the job done.

As for this specific proposal being rather vague and not widespread, I did so intentionally. This proposal was made specifically to cover up an area within "A Convention on Gender", and I didn't want to overstep my bounds. I believe that the way I worded everything in the proposal is nicely concise and does what I wish for it to do.



I'll answer any questions y'all have, should you have any.
 
For.

I don't think there needs to be any more legislation on this. This is a niche issue and delving too much into the specifics would probably bring up more issues on compliance and ability to comply, and so on.
 
Secondly, it was mentioned that underdeveloped nations would already likely be in violation of several other GA resolutions, therefore it shouldn't be a reason to vote against this proposal. I don't know if I necessarily agree with this, but it's worth keeping in mind.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, if a nation is incapable of complying with a resolution, it is simply exempted until it can be reasonably expected to comply. Otherwise we would needlessly punish nations that cant comply to begin with. But yeah Im not sure if there is an actual gensec precedent on that.
 
Robespierre:
Present (due to lack of knowledge on the General Assembly’s workings)
Click to expand...
Do you really need to know the “workings” of the GA to judge whether or not this is a decent proposal and you would want to see it enacted? Some issues just don’t strike me as needing a background and history of how WA regulars play.
 
For,

My main concern would be defining a consenting individual, but I think thats more my personal prefrence for laws to be as specific as possible.
 
Pallaith:
Do you really need to know the “workings” of the GA to judge whether or not this is a decent proposal and you would want to see it enacted? Some issues just don’t strike me as needing a background and history of how WA regulars play.
Click to expand...
If I don’t know the implications that come with a resolution’s passage then I wouldn’t know if I’d like to see it enacted because I have nothing to base it off of. It’s different for the Security Council because not only am I familiar with that chamber but I also know what qualifies as a quality proposal coming from that body. For the General Assembly, I am not aware of what qualifies as a quality proposal and as such I vote present and cite my lack of knowledge because I don’t believe myself to be able to make an educated vote as of yet.
 
For.

While I agree that there could be an economic issue for the more underdeveloped member-states in being able to afford compliance with this proposal, the author makes the great point that they would also be in violation of numerous other resolutions. There is always an unspoken capability threshold for such enactments as to avoid punishing smaller, less funded, member-states that has appeared to become a standing practice when considering such proposals. It doesn't mean that these proposals are lacking in thought and preparedness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top