[GA - PASSED] End Conversion Therapy

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jedinsto

Registered
ga.jpg

End Conversion Therapy
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Tinhampton | Onsite Topic​

Believing that LGBTQ+ people should not be persecuted simply for being LGBTQ+, the General Assembly hereby:
  • defines "conversion therapy" as those interventions meant to alter or reverse any person's sexual orientation or gender identity,
  • requires member states to prohibit the practice and advertisement of conversion therapy in all circumstances,
  • clarifies that this resolution does not affect the right of willing individuals to seek and receive gender-adequation or -affirmation procedures, and
  • strongly recommends that members provide all necessary and relevant support to those who have already undergone, or are likely to undergo, conversion therapy.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
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!
[TR][TD] For [/TD][TD] Against [/TD][TD]Abstain[/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]4[/TD][TD]11[/TD][TD]4[/TD][TD]2[/TD][/TR]


”End Conversion Therapy” has passed by a vote of 10,097 (75.5%) to 3,270 (24.5%)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IFV
Overview
This proposal aims to definitively outlaw the full scope of conversion therapy interventions in member nations, whether involuntary or voluntary, or performed on minors or adults. The right of individuals to voluntarily seek “and receive gender-adequation or -affirmation procedures” is exempted. All advertisement of conversion therapy is banned without exception. Given redundancies with existing resolutions, this proposal’s only effects would be to ban conversion therapy for adults and conversion therapy advertisement.

Recommendation
Given the author’s intention to repeal GA 437 if this proposal passes, it should be evaluated both on how much of an improvement it would be over existing law and on what it brings to the table on its own. The proposal would indeed render GA 437 redundant, and conversion therapy for consenting adults should indeed be outlawed due to its proven ineffectiveness and potential for harm. However, the proposal is not without weaknesses. The total ban on advertisement “in all circumstances” without a definition is problematic, as advertisement could potentially range from foreign corporations promoting their services to merely discussing the subject in a classroom or debate setting. Clause c’s clarification is unnecessary, as nothing in the proposal would ban gender-affirmation procedures. Even if the proposal somehow would ban such procedures, the proposal would then ban their advertising as well. The preamble is also severely lacking, especially compared to the resolution that this proposal would supersede. While plugging holes in the area of conversion therapy is beneficial, that’s ultimately all this proposal does- plug holes. It can afford to be more polished and have a drafting period longer than a few days.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting Against the at-vote General Assembly proposal, “Ending Conversion Therapy”.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is the difference between "conversion therapy" vs "gender-adequation or -affirmation procedures" as defined here? I mean, can't one dress one up as the other? (No pun intended). I am in favour of LGBTQ+ rights in general but the definitions here seem problematic.
 
simone_republic:
What is the difference between "conversion therapy" vs "gender-adequation or -affirmation procedures" as defined here? I mean, can't one dress one up as the other? (No pun intended). I am in favour of LGBTQ+ rights in general but the definitions here seem problematic.
Click to expand...
So is that an official against?
 
This proposal has achieved the necessary approvals to enter the formal queue. As I expect that this will make the queue as well, this proposal will take the floor for voting at next Wednesday’s Major Update.
 
simone_republic:
What is the difference between "conversion therapy" vs "gender-adequation or -affirmation procedures" as defined here? I mean, can't one dress one up as the other? (No pun intended). I am in favour of LGBTQ+ rights in general but the definitions here seem problematic.
Click to expand...
What's the difference between voluntarily seeking hormone therapy and literally being tortured into renouncing one's status as a trans person? There is the answer.
 
Tinhampton:
What's the difference between voluntarily seeking hormone therapy and literally being tortured into renouncing one's status as a trans person? There is the answer.
Click to expand...

That is a rhetorical question and I agree with (what I think) is your underlying position that you are against mandatory conversion therapy or other forms of torture against LGBT+. But that is NOT what your resolution does here. I consider the articles ill-defined and fails to achieve its objectives.
 
Last edited:
My main issue is that "intervention" is a very broad and vague term. If a nation wishes to address the reality of gender dysphoria through other means than just biological ones, say through psychological consultation, then this resolution can deny that.

Also, I know some people in TNP that literally vote no just because your name is on the resolution, Tin.
 
Wonderess:
My main issue is that "intervention" is a very broad and vague term. If a nation wishes to address the reality of gender dysphoria through other means than just biological ones, say through psychological consultation, then this resolution can deny that.

Also, I know some people in TNP that literally vote no just because your name is on the resolution, Tin.
Click to expand...
My interpretation of it is that the interventions are banned if they are meant to alter or reverse the identities or orientations. So only if you are doing psychological consultation to get someone to change their gender identity, then it wouldn’t be allowed, which is not something I object to
 
Honeydewistan:
My interpretation of it is that the interventions are banned if they are meant to alter or reverse the identities or orientations. So only if you are doing psychological consultation to get someone to change their gender identity, then it wouldn’t be allowed, which is not something I object to
Click to expand...
Well then if a society holds biological sex as paramount over self perception, then that is still problematic in terms of how the nation can care for them.
 
For.
It is the will of the comrades to decide their fate in regards to their gender and sexuality. The State, Corporations, and Religious Establishments have no place in this matter.
 
Last edited:
I may have no personal experience with this, but I have a local LGBTQ friend who has suffered great psychological trauma from family attempting to convert them back to being straight. I wouldn't care if this resolution "mistakenly" targeted that kind of abuse with a broad or vague definition of what an "intervention" is. And for those saying against because Tinhampton is the author, I ring bells and shout "Shame" at you.

I vote For.

Article 3: Powers and Duties of the Delegate
  1. The Delegate possesses full autonomy over their vote on all WA proposals.
  2. The Delegate should strive to update their vote in accordance with the voting thread tally as often as possible in a manner that does not diminish the influence of the regional vote.
  3. If the Delegate chooses to vote differently from the forum thread vote tally result, they must issue a statement regarding their choice which will be noted in the IFV linked to the proposal.
  4. In the case that a voting thread is not posted by the time a proposal is at vote, the Delegate may coordinate with Ministry leadership to issue a preliminary vote on the proposal. A voting thread should subsequently be created.
Click to expand...
I encourage the Delegate to take full advantage of this part of the WA voting policy.
 
Sil Dorsett:
I may have no personal experience with this, but I have a local LGBTQ friend who has suffered great psychological trauma from family attempting to convert them back to being straight. I wouldn't care if this resolution "mistakenly" targeted that kind of abuse with a broad or vague definition of what an "intervention" is. And for those saying against because Tinhampton is the author, I ring bells and shout "Shame" at you.
Click to expand...
I don't buy the intervention argument, and think that conversion therapy on adults or reparative therapy or whatever you want to call it, even if ostensibly consensual, should be banned. The WA already bans conversion therapy on minors, and this is the next logical step. That said, the proposal has issues with clause c (which would allow nations to ban advertising gender-affirming treatments that governments consider incompatible with sex), includes a clause that does nothing (or if it somehow does something, makes clause c even worse), and literally makes up a term that it doesn't bother to define ("gender-adequation procedures").
 
Sil Dorsett:
I may have no personal experience with this, but I have a local LGBTQ friend who has suffered great psychological trauma from family attempting to convert them back to being straight. I wouldn't care if this resolution "mistakenly" targeted that kind of abuse with a broad or vague definition of what an "intervention" is. And for those saying against because Tinhampton is the author, I ring bells and shout "Shame" at you.

I vote For.


I encourage the Delegate to take full advantage of this part of the WA voting policy.
Click to expand...
If the Delegate votes entirely in accordance with his own wishes, there's no reason for anyone to be in TNP. I kind of thought this region is about *_democracy_*. At least a reason in accordance with (3) should be issued.
 
Last edited:
As far as I'm aware, in the past a lot of proposals to do good things have been struck down because they've been written badly. In many cases they've been followed up with better-written proposals. Why should this be any different? Against.
 
Sil Dorsett:
I may have no personal experience with this, but I have a local LGBTQ friend who has suffered great psychological trauma from family attempting to convert them back to being straight. I wouldn't care if this resolution "mistakenly" targeted that kind of abuse with a broad or vague definition of what an "intervention" is. And for those saying against because Tinhampton is the author, I ring bells and shout "Shame" at you.

I vote For.


I encourage the Delegate to take full advantage of this part of the WA voting policy.
Click to expand...
I strongly implore the Delegate not to use the WA voting policy. When was the last time the Queen ever use her reserve powers to fire all the morons at Downing Street or Ottawa or Canberra,?
 
simone_republic:
I strongly implore the Delegate not to use the WA voting policy. When was the last time the Queen ever use her reserve powers to fire all the morons at Downing Street or Ottawa or Canberra,?
Click to expand...
Lizzie Two does not need to give everyone the sack in order to be almost universally noted in the news media and elsewhere - she needs only give someone the sack.
 
Last edited:
Tinhampton:
Lizzie Two does not need to give everyone the sack in order to be almost universally noted in the news media and elsewhere - she needs only give someone the sack.
Click to expand...
Depends on if you count the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975, which strictly speaking came very close to that. Here, the Delegate is elected so it's less of a matter of principle but for the Delegate to use reserve powers is to my mind still an ugly idea.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top