[Groot Gouda]

The Transgender Equality Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Agnostic Deeishpeople

Description: Description: We, the United Nation, recognize the basic human rights of all individuals, including the transgender people. The Transgender Equality Act seeks to extend civil rights and fair treatment to members of the transgender community.

Believing that Human right is a rooted in belief in human dignity, and that everyone, including members of the transgender community, deserves to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of gender identities or expression

Defining a transgender person to be any person who has a gender that is different than the sex that he or she is assigned at birth ; any intersexes person; anyone who expresses their genders in a way that contravenes societal expectations

Definning Gender Identity as a person?s innate sense of self while gender expression constitutes one?s presentation of his or her gender.

Taking into account that everyone has the freedom of choice as outlined in the resolution of Universal Freedom of Choice to act in a way that might or might not fit with conventional gender stereotype as long as it does not infringe on the freedom of another person.

Recognizes that biological factors, such as one?s brain receptor for hormones, plays a role in the determination of one?s ?brain sex? as opposed to one?s ?physical sex.?

Acknowledges than that Gender Identity Disorder is a recognized health issue that
involves a person?s brain sex being different than his or her biological sex.

Convinced than that sex reassignment surgeries and its related medical procedures should be legal and allowed in order to alleviate the psychological pain and suffering caused people with GID.

Acknowledging that many transgender people are discriminated against in all area of life, including in employments and health care.

Noting with satisfaction that a significant number of human right laws have already been approved by the United Nation.

Noting with Regrets, however, that none of the past human rights resolutions made any mention on the right of the transgender person.

Be it resolved that the Transgender Equality Act be recognized and declared by the United Nation.

Article one: One?s gender identity or expression shall be included as a prohibited ground of discrimination; any transgender person should receive the same right as everyone else residing in all U.N member countries.

Article two: Considering that a transgender person is much more likely to be targeted for hate violence, law enforcement authorities should be encouraged to access anti-transgender training so they can adequately and sufficiently deliver justice to members of the transgender community.

Article 3: All Anti transgender discrimination in hiring, promotion, training and dismissal will be illegal in all U.N countries.

Article 4: Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally therefore; Sex Reassignment Surgeries and Hormonal treatments should be legal and reasonably accessible to people who have GID. Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse treatments to a transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people.

Article 5: Transsexuals who had undergone sex reassignment surgeries will have his or her new gender be legally recognized. Other transgender people, including cross dressers, feminine men, and masculine women will continue to be legally defined by their biological sex at birth.

[Groot Gouda]

Wow, for the first time in 5 months I can simply vote immediately what I want

I'm against this, for the simple reason that we don't need anymore bloody equality resolutions. Equality of every living thing is now established through tens of resolutions, this is just pollution and a waste of UN time.

[Mikitivity]

My government has not yet voted, however, later today we plan to check in on the UN vote and UN debate. I think it is fair to say that we have some mixed feelings about this resolution, but can be convinced to vote yes, no, or abstain, pending the nature of the IDU and UN forum debates.

[Sober Thought]

Greetings IDUists --

For the first time (somewhat prompted by my new obligations as UN Delegate), I have researched this UN proposal and put citations to Groot Gouda's correct statement: this proposal adds virtually nothing to existing UN legislation (with a small exception at the very end).

Quote: Article one: One?s gender identity or expression shall be included as a prohibited ground of discrimination; any transgender person should receive the same right as everyone else residing in all U.N member countries.[/quote]

Already covered in general by The Sexes Rights Law UNR#69 which generally mentions ?all sexes? rather than ?both sexes? and specifically mentions ?intersex? once. ?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.?

Protection in general repeated in Discrimination Accord UNR#99: ?? The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.?

Also covered in the specific case of marriage by Definition of Marriage UNR#81: ?The UN HEREBY: DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age.?

Quote: Article two: Considering that a transgender person is much more likely to be targeted for hate violence, law enforcement authorities should be encouraged to access anti-transgender training so they can adequately and sufficiently deliver justice to members of the transgender community.[/quote]

Already covered by Discrimination Accord #99: ?ENCOURAGES all nations to work towards eliminating ?hate crimes?, or violent, malicious crimes spurned on by a lack of tolerance of cultural, ethnic, racial, or other differences."

Quote: Article 3: All Anti transgender discrimination in hiring, promotion, training and dismissal will be illegal in all U.N countries.[/quote]

Already covered by The Sexes Rights Law UNR#69: ?2. The Nation States United Nations calls upon all employers within member-states to abide by the following regulations :
?a ) Equal wages for all sexes.
?b ) Equal benefits for all sexes."

Quote: Article 4: Everyone has the right to wellness psychologically and emotionally therefore; Sex Reassignment Surgeries and Hormonal treatments should be legal and reasonably accessible to people who have GID. Medical personnel are not allowed to refuse treatments to a transgender person based on discrimination against transgender people.[/quote]

This is already largely covered in the general prohibition against discrimination, so that health services to transgendered, intersex and similar persons will be delivered without regard to their sex or gender.

Quote: Article 5: Transsexuals who had undergone sex reassignment surgeries will have his or her new gender be legally recognized. Other transgender people, including cross dressers, feminine men, and masculine women will continue to be legally defined by their biological sex at birth.[/quote]

Largely covered already by The Sexes Rights Law UNR#69: ?5. The Nation States United Nations recognises that 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.?

The only small change this would require is a change of legal sex for those transsexuals who have been surgically reassigned, but since no impediment is placed before people of any sex, this seems rather pointless. If you feel that this small change is significant, you should vote yes. If you feel it is insignificant or against your nation's beliefs, you should vote no.

I vote no, using the analogy of race, which is also a prohibited grounds for discrimination. If a genetically or socially mixed race person decides to change racial identity, this administrative change has no effect so it will not be registered.

[Grosseschnauzer]

Unless someone points out an error in Sober Thought's analysis, I will be voting no. The one change is virtually meaningless, legally, since sexual identity and gender are both already protected.

[Keeslandia]

Our new delegate has offered thoughtful and compelling commentary. The Empire will vote "nay."

[Groot Gouda]

I applaud the well-documented argument our delegate has written, here and on the UN Forum. I fully trust that his reign will be at least as good as mine.

It's going to be a close call, perhaps the ambassadors in the pacifics can see if they can bring accros the message of our delegate? I will do so in Nederland, as ambassador.

[Yuunli]

Sober Thought, you convinced me. First I thought this was definitely a good proposal, but now I see it is not necessary.

I voted "yes" in the poll above, but I would like to change that officially to "abstain". I'm not against transgender equality, so I have trouble voting "no".

[Baranxtu]

Er, I have to admit I voted 'yes' on the poll but have since then withdrawn my vote from the voting at the UN, and instead voted no after long and careful consideration, mainly because I object to the fifth clause which reduced gender to one's, well, equipment; which I did not really realize until reading a thread in another forum where this flaw was nicely pointed out.

[quentoni]

This discussion reminds me once again to "reserve all judgement until all the facts are in."

I was initially in favor of the resolution, believing people should have inherent liberty, regardless of whether their lifestyle is by birth or by belief.

I am convinced that this resolution does nothing to futher justice or equality for trangendered people, and that their liberties are already sufficiently protected.

Quentoni will also vote no.

[Antrium]

I originally voted for this in the poll above but now I think I will switch to abstain.

[Mikitivity]

It looks like my government might be the lone holdout, as we've not cast our vote yet, but are actually leaning towards abstaining. We've been in contact with the Agnostic Deeishpeople via the UN debates, and they've elaborated on the intent of article 4.

That said, given that the Delegate may be wishing to vote, my government will enter in an "abstain" on the poll, and ask that the Delegate not consider my government's position on this matter (i.e. don't hold up the vote on account of Mikitivity).

[DataGenesis]

The Federation regards any resolution, whether duplicating an earlier resolution or not, that progresses equality worth voting for or at least considering.

It may be that legislation will have to be passed as a result of this resolution that was not protected in the previous one.

Plus, it gives more work for the lawyers!

But as the minister from Mikitivity said, the delegate is free to excercise the Federation's vote at it's discretion.

[Sober Thought]

Okay, given the sea change of votes here (from YES to NO or ABSTAIN), the looming deadline for voting and my erratic connection time, I've officially cast a NO vote for this resolution. It does not mean that we individually or collectively are not in favour of protecting human rights, but that these are already covered by existing resolutions.