Invitation to adjust the MCUR

[DaveIronside]

East Moreland fully supports the amendment to Article 12

[Major Jaws]

King Lapu, who has fallen asleep on his place, was awoken by his seatmate and friend, The Young Pope. “Just in time to vote, I guess.” He said as he slightly stretched his arms as to not gain that much attention from other leaders. Squinting and blinking his eyes and sipping water, he listened as much as he could from what the Lodjian Queen was saying. Of course, if it’s about marriage, especially that of homosexual and polygamous relationships, he would have little to no regulations on it. This might anger the Catholic majority but the nation has allowed a very liberal approach to marriage for a few decades now that it’s nothing much of a problem. King Lapu stood up from his sweat soaked seat as he wandered around. Ten minutes later, he returned to his seat to cast his vote agreeing on the redraft on the right to marry.

[Achkaerin]

Achkaerin votes in favour of the amendment to article 12

Serenity was sat outside by the fountain on the phone to her cousin Sakura, she was also feverishly writing on a notepad while casting occasional glances at her electronic tablet. She glanced up as Melinda came and sat beside her.
"Anyway Sakura you'll know soon as I know." Serenity said, she hung up the phone and took the drink that Melinda offered her.
"What's this?" Melinda asked
"A diagram of where jurisdiction over the rights in the MCUR fall." Serenity said "Majority are universal across the board, the last few regulated by national law, we so need a mechanism under article twenty though."
"I see." Melinda said

Serenity let out a sigh, there didn't seem to be a strong mood over article 12, the amendment she'd put was safe, didn't infringe on other states and wasn't offensive to other cultures. So on paper at least and judging from what she knew about the nations represented article 12 stood a strong chance of being amended without losing the intent and spirit of the article. The real battle was to come and she knew it, but she felt optimistic about it after all no one had really thrown a curve ball yet, something she was grateful for. She glanced at her watch.

"Better get back inside" Serenity said she stood and looked around, much better location for it this time around, a relaxing place like this certainly beat the conference centre in Churchill in the venue stakes.

[The Young Pope]

ES fully supports the amendment to Article 12
B. Rep. fully supports the amendment to Article 12
His holiness took the opportunity to stretch his legs and say hellos to some world leaders he didn't have the chance earlier to get to know properly, such as President Lavaud of the B. Rep; from his short but intenseful discussion, he came to respect him pretty quickly; ambitious and intelligent, one sure couldn't underestimate his ruthlessness either. In any case, both of them were pretty open for any last minute backdoor talks and the like, that was what they were there for besides showing up to sign an adjusted MCUR for international recognition and prestige,

[Beatrice]

"The First Empire supports the Amendments to Article 12."

OOC: I swear I posted something here hours ago that apparently did not go through. That is now rectified.

[Norgeras]

"Since i believe the amendment does not go far enough, i will stay with a no." Robert declared, before walking his anger off. These people trampled with pride what was sacred to them, and that was the sovereignty of a nation. He felt especially vexed that this young grasshopper Serenity seemed to think herself the moral world police, where she simply had no right to tell other nations what to believe acceptable.

He did open his smartphone before calling his grandson: "Yes, i know how it looks. No, dealing with the fact you where kissing a noble toddler during the coronation is your own issue, make sure it does not impact your job here. You will most likely succeed me one day into the elder Senate, so don't screw this up."

Rudolph himself just walked around a corner, shaking his head slowly: "Your usual way of debating wont work with these people grandfather..." while closing his phone and ending the call: "Besides i life close by right now no need to keep this on the Phone. I am pretty sure several people believe you and Uburzis have a thing against the love between two men now. Thanks to The cultural Ambassador the court already thinks i would have to keep it a secret from you i have an interest in Mister..."

"Just make sure you treat him properly, if people think you just bed him and don't fulfill your obligation of introducing him to our society then it will negatively impact you..."

"I don't even bed him, for the divines sake!" Rudolph answered angrily, shaking his head.

"Doesn't matter, i have to get back." the old man replied, slowly making his way back inside, holding his walking cane tight.

[Libby]

Queen Klara looked around, it was time to call the vote to a close. "It would appear then that we have a new Article 12." What was next was going to cause the biggest disputes the young Queen sensed. "We're onto Article 13. This is likely to present us many issues, for example Lodja does not recognise that it is possible to change gender as it is only the Goddess that determines gender. As the Article currently stands Lodja could not support Article 13, however we are here to discuss the future of the treaty and welcome suggestions."

[Norgeras]

"Scrap 13. and we can move forward." was all Robert had to say for now, sitting back on his chair.

[Achkaerin]

Serenity sighed Here we go again, she thought but a cursory glance at the treaty did offer other options and glancing around the room she knew how important it was to be careful now - Article 12 had been simple enough as there hadn't really be an appetite among enough nations to seriously threaten it but Article 13 was a whole different kettle of fish as the saying went. So it was time to think through her options...consider what Article 13 allowed, was there another way? Was there a way for everyone to get what they wanted? She looked at the treaty with the proposed amendments that Klara had made at the start of proceedings and then at what she'd wanted to get out of this That which you cannot retain in name you retain in spirit she half smiled.

"When this treaty was originally negotiated in Churchill, the debate in respect of article 13 was quite different to this one. Not once the first time around was the issue of gender and sex being two different things raised - this is most likely due to the cultural understandings of the nations negotiating the treaty at that time being that of a common understanding that sex and gender are the same thing, had there been a nation such as Lodja in the room that time I have little doubt that either article 13 would have been cut or at the very least would look very different. However it was included and has come to symbolize something to a specific group of people. So the question that we have to consider now is whether or not we can adjust article 13 to a point where it is satisfactory to everyone, in the case of sex and gender being different constructs then it's a relatively easy semantic amendment to adjust the treaty to reflect that.

But this would not cover all eventualities so if I may beg the indulgence of those gathered here I would like to request discussion on article 20 and article 16 before we make a decision on article 13."

When she'd finished speaking Serenity relaxed in her chair a little, she had a workable plan she just needed the opportunity to put it in place.   

[DaveIronside]

"If I may, the simple moving on may be pointless, I suspect that there are many around this table who view Article 13 as a red line. Now if that is so I suspect the next few hours of discussion are critical because we could well spend time discussing these articles and still find ourselves here and unless we find a compromise still see nations walking out that door" King David pointed to the doors they had all walked through. "Therefore I think tackling the more....how shall I say.....controversial topics should come first so we all know where we stand moving onto things I think we'll find easy such as courts and the like." The King looked around, "As it stands the MCUR stands as a minimum standard expected of nations. The aim of Article 13 was to ensure no discrimination to people based on them changing Gender, now if we now have nations around the table that see that as a scientific impossibility for whatever reason then we must come up with a wording that does two things. First protects the rights of those suffering from conditions such as gender dysphoria to find a suitable remedy for their needs, not excluding changing their gender, that however does not automatically mean a recognition of this new gender by the state perhaps. The second thing is to allow nations with the views such as Lodja to protect their cultural understanding of gender. As I sit here I am well aware that these proceedings will be reported on back home and wish to reassure those in East Moreland that there will be no change to the stance of our nation on this. An individual will still be permitted to undergo gender reassignment therapy and will at that point receive the full rights, protections and responsibilities of that gender regardless of what the MCUR ends up saying."

The King looked down at the wording of Article 13

Article 13 – Right to change gender

1. Everyone has the right to change their legally assigned gender and, where it is safe and reasonable to do so, undergo sex reassignment therapy.

2. A marriage in which one spouse has declared their intent to change their legally assigned gender shall still be considered valid, however a spouse must be informed of a declaration.

3. If the state is unable to provide sex reassignment therapy, a person wishing to change their biological gender shall have the freedom to travel to another state to undergo said therapy with no prejudice to their return.

"Now, perhaps I can get some feedback on this as a first step towards overcoming this issue."

Article 13 – Right to change gender

1. Everyone has the right to physically change their gender in accordance with their nations health care provision.

2. Anyone physically changing their gender may not be discriminated against because of this change.

3. If the state is unable to provide sex reassignment therapy, a person wishing to change their biological gender shall have the freedom to travel to another state to undergo said therapy with no prejudice to their return.

"I am no legal expert, so I merely float this as a way of breaking the ice on the subject, as anyone I've dealt with around this table knows I hate starting negotiations with a completely blank piece of paper, and often my scribbling are far from perfect, but now we have a place to begin from."

[Achkaerin]

"That works in regards to most issues, though the issue of the current, not proposed 13.2 is a remaining issue." Serenity said "This is partly why I wanted to bring the discussion on Article 20 in first because if we agreed to what that article required us to do which is sort out the enforcement and interpretation mechanism then we'd be able to refer questions such as that one to the mechanism, but we can't do that without knowing whether that mechanism is going to exist or not. In simple terms had we sorted article 20 out first we would have been able to compile a list of questions for legal experts to deal with as we went, things such as "What is a Legal Union?" as mentioned under the proposed article 12 from the Iwi and here "What is the status of a marriage where one party changes their physical gender?" It greatly increases our chances of having an easier time of it here and significantly reduces the likelihood of nations walking out of the door."

[DaveIronside]

"May I remind people that one reason we are here was allegations of Cultural Imperialism and taking away nations sovereignty. We now have a proposal to erode that even further. A legal union is viewed differently from nation to nation, for example I know in Royal Seleucid a union is classed as legal as soon as an agreement between families has been made, where as in East Moreland no union is legal until either a civil registration or religious ceremony has taken place. If we have a body defining what a Legal Union is for EVERY member of this charter such traditions would be eroded and we stand again accused of the two issues. While I agree there should be somebody that people can refer their cases to should they feel there is an issue we can not at the same time take away the rights of nations to make laws supporting the culture and people of their nations. It is for this reason I would urge a focus on finding a way forward with Article 13 not involving faceless lawyers unversed in the cultures of every signatory member"

[Achkaerin]

"If I may Your Majesty allow me to clarify my point, the definition of legal union under article 12 is subject to the national laws of each individual sovereign state so in that situation the question would have been "What is a legal union?" the answer would have to by definition include all the possibilities of such unions which is essentially the article 12.2 we just passed with a reminder that it is subject to the national laws of each state or an examination of the laws of a signatory state in this regard if asked "What is a legal Union in X?", to define an answer. It therefore does not under any circumstances define what a legal union is for every member it states what the definition can include for purposes of legal clarification or it states what the law in a specific state is, it does not have the right or authority to ride roughshod over national law, nothing can because the whole article in terms of application is subject to national law." Serenity said

"However this is still relevant to article 13 and that is article at hand so let's focus there. We have under the existing 13.2 a declaration that when it comes to a marriage where one spouse changes gender that it shall still be considered valid seemingly regardless of anything, now this already causes problems if we consider the culture of a nation such as Lodja where I believe one woman can take many husbands but not the other way round in that if a woman underwent sexual reasignment surgery then the status of those marriages would be questioned, I'm not entirely sure what the position would be though I imagine it could be classed as adultery or something similar with some penalty and consequence. Therefore the question begged for interpretation is "What is the legal status of such a marriage in that event?" naturally this should be defined by national law respecting that each culture is different.

But the issue does remain because King's David proposal removes this point without replacing it with anything of the same intent, and even though I agree with removing that point I am mindful that we have to be careful about how we do it, it's arguable that the status of the marriage in such circumstances would be covered under 12.1 and 12.3, so may I suggest that we include the following in article 13 "A party to a Legal Union who wishes to physically change their gender must inform all other parties to the Union of their decision." thus preserving the idea that the status of a marriage, where legally and culturally appropriate is determined by the parties to it, for example in Achkaerin if a woman in a same sex marriage underwent the reassignment surgery and the spouse was happy to remain married then then it would legally be a case of transferring a homosexual marriage into a heterosexual marriage. It's only fair to give notice to affected parties."

[Beatrice]

"While I applaud the efforts of King David I believe that the proposal is still a massive step back from the protections granted under the MCUR," Euphemia said. "Transitioning involves more than the physical aspect, such as sexual reassignment therapy, whereas some in the transgender population never see surgery as a necessary step. We must also account for hormone therapy while being mindful of the many spheres of life which are impacted beyond therapy, as transitioning itself is a process which often involves several years of one's life."

"Thanks to a growing body of research we know that the brain structures, indeed the functions, of a trans woman's brain more closely resemble those of a typical woman, something which is likewise noted in the brains of trans men even before the introduction of hormone therapy and regardless of sexual orientation. This, in combination with genetic factors, adds to the growing body of research exploring the biological roots of transsexualism. Thus my concerns that by focusing upon Article 13 as a mere matter of physical change does not take into account the many factors which come into play for any trans individual and allows for a door to be opened to rolling back that progress which was achieved by the MCUR."

"With one proposal before us, two if you count those who would wish to scrap Article 13 entirely, I wish to offer an alternative which recognizes the complexities which this issue truly involves."

Article 13 - Right To Gender Identity

1. Everyone shall have the right to the recognition of their gender identity, the free development of their person according to their gender identity, and where it is safe and reasonable to do so, to undergo sex reassignment therapy.

2. Everyone shall have the right to be identified by their gender identity and may not be discriminated against because of this change.

3. If the state is unable to provide sex reassignment therapy, a person wishing to change their legally assigned gender shall have the freedom to travel to another state to undergo said therapy with no prejudice to their return.

[CGJ]

Lankly smiled at the Rokkenjiman proposal. Of course they would do that. "It's important to remember that gender identity is a very complicated matter. While I see the merit in the East Moreland proposal, i's focus upon sex reassignment therapy presents the risk of challenging the existing rights of those who have yet to do so. I would support the Rokkenjiman amendment, though 13.2 of that amendment appears to simply repeat 13.1?"

"I suggest to my counterpart from Heyra that if there are no laws governing the practice of marriage, a same-sex marriage is allowed?"

[KrisNord]

It was Julia Menskia, the Minister of Home Affairs, and a former member of staff at the University in Krokom. "If I may, she began, we do have growing research about brain structure, but to mask it as a male or female brain is rather simplistic and frankly more down to a social construct. There are many reasons for the differences in brains, for example, did you know the hippocampus in men is generally bigger than women, however in truck drivers it is also significantly different to that of people who do not drive at all. The hippocampus is responsible for aiding a sense of direction, therefore as a study shows they have significantly different brain structures should we permit them to be a gender? Furthermore science has found changes in brain activity varies from culture to culture. For example studies have shown that social cognitive processes are characterized by stronger activity in the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex, lateral frontal cortex and temporoparietal junction in Rokkenjimans[1] but stronger activity in the anterior cingulate, ventral medial prefrontal cortex and bilateral insula in Morelanders[2]. Social affective processes are associated with stronger activity in the right dorsal lateral frontal cortex in Rokkenjimans but greater activity in the left insula and right temporal pole in Morelanders[3] Therefore talking about brain structures being typical of a gender means there can be variation according to profession and culture. Does this mean if King David's lateral frontal cortex is more active he must be a Rokkenjiman and if he has a small hippocampus he must be a women? Can we therefore use brain structure and activity to define every characteristic of an individual. A brain structure can be changed by a whole host of issues and gender is but one of them.

"As we learn more about the human genome we spot other issues study has found that there are more than 6,500 unique genes in the human genome that express different traits depending on a person’s gender, either male or female, which explains the huge biological differences between men and women this means more than 21 percent of the entire human genome, which is composed of about 30,000 genes, code for gender-specific traits. These can only be changed with drugs or therapy.  One of these genes, which is also related to calcium uptake, showed very high expression levels in younger women that sharply decreased with age; the scientists think that they are active in women up to menopause, protecting their hearts, but leading to heart disease and osteoporosis in later years when the gene expression is shut down.[4] Therefore the concept of gender as being changeable is far from settled,  if 21% of our genome is gender specific then this is significant and unchangeable. It would also mean there are likely to be more than two genders, possibly tens of thousands, therefore making this even more complex as the wording of these treaty seems almost binary, either male or female. A better step forward would be gender neutral legislation, this however is unlikely to find traction in all of those gathered around the table. Could you imagine for example the issue having non binary gender legislation will cause, we could potentially have thousands of genders people claim to be and certain laws and rules exist that wouldn't recognise that, for example Article 2 of the Rokkenjiman constitution reads, (assuming Beatrice hasn't changed it) "The Imperial Throne shall be succeeded to by Imperial female descendants, according to the provisions of the Imperial House Law." What if, just for arguments sake, Crown Princess Adriana identifies as Absorgender, a group that identify themselves as a gender that conforms to those around them and changes as they socialise with more or less people. Could therefore Adriana inherit the throne? As some moments she will be male, others female? This is the pandora's box we are staring at, a realm of new science and anyone claiming any one study or a conscientious at the infancy of these types of study holds the answer is setting the world up for problems down the road. Imagine it, a restaurant needing hundreds of bathrooms as Ambonec identifying individuals demand their own bathrooms, while Gendermavircks believe they should be able to use any bathroom they wish. Should a Nullgender identifying person be able to apply for a job say cleaning a female changing room in a public swimming pool? I personally believe Article 13 should be considered for either removal or needs serious reworking as it could lead to decades of legal disputes in every single nation around this table. "

1.	East Asians
2.	Westerners
3.	https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811914004479
4.	https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-017-0352-z

[Achkaerin]

"There's an old proverb." Serenity said "A bad compromise is better than a good lawsuit. It's fundamentally clear here that any inclusion of article thirteen is going to have to be a compromise, and that as we know is defined as something that neither party is particularly happy with. So let's start with a look at article thirteen under the existing charter it says three things first it permits people to change their legally assigned gender, which by implication recognizes the existence of and rights of the transgender community, second it makes a point regarding transpersons who are in marriages or equivalent relationships and then thirdly it mentions sex reassignment therapy specifically that where appropriate they can undergo it and if it's not available in their country of residence that they can travel abroad to a nation where it is available without prejudice.

Now let's be clear the existing 13.2 would now easily be governed under article 12.1 as it would fall under the rules governing the status of a marriage, if you think about marriage law you have laws governing the conditions of eligibility to be married, so for example the person must be single, of marriageable age, be able to give fully informed consent etc. Religious institutions may add some further conditions such as they mustn't have been divorced, the same area of law would also likely deal with the grounds of voiding a marriage or divorce law so this is where the old 13.2 would end up, which is where it probably should be.

With that reconciled we're left with dealing with a balancing act as mentioned by King David earlier between recognizing the rights of the transgender community and recognizing the cultural beliefs of nations. Now yes Princess Euphemia and Mr Lankly have a point the trans issue is a complicated one and goes beyond simply being about a surgical operation, I'm sure this is a point of view that can be respected by everyone here even if it is a view that people do not agree with. However it should also be noted that not every nation here recognizes that it is possible to change gender, Lodjan culture as explained by Her Majesty states that gender is determined by their Goddess and their Goddess alone, again even if we disagree with that it is something that needs to be respected. Otherwise we're getting back into the realms of cultural imperialism and that isn't somewhere we should be seeking to go."

Serenity paused for a few seconds, taking a sip of her drink, while she weighed up her options.

"It appears that with the exception of the suggestion to scrap article 13 there's a broad consensus that the sex reassignment therapy be included in any proposed article 13, the statement regarding discrimination is also something I think can be safely included as it goes to the very heart of the article. Which leaves the key issue that we're all looking at that of 'changing gender' I suggest then that we do with article 13 similar to what was done with article 12 and make it something along the lines of.

Article 13 – Right to Gender Identity

1. Everyone has the right to the recognition of their gender identity, the free development of their person according to their gender identity, subject to national law.

2. A person has the right to be identified by their gender identity (subject to 13.1) and may not be discriminated against because of any change.

3. A person has the right to change their gender in accordance with their nations health care provisions and when permitted to do so by national law.

4. If the state is unable to provide sex reassignment therapy, a person wishing to change their biological gender shall have the freedom to travel to another state to undergo said therapy with no prejudice to their return.

[CGJ]

"With respect to the Achkarinese position, we do have to remember that we appear to be conceding on religious grounds. The only legal issue appears to be that of marriage in Lodja, and therefore we suggest a less-amended version. There isn't any real compromise for nations that do not recognise the possibility of changing gender, so we either have a redundant Article 13 that allows for  violation of Article 13, or we have an Article 13."

Article 13 – Right to change gender

1. Any person has the right to change their legally assigned gender and be identified by their gender identity, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

2. Any person also has the right, where it is safe and reasonable to do so, to undergo sex reassignment therapy.

2. If the state is unable to provide sex reassignment therapy, a person wishing to change their biological sex shall have the freedom to travel to another state to undergo said therapy with no prejudice to their return.

[KrisNord]

Julia Menskia shook her head and stood again, "If I may, it would appear many of you have either opted to ignore what was said regarding the science of this issue or fail to grasp what was said. If I may therefore draw an hypothetical example using the Dartfordian suggestion. The first sub article states. "Any person has the right to change their legally assigned gender and be identified by their gender identity, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right." This creates no issue assuming gender is binary, however as our friends from Rokkenjima seem to wish to use brain science as a basis for this may I remind people of the differences between brains I illustrated, and further more gene studies highlight differences, the problem is they don't show a binary, they don't show black and white, male or female. They show possibly thousands of different patterns. Now imagine a situation where an individual does not wish to identify as male or female, they wish to identify as Astralgender, apparently a gender identity connected to space[1]. Under your proposal we need to recognise them as such. Perhaps you could tell me which bathroom they use? Or would for example they be allowed to work in a female changing facility at a swimming baths? Potentially there would be the need for every nation to change every single one of their laws regarding gender to accomodate people being able to identify and select their own gender. Now if what my friend from Dartfordia means is that they should be allowed to pick whether they are male or female and thus have the rights attributed to that group is that not now denying the rights of those who do not comply by your cultural expectations of binary gender? I suspect the get out of jail free card so to speak will be the mention of the "according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right." but that still permits people to deny the right to change gender by introducing laws which would not permit such actions, so for example what would be to stop Lodja saying "Yes you can be whatever gender you wish so long as you can pass a DNA test to prove it?" They are not denying a change of gender, just asking people to comply with national laws."

"The arguments I am making do not come from a religious point of view, in fact Odinism has a care not attitude to this issue, the arguement I am making is on two fronts, first if we pass this in the suggested Dartfordian format we create decades if not longer of expensive legal issues for ourselves as any individual can claim to belong to a gender of their own design and demand legal recognition for it, or alternatively and this is my second issue, we limit these switches of gender to male and female and therefore you deny people the right to identify as their preferred gender or in some cases limit cultural identities."

1.	https://www.wattpad.com/341462536-complete-list-of-genders-the-complete-list-of-all/page/2

[Beatrice]

"To address the points raised let us return the focus to those brain structures which are relevant; two sexually dimorphic areas of the brain are often times compared between men an women. We can observe that the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis and sexually dimorphic nucleus of transgender women are more similar to those of cisgender women than those of cisgender men, which suggests that the general brain structure of these women is in keeping with their gender identity. Furthermore, one classic way in which we've seen traits which are influenced by genetics is twin studies. Identical twins have the exact genetic background and, usually, are raised in the same environment while fraternal, or non-identical twins, share only half of their genes, but tend to also be raised in the same environment."

"If identical twins tend to share a trait more than fraternal twins we may infer that trait has a probability of being influenced by genetics. We have seen in several studies that identical twins are more often both transgender than fraternal twins, something which indicates that there is a genetic influence for this identity. Returning to the bed nucleus of the strai terminalis (BSTc) we find that it is twice as large, and densely populated with cells, in men as compared to women. As a sexal dimorphism it's fairly robust and while scientists do not yet know why it exists it stands as a good marker of a male versus female brain. The two teams discovered over the course of their studies that male-to-female transgender women had a BSTc more closely resembling that of a cisgender woman than men in both size and cell density, while female-to-male transgender men had BSTcs resembilng cisgender men."

"These are differences which remained after scientists took into account hormone therapy during their transition by including cisgender men and women who were also on the same hormones which did not correspond to their biological sex for medical reasons. Such studies have since been confirmed and corroborated in other studies and other regions of the brain known as the sexually dimorphic nucleus which is believed to affect sexual behaviour in animals. As we know, hormone treatment can have vast impacts on the structure and composition of the brain, so studying the brains of transgender men and women who had not yet undertaken hormone treatment yields further clues. In further studies we've seen confirmed previous findings, showing yet again that transgender people appear to be born with brains which are more similar to the gender with which they identify, as opposed to the one which they were assigned. This is before we consider a study which found that trans women possess a longer androgen receptor gene than cisgender men, which is less effective at binding testosterone and potentially preventing the complete masculinization of the brain."

"If we can show such links in regards to Astralgenders, Absorgenders, and Gendermavircks I would be happy to revisit their position at the international level, however, these questions would, at this time, be best be answered at the national level as our Dartfordian colleagues have suggested."

[Norgeras]

"Did you even listen to her?" Robert raised an eyebrow as he tilted his head: "Her point was that if you go by Brain structure, you'd have to admit hundreds, if not thousands of Genders right away."

Looking into the room, he shook his head slowly: "Also as Lady Menskia said, we simply are not able to summon away our genetics and their results. Even hormone therapy is just a superficial change. In the end no matter how close this plastic surgeons get, it stays a pretense, and we have changed nothing. Also the truth is, that Brain structure in general has shown to be ill conceived when it comes to behavior. Every attempt to isolate violent and psychotic behavior to observable brain structures has resulted in failure so far, yet you claim to be capable to know if they should use the Rattan- oder Rattlesnake gender Bathroom by taking a peek into their Brain?"
Robert shook his head: "Don't get me wrong, we wouldn't cast someone out, or deny them healthcare. But we will not let ourselves be forced to change legal documents on the whim, not to mention this whole issue is not a basic right. You can't come around and tell me an expensive year long treatment to mutilate your own body and destroy parts of it's functionality is anything close to a basic right. This treaty should be around the basics, that everyone can agree on. That everyone can sign, not about one Nation trying to be overly pseudo progressive."

[KrisNord]

Menskia stood again, "I shall make this as simple as possible for those not speaking science. Your references refer to studies that contain data on twins who were raised in similar ways and settings. To confirm based on studies of twins that there is a genetic male and female brain you require two things, first twins who have not been raised together to both suffer gender identity disorder, the second is for these studies to be repeated among a wide range of cultures. Ideally what would be needed to prove this is fraternal twins with one being raised in Arda Tuluva and one being raised in Heyra and both having similar brain structure, but we know this will not happen. The reason for that is simple, brains develop differently because of their activities and surroundings. Now the issue of brain analysis as a basis of gender is this, the studies show there is no identical structure, so everyones gender could therefore be seen as individual, how do you legislate for that? We have here a piece of legislation where people such as Rokkenjima are claiming they wish to not see "transgender" people's rights eroded, yet in their presentation of evidence are assuming a binary when no such global binary exists. Parts of the brain develop the way they do because of two factors nature and nurture. The nature part of the brain can be developed by nurture and drugs, as society therefore only recognises two genders we categorise brain activity into these two genders. As I explained about the hippocampus, traditionally this is larger in men, reasons suspected for that are it is responsible for sense of direction, route planning and the like, successful male breeders tended to be the best hunter gatherer and so therefore their excessive practice using this part of their brain enlarged it, in much the same way curls in the gym develop biceps. This brain activity however can be learnt and differences seen, for example female taxi drivers their hippocampus is larger than the typical females[1] As such her brain will not follow typical female brain patterns so therefore not conforming to her gender identity. Now we can go around in circles all day on the science behind this, and this brings me to my main argument, there is no clear consensus on the cause of GID or the number of genders in existence. What studies we have our culturally specific, and in cases of twin studies in such a lower number and methodologically weak that we will not have a scientific consensus in the next decade.

Here we are trying to create a treaty that has to be future proof but the problem is we have no idea in what direction the future is heading. Yes people who suffer from GID should be protected. Should someone be able to simply state a gender they identify with and recieve the rights, privileges and responsibilities associated with that gender then I would say no. The ideal solution to this would be to create a genderless society, but that will not happen. All the suggestions on the table at present do not protect everyone's rights based on gender identity as not all believe gender is binary, I know for example the Iwi[2] culturally recognise a third neutral gender, imagine if you will if one of this group moves to say Ui Cenneslaig where they recognise legally only two genders. Suddenly this Maori loses their rights to be recognised as their prefered gender, meaning Ui Cenneslaig could end up being taken to whatever court mechanism we create here and thus faced with having their national laws changed by an outside body despite allowing gender reassignment.  I bring up science because we had a "Growing body of science" mentioned, this growing body is certainly in existence but each new discovery throws up more questions than answers and for each study our Rokkenjiman delegate can find claiming proof of male and female gender identity indicators I can find as many showing that there are either more, or that they are socially influenced.

The focus of this article must be based therefore on this question, What can be done so those that do not conform to their birth gender do not face prejudice, while at the same time not creating a legal swamp that will cost every nation around this room their sovereignty, thousands of hours of court time and potentially billions of dollars? My issues with the Dartfordian suggestion are as follows"

Article 13 – Right to change gender

1. Any person has the right to change their legally assigned gender and be identified by their gender identity, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right. Anyone seeing themselves as a gender not specified by their nations law will have to go to court or force the nation to recognise anyone of potentially hundreds of genders this brings about its own set of issues i.e schools, bathrooms, employment law. The second part stating national law means it is possible to deny gender identity changes by such things as, "You may change your gender freely by presenting chromosome evidence of your change."

2. Any person also has the right, where it is safe and reasonable to do so, to undergo sex reassignment therapy. I have no issue with this section except adding a safeguard so nations do not have to offer this as part of their health care package, so perhaps adding at the end "in accordance with their nations health care provision"

3. If the state is unable to provide sex reassignment therapy, a person wishing to change their biological sex shall have the freedom to travel to another state to undergo said therapy with no prejudice to their return. No issue here

"If I may suggest an alternative to number one."

1. No person may be discriminated against on grounds of gender identity. National laws must, except where gender is a determining factor, make no mention of gender.
 [3],

1.	London taxi drivers and bus drivers: a structural MRI and neuropsychological analysis. Maguire EA1, Woollett K, Spiers HJ.
2.	Kris has explained to me in the pub about Maori views on gender, if this is wrong or the Iwi don't have it I'll edit this bit out
3.	Someone with better English can probably explain this in better terms, but what I mean is for example jobs such as High Priestess of the Cult of Helus must be a woman, or you couldn't be a man who is responsible for cleaning a female changing room during opening hours. Hope that makes sense.

[Achkaerin]

"Generally speaking it's far easier to ask a rattlesnake gender person as you put it which bathroom they should use because they will have an opinion on it and asking the question of 'what gender do you identify as?' in a society where no one should be discriminated against based on gender than it is to uncover a neurological reason why a murderer kills as there are a variety of reasons for why that happens." Serenity said "Now returning to the issue our friend from Nya Aland, Ms Menskia, has made several significant points and considering the latest suggestion she has made which I believe looks like this

1. No person may be discriminated against on grounds of gender identity. National laws must, except where gender is a determining factor, make no mention of gender.

2. Any person also has the right, where it is safe, reasonable and in accordance with their nation healthcare provision to do so, undergo sex reassignment therapy.

3. If the state is unable to provide sex reassignment therapy, a person wishing to change their biological sex shall have the freedom to travel to another state to undergo said therapy with no prejudice to their return.

"This is acceptable, doesn't infringe on sovereignty and does retain the principles of article 13 as it exists. The adjustment to 13.1 is common sense and is certainly a compromise in legislative means that I can live with and probably that the Senate can live with. I support it and I suggest we vote on this amendment."

[DaveIronside]

"The concept of gender neutral legislation is one that we have kicked around in East Moreland for a while but never took time to implement, for example our rules for joining the military still use the term "men and women" implying two genders, and while I suspect most Morelanders will still see it that way I have no issue rewording such laws as "citizens" or "people" whatever is appropriate. I believe this wording clearly protects people of whichever gender they wish to identify as going therefore beyond what we have already. Therefore East Moreland supports this and would be in a position to cast our vote if required."

[Libby]

Klara thought about the Alander amendment, it would still create issues for Lodja, for example the fact that marriage laws where different for men and women. "In regards for Article 1 we would be unable to change our laws to be gender neutral, for example a woman may have multiple marriages, a man only one, if this is protected under the Article 12 parts on marriage being according to national law we could have a clash here." I feel this is far better than the original wording and would appear to extend protection against discrimination, something I think is fine, I would however welcome suggestions about how Lodja could ensure our marriage laws are not impacted by this before I support it."

OOC - I'll give until Friday 10pm for people to voice concerns, suggestions etc, should none come I'll assume everyone is happy to vote on the Alander version of the Article.

[Achkaerin]

"Your Majesty forgive me for being blunt here but I don't think you have a clash and I don't believe this proposed article 13 would impact your marriage laws whatsoever." Serenity said "Under article 12 which we've voted through the laws on marriage are governed at national level, so in Lodja that as you have stated is that a woman may have multiple spouses and a man only one. Now I'm not well versed in Lodjan law but if that's the sum total of it then I would argue that in Lodja the laws regarding marriage have, to use the phrasing of the proposed article 13 'gender as a determining factor' therefore meaning as I understand it that such laws would not have to be gender neutral, therefore there would be no impact on Lodja's marriage laws at all.

It's much the same thing as the laws that govern certain religions for example the laws hold that the Cult of Namis, Cult of Helus and Rosarity are to be led by women whereas in the Catholic Church the law is that the Pope must be male. Gender as a determining factor."

[CGJ]

"I don't think the inclusion of the mentioning of gender in law adds any protection to anybody, and just adds an extra layer of confusion to make it seem like we're doing something, but when in all actuality we protect nothing. We cannot accept anything short of protecting the universal right - and as it stands, it is a universal right - to change gender. We therefore propose this amendment, which is based upon the Achkaerinese proposal, and leaves it to national law to determine, for example, how many genders a state recognises, what steps need to be followed to have their gender legally recognised, et cetera."

1. 'No person may be discriminated against on grounds of gender identity, and may, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right, change their legally assigned gender.'

2. Any person also has the right, where it is safe, reasonable and in accordance with their nation healthcare provision to do so, undergo sex reassignment therapy.

3. If the state is unable to provide sex reassignment therapy, or where it does not fall within their national healthcare provision, a person wishing to change their biological sex shall have the freedom to travel to another state to undergo said therapy with no prejudice to their return.

[Achkaerin]

Serenity felt like banging her head against the table...again. For the second article they'd had the whole thing at a point where something that was apparently acceptable was on the table, that did precisely was required and then someone thought of something.

"With all due respect to Mr Lankly perhaps he needs to take a good hard look at what he has just proposed" Serenity said "It states rightly that no one may be discriminated against because of their gender identity, this is something I'm sure we all agree with, but it then makes the right to change gender subject to national law. This permits under national law the government of the day to discriminate against people on the ground of their gender. And that's coupled with taking the issue completely out of the jurisdiction of any court we agree to form under article 20. It is a contradictory article. The Nya Aland amendment is far superior and does include within it's scope the right to change gender because surely it is possible to argue that No one may be discriminated against on grounds of gender identity includes circumstances where someone identifies as one gender one week and a different gender the next.

Remember everyone is identified for the purposes of record at birth as either male or female, that's biology determined by genatalia so we then infer male or female gender, that isn't going to change, any change of gender identity comes later on as the baby grows up and they begin to explore their gender identity."

[CGJ]

Lankly paused for a moment, then replied. "In that instance, we suggest only removing the part about national laws making no mention of gender, and adding to 13.3 the right to go abroad for SRT and return not only if the state is unable to provide it, but also if it is not within their national healthcare provision:"

1. No person may be discriminated against on grounds of their gender identity and to be treated equally under the law.

2. Any person also has the right, where it is safe, reasonable and in accordance with their nation healthcare provision to do so, undergo sex reassignment therapy.

3. If the state is unable to provide sex reassignment therapy, or where it does not fall within their national healthcare provision, a person wishing to change their biological sex shall have the freedom to travel to another state to undergo said therapy with no prejudice to their return.

[Achkaerin]

"But again that doesn't work." Serenity said "Your 13.1 would now ride roughshod over the cultural issues of Lodja when it comes to how their marriage laws work, you would create a scenario where a man could demand under this article the right to take multiple wives, something not permitted under Lodjan law, but because the MCUR would say otherwise you create a lawsuit. The 13.1 proposed by Nya Aland deals with this issue in an acceptable way. Now I'm prepared to accept the Dartfordian amendment to 13.3 but I do think we need to take the Alander 13.1 as that sub article:

1. No person may be discriminated against on grounds of gender identity. National laws must, except where gender is a determining factor, make no mention of gender

2. Any person also has the right, where it is safe, reasonable and in accordance with their nation healthcare provision to do so, undergo sex reassignment therapy.

3. If the state is unable to provide sex reassignment therapy, or where it does not fall within their national healthcare provision, a person wishing to change their biological sex shall have the freedom to travel to another state to undergo said therapy with no prejudice to their return.