The Keeping the Far More Progressive Law Progressive Bill

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I see what you mean. What about this reformulation?

10. All citizens have equal social dignity, are equal before the law and may not be discriminated against in any way or given preference on the basis of their sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, language, religion, political opinion, personal and social conditions with regards to the enjoyment of any right recognized by the law and the discharge of the duties inherent in those rights and to any activity within the Kingdom and its territories.
10.1 Marriage is a civil right, guaranteed to all consenting citizens of proper age. Any sacredness of marriage is between the parties involved and is a strictly personal issue. The Kingdom recognises any and all form of marriage or legal union between two persons, unless they are consanguineous up to the fourth degree of relationship, that fall under this definition.
11. The Kingdom re-asserts the rights given to its citizens by organic and statutory laws, and provides Talossan Invincible Moral Support to those who are seeking to have the laws of their country reflect the far more progressive laws of Talossa.

If you're open to some tweaks, it might be a good idea to mirror the phrasing of the OrgLaw in the first part of the proposed section 10.  If the two lists mean to accomplish basically the same thing, then it's just good practice to pick one phrasing and stick to it.  The OrgLaw says you can't discriminate "on the grounds of race, colour, class, nobility, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religion, beliefs, language, or any other physical or societal parameters of any kind whatsoever."  Do you feel that's sufficient?  If not, maybe we should actually give some thought to adjusting the Second Covenant's language, instead.

[Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat]

This is a very long list of "protected classes". Can some one explain why sex, gender, and gender identity all need to be listed?

Excuse the ignorance, but what is the fundamental difference between "gender" and "gender identity"? And how would we know your sex in order to discriminate against it, aside from your gender/gender identity?

[Viteu]

I'm not sure that this is the most productive approach to a discussion of the best language to protect everyone's rights.  As far as I can tell, we all want to be more inclusive in the principles and protections put into the law.

Everyone's rights already are protected. How is this not armchair activism?

[Üc R. Tärfă]

Where are these ongoing debates that "gay" is no longer appropriate to apply to women that isn't made up of a bunch of puppy activists trying to tell the elder gays how to queer?

Erasing all reference to the LGBT community under the guise of a broadly written "equality for all" provision, especially in light of the fact that the Second Covenant already accomplishes this, is gay erasure.  If it isn't, then spell out "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Pansexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming." Seriously, I did not spend years doing activism so everyone can get a participation trophy at Pride.

But sure, erase all reference of the groups that are actually marginalized and score another victory for the assimilationist. Gay liberation is dead.

I'm afraid I don't fully grasp what you mean. I'm an (almost) 36 years old gay man, and certainly I don't want to tell anyone "how to queer" (which, by the way, is the whole point of the liberation movement).

I do believe that a broader definition "regardless of sex, sexual orientations, gender, gender identities" explicitly includes and empower all the LGBTQ+ community better then spelling out a list of gays, lesbians etc will ever be able to do.

How is this not armchair activism?

The current text of A.10 explicitly excludes a large part of the LGBTQ+ community and we shouldn't keep it as it is in our books: modifying it is not "gay erasing" but an act of including everyone of us in it.

If you're open to some tweaks, it might be a good idea to mirror the phrasing of the OrgLaw in the first part of the proposed section 10.  If the two lists mean to accomplish basically the same thing, then it's just good practice to pick one phrasing and stick to it.  The OrgLaw says you can't discriminate "on the grounds of race, colour, class, nobility, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religion, beliefs, language, or any other physical or societal parameters of any kind whatsoever."  Do you feel that's sufficient?  If not, maybe we should actually give some thought to adjusting the Second Covenant's language, instead.

Ok, I see your point.

Second Covenant No discrimination, affirmative action schemes, or preferential treatment shall exist within the Kingdom of Talossa on the grounds of race, colour, class, nobility, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religion, beliefs, language, or any other physical or societal parameters of any kind whatsoever, except as provided for elsewhere in this Organic Law. No religious or ideological organisation shall be "established" by law. Separate consideration on the basis of sex may only exist in cases of propriety.

For the purpose of this discussion I'll consider this Covenant made of three different parts:

(A): No discrimination, affirmative action schemes, or preferential treatment shall exist within the Kingdom of Talossa on the grounds of race, colour, class, nobility, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religion, beliefs, language, or any other physical or societal parameters of any kind whatsoever, except as provided for elsewhere in this Organic Law.

(B): No religious or ideological organisation shall be "established" by law.

(C): Separate consideration on the basis of sex may only exist in cases of propriety.

Starting from the end:

Do you really need (C)? I don't envisage or see any situation where it should be acceptable in Talossa to have separate consideration on the basis of sex in cases of propriety.

I wholly agree with (B), I'm not sure if this is the appropriate covenant for this important clause. What do you think? The 3rd covenant seems to me the more consequential place for this clause.

Regarding (A), I  might not be impartial on this but I found my proposed text to be more all-encompassing and I'll prefer the logic to say that all citizens are equal before stating that none should be discriminated.

So I'd propose this for the second covenant as an "equality declaratory clause":

(In the preamble I removed the reference to customs and traditions because I feel that some of the very very old customs of traditions of Talossa were, well, questionable , but if you feel that this is too much I don't feel passionate about it, and the reference to "preserve the ethnic heritage)

Preamble. The Covenant of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in them to all Talossan citizens, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. These Covenants shall be interpreted [remove: in a manner consistent with Talossan custom and tradition, and] with the aim in mind of preserving and enhancing the [remove: ethnic] heritage of the Talossan nation and the peace, order, and good government for the Kingdom of Talossa.

Second Covenant. All citizens have equal social dignity, are equal before the law and may not be discriminated against in any way on the basis of their sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, colour, ethnicity, class, nobility, age, language, nationality, religion, belief, political opinion, personal and social conditions or any other physical or societal parameters of any kind whatsoever except as provided for elsewhere in this Organic Law

Third Covenant. Talossans have the right to peaceful assembly whether in private facilities or in the open air, provided that such assembly neither disrupts traffic or legal commercial activity, or unduly inconveniences people. Talossans have the right to freely organize political parties and other organizations, subject to their own laws of membership, and this right may not be abridged except with regards to organizations which advocate the use of violence or intimidation to attain political or other ends, or which seek to restrain any person or group of people from the exercise of their rights as granted under these Covenants. No religious or ideological organisation shall be "established" by law.

.

And to make § A.10 and 11 "equality militant clauses".

10. All citizens have equal social dignity, are equal before the law and as provided in Article IX of the Organic Law may not be discriminated against or given preference with regards to the enjoyment of any right recognized by organic and statutory laws and the discharge of the duties inherent in those rights and to any activity within the Kingdom and its territories. It is the high task of the Kingdom to remove those obstacles of social nature which, by effectively limiting the freedom and equality of its citizens, prevent the full development of the human person and the effective participation of all citizens in the life of the nation.
10.1 Marriage is a civil right, guaranteed to all consenting citizens of proper age. Any sacredness of marriage is between the parties involved and is a strictly personal issue. The Kingdom recognises any and all form of marriage or legal union between two persons, unless they are consanguineous up to the fourth degree of relationship, that fall under this definition.
11. The Kingdom recognises and actively encourages all citizens to embrace their uniqueness and to pursue the full development of their being, and, re-asserting the rights given to its citizens by organic and statutory laws, provides Talossan Invincible Moral Support to those who are seeking to have the laws of their country reflect the far more progressive laws of Talossa.

However given the entrenched nature of the Covenants, amending them could be out of reach. The proposed text above of A.10 and A.11 should do the trick even with the current second covenant.

[Viteu]

Where are these ongoing debates that "gay" is no longer appropriate to apply to women that isn't made up of a bunch of puppy activists trying to tell the elder gays how to queer?

Erasing all reference to the LGBT community under the guise of a broadly written "equality for all" provision, especially in light of the fact that the Second Covenant already accomplishes this, is gay erasure.  If it isn't, then spell out "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Pansexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming." Seriously, I did not spend years doing activism so everyone can get a participation trophy at Pride.

But sure, erase all reference of the groups that are actually marginalized and score another victory for the assimilationist. Gay liberation is dead.

I'm afraid I don't fully grasp what you mean. I'm an (almost) 36 years old gay man, and certainly I don't want to tell anyone "how to queer" (which, by the way, is the whole point of the liberation movement).

Sure it was. (It's always a treat when assimilationist explain Gay Liberation.) In any event, that is exactly what you're telling me though--how to queer.

I do believe that a broader definition "regardless of sex, sexual orientations, gender, gender identities" explicitly includes and empower all the LGBTQ+ community better then spelling out a list of gays, lesbians etc will ever be able to do.

Explain to me what the exact legal meaning of "regardless of sex, sexual orientations, gender, gender identities" means in your mind. What is the legal difference between sex, sexual orientation, gender, and gender identity?  Where do you pull these distinctions and understandings?

How is this not armchair activism?

The current text of A.10 explicitly excludes a large part of the LGBTQ+ community and we shouldn't keep it as it is in our books: modifying it is not "gay erasing" but an act of including everyone of us in it.

You're wrong. You need to consider the context of the law. It was specifically a reaction to the political climate in the US against same-sex marriage.  I will remind you that, in the US, marriage was not something that necessarily impacted Trans- people the same way—a transwoman could marry a trans- or cisman; a transman could marry a trans- or ciswoman. The context for this statute is literally in the "This simply means..." provision. The use of "gay" is all-encompassing to LGB.  That is, a man intending to marry a woman does not face the same discrimination as a man intending to marry a man, or a woman intending to marry a woman. The plain meaning of the text, which is the hallmark of statutory interpretation, must be given weight; we must decline to read ambiguity where there is none. The plain meaning of the text means that it is all encompassing. By saying that some would argue that "gay" excludes lesbian or bisexual is reading ambiguity where there is none.

But sure, continue to think this isn't gay erasure.

If you're open to some tweaks, it might be a good idea to mirror the phrasing of the OrgLaw in the first part of the proposed section 10.  If the two lists mean to accomplish basically the same thing, then it's just good practice to pick one phrasing and stick to it.  The OrgLaw says you can't discriminate "on the grounds of race, colour, class, nobility, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religion, beliefs, language, or any other physical or societal parameters of any kind whatsoever."  Do you feel that's sufficient?  If not, maybe we should actually give some thought to adjusting the Second Covenant's language, instead.

Ok, I see your point.

Second Covenant No discrimination, affirmative action schemes, or preferential treatment shall exist within the Kingdom of Talossa on the grounds of race, colour, class, nobility, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religion, beliefs, language, or any other physical or societal parameters of any kind whatsoever, except as provided for elsewhere in this Organic Law. No religious or ideological organisation shall be "established" by law. Separate consideration on the basis of sex may only exist in cases of propriety.

For the purpose of this discussion I'll consider this Covenant made of three different parts:

(A): No discrimination, affirmative action schemes, or preferential treatment shall exist within the Kingdom of Talossa on the grounds of race, colour, class, nobility, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religion, beliefs, language, or any other physical or societal parameters of any kind whatsoever, except as provided for elsewhere in this Organic Law.

(B): No religious or ideological organisation shall be "established" by law.

(C): Separate consideration on the basis of sex may only exist in cases of propriety.

Starting from the end:

Do you really need (C)? I don't envisage or see any situation where it should be acceptable in Talossa to have separate consideration on the basis of sex in cases of propriety.

This is about bathrooms. I agree with you if you intend to change the Second Covenant on this point only, subject to my objection discussed infra.

I wholly agree with (B), I'm not sure if this is the appropriate covenant for this important clause. What do you think? The 3rd covenant seems to me the more consequential place for this clause.

This isn't what the Baron is suggesting. Btu I'll let him speak for himself.

Regarding (A), I  might not be impartial on this but I found my proposed text to be more all-encompassing and I'll prefer the logic to say that all citizens are equal before stating that none should be discriminated.

Encompassing of what exactly? That statute, as written, is a response to marriage discrimination. It's not really purposed for what you think it is. Not to mention, the Second Covenant accomplishes the very thing you're advocating for. So what exactly is the purpose?

So I'd propose this for the second covenant as an "equality declaratory clause":

(In the preamble I removed the reference to customs and traditions because I feel that some of the very very old customs of traditions of Talossa were, well, questionable , but if you feel that this is too much I don't feel passionate about it, and the reference to "preserve the ethnic heritage)

Preamble. The Covenant of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in them to all Talossan citizens, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. These Covenants shall be interpreted [remove: in a manner consistent with Talossan custom and tradition, and] with the aim in mind of preserving and enhancing the [remove: ethnic] heritage of the Talossan nation and the peace, order, and good government for the Kingdom of Talossa.

Second Covenant. All citizens have equal social dignity, are equal before the law and may not be discriminated against in any way on the basis of their sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, colour, ethnicity, class, nobility, age, language, nationality, religion, belief, political opinion, personal and social conditions or any other physical or societal parameters of any kind whatsoever except as provided for elsewhere in this Organic Law

Third Covenant. Talossans have the right to peaceful assembly whether in private facilities or in the open air, provided that such assembly neither disrupts traffic or legal commercial activity, or unduly inconveniences people. Talossans have the right to freely organize political parties and other organizations, subject to their own laws of membership, and this right may not be abridged except with regards to organizations which advocate the use of violence or intimidation to attain political or other ends, or which seek to restrain any person or group of people from the exercise of their rights as granted under these Covenants. No religious or ideological organisation shall be "established" by law.

No. I am not in favor of this. It is insulting enough that mutable characteristics (e.g. nobility, religion, language, belief, etc.) are afforded the same protections as immutable characteristics (e.g. race, sex, gender, etc.).  I abjectly and without reservation will fight against every and any attempt to expand the list of mutable characteristics to include things like "political opinion."

And to make § A.10 and 11 "equality militant clauses".

10. All citizens have equal social dignity, are equal before the law and as provided in Article IX of the Organic Law may not be discriminated against or given preference with regards to the enjoyment of any right recognized by organic and statutory laws and the discharge of the duties inherent in those rights and to any activity within the Kingdom and its territories. It is the high task of the Kingdom to remove those obstacles of social nature which, by effectively limiting the freedom and equality of its citizens, prevent the full development of the human person and the effective participation of all citizens in the life of the nation.
10.1 Marriage is a civil right, guaranteed to all consenting citizens of proper age. Any sacredness of marriage is between the parties involved and is a strictly personal issue. The Kingdom recognises any and all form of marriage or legal union between two persons, unless they are consanguineous up to the fourth degree of relationship, that fall under this definition.
11. The Kingdom recognises and actively encourages all citizens to embrace their uniqueness and to pursue the full development of their being, and, re-asserting the rights given to its citizens by organic and statutory laws, provides Talossan Invincible Moral Support to those who are seeking to have the laws of their country reflect the far more progressive laws of Talossa.

However given the entrenched nature of the Covenants, amending them could be out of reach. The proposed text above of A.10 and A.11 should do the trick even with the current second covenant.

Or, hear me out, just make your proposed good-guy badge/armchair provision 10.1.

[Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat]

Gender is the social roles and expectations society put in you because of your sex [...]
We all decide on which part of the spectrum we are. That is gender identity.

This makes sense, however if these are the definitions that @Üc R. Tärfâ has in mind, then it seems nonsensical that the government could discriminate against you because of the expectation society puts on you.

You could argue that the government may discriminate based on how well you "fit" those societal roles/expectations, but again the only way to know that would be based on your gender identity. Which would make the inclusion of "gender" redundant given the inclusion of "sex" (presumably what genitals you have), and "gender identity" (where you choose to "present" on the masculine/feminine spectrum in your respective society).

But one of the things that always gets to me is when trans men students tell me they don't want to adopt masculine attitudes because they don't want to be assholes

As a man, I find this kind of offensive. As though the essence of masculinity resides in being an asshole. I have more thoughts, but I don't wish to derail the thread.

[Ian Plätschisch]

But one of the things that always gets to me is when trans men students tell me they don't want to adopt masculine attitudes because they don't want to be assholes

As a man, I find this kind of offensive. As though the essence of masculinity resides in being an asshole. I have more thoughts, but I don't wish to derail the thread.

Like water off a duck's back

[Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat]

But one of the things that always gets to me is when trans men students tell me they don't want to adopt masculine attitudes because they don't want to be assholes

As a man, I find this kind of offensive. As though the essence of masculinity resides in being an asshole. I have more thoughts, but I don't wish to derail the thread.

Like water off a duck's back

Are you saying I missed the point, @Ian Plätschisch? Or are you implying that I'm being an asshole for disagreeing with the premise that masculine = asshole? I thought I understood, and I don't see how I'm being an asshole. If you don't mind, please PM me and explain what I'm missing. Like I said, I don't want to derail the thread, but I do want to understand.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Hmm, there must be another meaning to that idiom that I didn't realize.

I was not saying you missed the point, I was saying that you should not let claims like that upset you in any way. The people that make them are so obviously wrong that they don't deserve any of your brain space.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Viteu]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotAllMen

I'll just leave this here.

[Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat]

Hmm, there must be another meaning to that idiom that I didn't realize.

I was not saying you missed the point, I was saying that you should not let claims like that upset you in any way. The people that make them are so obviously wrong that they don't deserve any of your brain space.

Sorry for the confusion.

Ohhhhhhh thanks for the clarification, now I feel silly ;D

I know that meaning, but I've also heard it used to say someone is missing the point. Similar to the phrase "it went over their head". I'm also sorry for the confusion  :)

[Ian Plätschisch]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotAllMen

I'll just leave this here.

I'm not exactly sure what your meaning is here, but if it is to say that I am engaging in such behavior, I am actually doing the exact opposite rejecting the entire premise

[Viteu]

This entire manufactured outrage of someone equating being an a*sh*le with masculinity sounds pretty #NotAllMen to me.

[Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat]

This entire manufactured outrage of someone equating being an a*sh*le with masculinity sounds pretty #NotAllMen to me.

1. My offense isn't manufactured just as, I assume, your offense at "gay erasure" isn't manufactured.
2. Taking offense is not the same as being outraged. Words have meanings.

[Ian Plätschisch]

This entire manufactured outrage of someone equating being an a*sh*le with masculinity sounds pretty #NotAllMen to me.

My advice was to not be "outraged" about this, but if someone was, I don't think they'd be manufacturing anything. There are an abundance of examples of it happening, but again, they are of no importance.