Talk:Kodiak National Rights Act (642)

Typn
 * 1) 2619

Text Channel 📜-kodiak_national_rights_act A resolution to define the rights of the people of Kodiak through a multitude of issues. Written by Yungly Shaon, MGA, CACSPO

Search

Welcome to #📜-kodiak_national_rights_act! This is the start of the #📜-kodiak_national_rights_act channel. A resolution to define the rights of the people of Kodiak through a multitude of issues. Written by Yungly Shaon, MGA, CACSPO June 9, 2022

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/09/2022 @Assembly Member A resolution to discuss regarding multiple national rights of citizens of Kodiak. Written by @Yungly, CEO of Chest and co, MGA, CACSPO https://kodiak.fandom.com/wiki/Kodiak_National_Rights_Act_(642)

The Kodiak Republic Wiki Kodiak National Rights Act (642) A resolution to define the rights of the people of Kodiak through a multitude of issues. 1.1 - Legalization of the sale, manufacture, and consumption of class E narcotics to people 18 and above. 1.2 - The following will be labeled as class E narcotics. 1.2.1 - Marijuana 1.2.2 - Nicotine 2.1 - Full legalization of same-sex marriage. 2.2 - Allow a...

[3:38 PM] I have set the voting date to start on 6/24/22. This can be changed upon request.

Joshua Lopez (Slatium) — 06/09/2022 Why should we allow the use of pure nicotine? Its already in ciggaretes, id find it useless to allow (edited)

[4:06 PM] Plus nicotine will make people addicted do it, causing many bad effects [4:06 PM] Same with marijuana

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/09/2022 I would agree with the first point about maybe setting a limiter on the amount of nicotine. Too much can be fatal. I would disagree on the marijuana point. There is an argument to be made that it is safer for consumption than tobacco or alcohol

New Asden — 06/09/2022 But… is it worth legalizing just for the sake of it? Yes, it is less dangerous than cigarette and other drugs, but it is still addictive. Maybe we need to set a legislation on what is considered a legal level of addictive substances

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/09/2022 It’s also a substance that could be easily regulated and taxed progressively [7:43 PM] It may be one of the most used substances already, known to treat anxiety and real medical issues unlike alcohol and tobacco @Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) I would agree with the first point about maybe setting a limiter on the amount of nicotine. Too much can be fatal. I would disagree on the marijuana point. There is an argument to be made that it is safer for consumption than tobacco or alcohol

John Edwards [KWP] — 06/09/2022 I would disagree with that argument. The mental health impact of marijuana is one that is overlooked. It is far more dangerous than nicotine or alcohol. [9:03 PM] But I absolutely agree with your point on nicotine.

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/09/2022 Mental health only for those that abuse it much like alcohol and tobacco. Thus why it should be regulated to prevent and provide resources to those that need it. [9:07 PM] Alcohol has never been prescribed to prevent chronic pain [9:07 PM] Neither has tobacco [9:10 PM] The alternative is a criminal substance that is illegally sold and can only increase unsafe consumption @Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) Alcohol has never been prescribed to prevent chronic pain

New Asden — 06/09/2022 Well… in the US during the prohibition alcohol was a prescribed substance for the use of pain, but primarily for colds. But that lead to illegal bootlegging (edited)

John Edwards [KWP] — 06/09/2022 Not medically. We usually self medicate it despite advice to the contrary.

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/09/2022 It has been used medically (edited) [9:11 PM] And prescribed medically in the US [9:13 PM] I don’t even use it personally, but I have seen it used to great success personally

John Edwards [KWP] — 06/09/2022 I can support medical use. I have a number of patients on it at the moment for their Parkinsons (personally im of the opinion it hasn'tdone diddly squat for any of them but thats a small sample size). However Canniboid oil used for medical purposes is very different to recreational use. I could support controlled access for medical purpose but I cannot support recreational use. Once again I draw on my background in healthcare where I have seen too many young lives destroyed as they have started have schizophrenic episodes and I've had to coax them off the ceiling.

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/09/2022 I would agree, it can certainly lead to many issues, especially for the younger generation of individuals whose brains aren’t fully developed. However, if we go off lives destroyed by marijuana comparatively to alcohol, the latter is far greater and way more dangerous. Drinking alcohol has never produced medical benefits only drunken experiences which can lead to death. The difference is one is socially acceptable and regulated while the other is not. (edited) [9:22 PM] Alcohol has destroyed far more lives and I can speak to that personally.

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/09/2022 I would add, that although I do not have a personal medical background (besides basic buddy care and CPR/AED training) my family all works in healthcare as nurses, EMTs, and MDs and this discussion resonates the same opinion around my household (edited)

John Edwards [KWP] — 06/09/2022 I don't necessarily disagree however the argument could be made that alcohol has destroyed more lives simply because it is more readily available. Whilst I do see alcohol induced dementia fairly frequently, it is usually in patients with a long history of alcohol abuse. I suspect (but admittedly have no evidennce for) that if marijuana was available to the same extent that we would see a greater impact.

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/09/2022 See I would agree in general. But a case can be made that since the criminalization of marijuana it is harder to diagnose issues pertaining to its use. I would propose that if this resolution has any chance of passing I would also like additional research done to understand the consequences of its use much like alcohol has had (edited)

John Edwards [KWP] — 06/09/2022 I would agree with that. I can't help but feel that point 1 should be a separate bill as the debate around it is on a different basis to points 2 & 3, which I am wholly in support of.

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/09/2022 Yes that’s something I addressed in 🎇-ga_president I believe that these are all separate issues that putting it all in one resolution can only lead to a failure in passing this one (edited) [9:45 PM] OOC: although this is more close to reality in how bills are passed

John Edwards [KWP] — 06/09/2022 A thought I just had from the slightly more heartless side of my brain, would the recreational release of marijuana help to ease the number of riots in our nation? June 10, 2022

JChittyEutheriia — 06/10/2022 If it's illegal it's a black market item. Doesn't stop the sale, doesn't stop the use. It fills our prisons as a tax burden for a victimless crime. (edited)

John Edwards [KWP] — 06/10/2022 That's true but it does drastically reduce its use.

Patrick Barber — 06/10/2022 I would like to motion that we cleave article 1 as a separate resolution, specifically because it should be treated as an amendment to the Controlled Substances Act (Inter) https://kodiak.fandom.com/wiki/The_Controlled_Substances_Act_(Inter%29 (edited)

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/10/2022 What if we just include the amendment to the existing law within the text of this bill? And then also add it to the main law should this be passed. [9:01 PM] I think the precedent is there from the Police Funding bill back in 631 which amended other existing laws within it

Patrick Barber — 06/10/2022 sure, the precedent exists to do that; I made the motion because I feel they are different debates (edited)

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/10/2022 I would agree they are different. But all three articles are amending different existing policies.

Patrick Barber — 06/10/2022 Ok. I still motion Article 1 be cleaved into a separate resolution.

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/10/2022 If there is no opposition I will create a separate resolution for Article 1 from the rest of the resolution

Patrick Barber — 06/10/2022 @Yungly, CEO of Chest and co ? June 11, 2022

Yungly, CEO of Chest and co — 06/11/2022 sorry for the late response, but separating Article one from the rest of the bill would be good

4

June 13, 2022

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/13/2022 @Assembly Member the resolution has been modified to reflect the removal of Article 1 - Minor Narcotics and assembled as its own resolution in 📜-minor-narcotics-amendment. Discussion for the rights of Sexuality, Gender, and Abortion are from this point

2

[3:27 PM] --- (edited)

Yungly, CEO of Chest and co — 06/13/2022 As a libertarian party we believe that the government should not allow the people of Kodiak to be the people they wish to be, as long as it's not harmful to themselves or others

Joshua Lopez (Slatium) — 06/13/2022 So you don't want to allow people to be what they want to be? (edited)

Yungly, CEO of Chest and co — 06/13/2022 I can't read nor write [3:53 PM] I'm stupid, I support the bill

shazology — 06/13/2022 The AND will, in principle, reject this bill in the interest of our socially conservative constituents. We believe in representing the views of all Kodiakers, including those who subscribe to traditional conceptions of gender, sexuality, marriage, and contraception. To support this bill, in our opinion, is to deepen social divides and hinder meaningful dialogues between Kodiakers; especially if the matters in question are deemed as non-negotiables by some segments of society. The government should, in the alternative, adopt a general but careful stance of promoting anti-discrimination against those who identify themselves as LGBTQ+ in areas of common interests such as employment, housing, and access to welfare while remaining neutral for the time being with respect to the rights expressed in Article 1 of the bill. While some of our constituents are ardent pro-lifers, we have convinced them of a more principled approach to Article 2 of the bill to permit its enactment. We argue for an additional provision recognising religious/traditional/cultural grounds for the non-exercise of the right except where (1) the pregnancy was caused against the woman’s will (e.g., by rape) and (2) the health and life of a woman is endangered by her pregnancy. We also argue for the limitation of abortion to the first and second trimesters, to accommodate our constituents whose beliefs claim that foetuses are sufficiently formed to be regarded as persons during the third trimester. (edited)

GoonBoots1 — 06/13/2022 The people of Stasnastia support this bill! June 14, 2022

John Edwards [KWP] — 06/14/2022 This bill has my full support and I congratulate the member for their proposal. By rejecting this bill, the honourable member for AND states that they are attempting to prevent the deepening of social divides. I believe that rejecting this bill will exacerbate those divides. Denying rights to a group of people that are afforded to others can only diminish their voice and harm discussion. On the matter of Article 2, adding conditions whereby the right control is removed from the person under certain circumstances seems pointless. If that person wishes to continue with their pregnancy on the grounds mentioned by the member for AND, they are free to do so under the current form of the bill.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/14/2022 I second that statement. This bill has my full support.

Joshua Lopez (Slatium) — 06/14/2022 I agree with the AND in some parts (edited)

shazology — 06/14/2022 Thank you Honourable Minister Mr Edwards for taking the time to respond to the AND's comments. Allow me to reply to your response to our general stance, and to each of our points on draft Articles 1 and 2, in turn. From the outset, the AND recognises the high possibility for this bill to pass, in light of the sustained efforts of LGBTQ+ and feminist activism in Kodiak and globally, and a general impression of the disposition of the majority of members of this Assembly. It is important for AND, therefore, to ensure that opposing views, especially from traditional and social conservatives, are also considered in the discussion - even if this would be rejected. The explicit support of the Honourable Minister of Social Services, Mr Kalimeno of the NUP - a party of the Right - for this bill supports our observation, and perhaps point to the futility of the AND's contributions to the debate. Our Party's commitment to represent all Kodiakers presents a moral obligation for us to seek middle ground, principled approaches that mediates the needs, rights, concerns and aspirations of all Kodiakers. This is no easy task, considering that appearing to side a perceived 'opposition', even in the interest of democracy and freedom of thought and speech, necessarily brings upon us scrutiny in the Assembly and the public square. The claim that rejecting this bill will exarcebate the social divides that the AND seeks to avoid perpetuating necessarily ignores the voices of a segment of our society from being, at the very least, heard; and at most, considered in Assembly debates. The AND has a mandate from our supporters for their concerns, views and perspectives to be represented; and since the bill is poised to be enacted, we hope that we do some justice to our constituents.

2

[2:53 AM] On a related note, we have to strongly disagree with Mr Edwards' claim that denying the LGBTQ+ community and women the rights that are afforded to others can diminish their voice and harm discussion at this stage of modern civilisation when the hard work of LGBTQ+ and feminist activists over the past few decades have come to fruition in the public square. On the other hand, we caution how the recognition of their rights will concurrently have a chilling effect on all forms of speech that question, critique or reject the conceptual and moral underpinnings of those rights; and by extension the right to religious freedoms where religious doctrine reject these conceptual and moral underpinnings. If indeed modernity must necessarily involve the ontological and practical rejection of 'traditional' beliefs and values for 'progressive' ones, then we recognise the possibility of social conflict to effect that rejection. It is out of caution of such a conflict that the AND does not simply reject the bill without proposing a middle ground - but these were also rejected by the Honourable Minister in his response. (1) With regard to the position that the AND is taking on Article 1 is not the rejection of the rights the said provision guarantees without an alternative to approaching the issue. By proposing that bringing LGBTQ+ policy discussions to a platform of non-discrimination in matters of common interest and concern, i.e., employment, housing and welfare, all segments of society can be involved in these discussions since there are little to no discussion of what both social conservatives and social progressives deem to be 'non-negotiables' - such as the matters the Article 1 rights are concerned with. This, in our opinion, is the middle ground between the legal recognition of LGBTQ+ rights and the outright deprivation thereof - and a temporary one until all Kodiakers can unanimously accept the conceptions of gender, sexuality and marriage that Article 1 presumably embodies. (2) With respect to Article 2, the AND contends that adding the religious exception and conditions would not be entirely 'pointless'. The provision has a performatory function - it serves to signal to religious conservatives that they can continue to hold certain views concerning the permissibility of abortion propagate them. However, the conditions the AND are proposing mandates them to respect the general right to abortion in certain circumstances - even if their religious traditions categorically forbid abortion. For the AND, this provision will also inform religious communities that their voices and perspectives were considered seriously, but also remind them of the need for give-and-take in a plural and diverse society. To end, the AND hopes that its contributions to the debate of this bill serves the interest of democracy, of social harmony and peace, and of our traditional, religious and social conservative constituents.

2

John Edwards [KWP] — 06/14/2022 Thanks to Minister Alinov for their response. The AND's willingness to debate this article is a credit to the democratic diversity of our great nation. The rights and beliefs of those of a "traditional" and/or "social conservative" standpoint will always be considered and protected, even if I disagree with elements of them. I believe that this bill is simply ensuring that all citizens of Kodiak are afforded those very same rights. If the roles were reversed and traditionalists were being denied the right to religious gathering for example, I would argue in their favour just as strongly. The "middle ground" alternatives are not mine to reject or consider as I am not the proponent of this bill. I am merely arguing my support for this bill. To that end, I considered the alternatives you suggested but came to the conclusion that they were incompatible with my own standpoint and still sought to provide an unequal scenario for citizens. I would like to stress that Article 1 and 2 as I see it, would not prevent or impact traditional religious beliefs, but simply allows those who are not of the same belief to not be impacted by them.

4

2

shazology — 06/14/2022 OOC I am too exhausted IRL to have anything else to say but: Thank you, Mr Edwards, for the kind words and assurances with respect to the possible impacts of the bill. The AND treasures your engagement with our perspectives in this debate.

1

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/14/2022 I thank you, members of the assembly for a mature, thoughtful, and open discussion on the current bill. I appreciate that an important topic such as this has not devolved into hostility. This is a topic that is important to me, so I also thank the assembly for introducing the bill. To put it simply - Rosalice will support this act as we believe that the act provisions rights that are within the spirit of the constitution and the pillars of this community. The Pillars that include equality for all, safety for all, and without discrimination. One of the ideals of Kodiak has always been that of equality, which was important enough to highlight in preamble. Secondly, we guarantee the right to freedom from discrimination. This act supports this, and removes discrimination by legislation by removing the absence of certain rights that other people in Kodiak enjoy. I want to highlight some thoughts presented by our fellow Assembly Member Hekmat Alinov of the AND - I recognise there is fear that this will lead towards discrimination against other peoples such as religious communities. I fully believe that this will not, for the act itself merely allows the right to citizens of Kodiak but does not prevent the exercise of religious belief, the freedom to express your religious belief. Indeed, the one prohibition focuses on violence - and this is a protection that ALL people of Kodiak should have, whether regarding gender, sexuality, religion, etc. (edited) [7:39 AM] I echo Assembly Member John Edwards, the act allows for all citizens to share in rights that many already have. Does not restrict the choice of not partaking based on belief, or expression. Furthermore, I agree with the sentiment that if the roles were reversed, as Assembly Member Edwards provides an example of (i.e., right to religious gathering), we should defend the right in the name of equality and community, which is in the spirit of The Kodiak Republic. Furthermore, I believe that a discussion on proper equality for all, through an amicable middleground cannot be reached unless all citizens begin from the same foundation, any party cannot be lesser in the eyes of the law yet claimed to be equal. I agree that this is not an easy task, and would almost certainly merit future discussion and clarifications in later legislative acts, as we work together to define who we are as a people. So again, thank you for sharing your thoughts. May we have continued fruitful discussions in the future, across all aspects of The Kodiak Republic. (edited)

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/14/2022 I note that there has been discussion on Article 2 of this act. It is my understanding that the current Abortion Act simply prohibits abortion but does not supercede a woman's life. Should this act be revisited in the future, and refined in greater deal especially as it appears that the strict prohibition of abortion does not align with current thought of representatives and peoples of The Kodiak Republic? (As evidenced in this discussion itself). The present Abortion Act (https://kodiak.fandom.com/wiki/The_Abortion_Act_(Inter) ) is a holdover from the Great Interregnum. (edited) @shazology Thank you Honourable Minister Mr Edwards for taking the time to respond to the AND's comments. Allow me to reply to your response to our general stance, and to each of our points on draft Articles 1 and 2, in turn. From the outset, the AND recognises the high possibility for this bill to pass, in light of the sustained efforts of LGBTQ+ and feminist activism in Kodiak and globally, and a general impression of the disposition of the majority of members of this Assembly. It is important for AND, therefore, to ensure that opposing views, especially from traditional and social conservatives, are also considered in the discussion - even if this would be rejected. The explicit support of the Honourable Minister of Social Services, Mr Kalimeno of the NUP - a party of the Right - for this bill supports our observation, and perhaps point to the futility of the AND's contributions to the debate. Our Party's commitment to represent all Kodiakers presents a moral obligation for us to seek middle ground, principled approaches that mediates the needs, rights, concerns and aspirations of all Kodiakers. This is no easy task, considering that appearing to side a perceived 'opposition', even in the interest of democracy and freedom of thought and speech, necessarily brings upon us scrutiny in the Assembly and the public square. The claim that rejecting this bill will exarcebate the social divides that the AND seeks to avoid perpetuating necessarily ignores the voices of a segment of our society from being, at the very least, heard; and at most, considered in Assembly debates. The AND has a mandate from our supporters for their concerns, views and perspectives to be represented; and since the bill is poised to be enacted, we hope that we do some justice to our constituents.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/14/2022 Although the NUP is a party of the right, it does not mean all members hold the same moral standpoint on certain issues. Of course, traditional rightists would be vehemently against this bill, however, I would argue that the NUP is a progressive right party that does not focus on upholding traditional right wing values. Also, like you mentioned, this bill is supported by the growing number of LGBTQ+ members as well as feminists, which the NUP seeks to protect just like any other group of TKR. Also, on the topic of religious rights, I have the opinion, that, like most governments, the GA of TKR should be a completely secular body, and I feel as though religious beliefs should have a very minor role when considering moral and other repercussions of bills. I also believe there should be no "middle ground" on LGBTQ+ rights, because it is clear to me and I'm sure many of my fellow honorable ministers and assembly members that LGBTQ+ people should receive the same rights as anyone else. The argument I bring to the table: why would they not be entitled to the same rights as everyone else? It shouldn't matter who you love or why you do, the only thing that should define a civil rights-entitled citizen is that they are a human being. Also, I do not understand what you are saying in regard to religious exception. Would this mean that people defined or otherwise on record as a member of a certain religious groups cannot receive abortion care? Does this mean the head of said religious group can forbid abortion care to their female members? Please elaborate. On an end note, I call @Oskar Luchens (NUP) into this conversation. I'm doing this simply because I single handedly defined a part of NUP ideals in the beginning, which you should take with a grain of salt. (edited) [2:02 PM] Oskar can either reaffirm or reject my claims.

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/14/2022 It is the position of the PPK: Full support of Article 1 of the proposed resolution. There is no purpose to keeping LGBTQ+ rights suppressed. Simply, we do not see a need for government to enforce social norms by keeping citizens from defining who they are or what their sexuality could be. Each citizen has personal liberties which criminalizing same-sex marriages infringes upon. Every person has a right to define and express themselves in whatever means they want. It is of our opinion that Article 2 particular needs additional information and scrutiny. The proposed resolution repeals a two section, 19 word resolution, with another two section, 11 word resolution. This is a topic that must be allowed some more discussion and thoroughness in order to mediate between the more traditionalist and progressive parties of Kodiak. The PPK, while for the right to an abortion, does not believe that this Article examines this issue well enough. (edited)

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/14/2022 I would like to add, that changes should be made to the proposed resolution to address some concerns of Mr. H. Alinov. However, our party would like to expand Kodiaks civil liberties by legalizing abortions. We believe a woman has the liberty to chose to have an abortion without government enforcement much like our opinion on Article 1. We also wish to work with the other parties of Kodiak in order to find a meaningful middle ground to discuss a more thorough resolution to the topic. It should be known as President of the General Assembly, I will vote in abstention to keep impartiality with all parties, however I would encourage each member of the PPK or closely affiliated parties to vote in this resolutions favor. (edited)

New Asden — 06/14/2022 Any age limits on abortions? @Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) Although the NUP is a party of the right, it does not mean all members hold the same moral standpoint on certain issues. Of course, traditional rightists would be vehemently against this bill, however, I would argue that the NUP is a progressive right party that does not focus on upholding traditional right wing values. Also, like you mentioned, this bill is supported by the growing number of LGBTQ+ members as well as feminists, which the NUP seeks to protect just like any other group of TKR. Also, on the topic of religious rights, I have the opinion, that, like most governments, the GA of TKR should be a completely secular body, and I feel as though religious beliefs should have a very minor role when considering moral and other repercussions of bills. I also believe there should be no "middle ground" on LGBTQ+ rights, because it is clear to me and I'm sure many of my fellow honorable ministers and assembly members that LGBTQ+ people should receive the same rights as anyone else. The argument I bring to the table: why would they not be entitled to the same rights as everyone else? It shouldn't matter who you love or why you do, the only thing that should define a civil rights-entitled citizen is that they are a human being. Also, I do not understand what you are saying in regard to religious exception. Would this mean that people defined or otherwise on record as a member of a certain religious groups cannot receive abortion care? Does this mean the head of said religious group can forbid abortion care to their female members? Please elaborate. On an end note, I call @Oskar Luchens (NUP) into this conversation. I'm doing this simply because I single handedly defined a part of NUP ideals in the beginning, which you should take with a grain of salt. (edited)

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/14/2022 In response to my college Mr Kalimeno, as Party leader of the NUP I do endorse his definition of the party platform with regard to its progressive approach to social identity and values. We, the NUP are not bound to a religiously defined code of morality. Our conservative roots and ideals are centered on the protection of the common culture of Kodiak and there is nothing in the History of Kodiak that would sway us to align against the rights of women to a healthy life and the basic civil rights of groups with various sexual orientations.

1

@Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) It is the position of the PPK: Full support of Article 1 of the proposed resolution. There is no purpose to keeping LGBTQ+ rights suppressed. Simply, we do not see a need for government to enforce social norms by keeping citizens from defining who they are or what their sexuality could be. Each citizen has personal liberties which criminalizing same-sex marriages infringes upon. Every person has a right to define and express themselves in whatever means they want. It is of our opinion that Article 2 particular needs additional information and scrutiny. The proposed resolution repeals a two section, 19 word resolution, with another two section, 11 word resolution. This is a topic that must be allowed some more discussion and thoroughness in order to mediate between the more traditionalist and progressive parties of Kodiak. The PPK, while for the right to an abortion, does not believe that this Article examines this issue well enough. (edited)

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/14/2022 To echo the concerns of the honorable Mr Virsturm, my only opposition to this bill is that it’s so broad concerning Gender Identity and Abortion rights. The right to “self identify” as any gender. I will oppose this on a practically grounds. If it’s so open ended then a person could swap genders at every feasible moment to receive different care or benefits in the moment and from an administration point of view it would cause pure chaos. I would instead propose that citizens do have the right to “identify as a gender” but the stipulation is that decision is made after the age of 25 and can only be made once. “No Take Backs” I propose this age consideration due to the level of maturity that I think such a decision warrants as well as a single use in order to provide consequences for a persons choices. On the topic of Abortion, while supportive of the right of women to have them. What is the limitations? Shall we allow a woman to carry a fetus to full term and abort just prior to birth? Shall we not define the unborn to have its own basic rights at a certain point in this biological process? From a cultural protection standpoint and demographic endangerment I would say we need to think about the heavy emotional and psychological aspects of having an abortion. Even if you are supportive of this measure, to go through with the procedure is likely to weigh heavily on a person. The closer that fetus is to birth, even more so. I would propose that we include a definitive point in development that the unborn receives a basic right to its own life. (edited) @Oskar Luchens (NUP) To echo the concerns of the honorable Mr Virsturm, my only opposition to this bill is that it’s so broad concerning Gender Identity and Abortion rights. The right to “self identify” as any gender. I will oppose this on a practically grounds. If it’s so open ended then a person could swap genders at every feasible moment to receive different care or benefits in the moment and from an administration point of view it would cause pure chaos. I would instead propose that citizens do have the right to “identify as a gender” but the stipulation is that decision is made after the age of 25 and can only be made once. “No Take Backs” I propose this age consideration due to the level of maturity that I think such a decision warrants as well as a single use in order to provide consequences for a persons choices. On the topic of Abortion, while supportive of the right of women to have them. What is the limitations? Shall we allow a woman to carry a fetus to full term and abort just prior to birth? Shall we not define the unborn to have its own basic rights at a certain point in this biological process? From a cultural protection standpoint and demographic endangerment I would say we need to think about the heavy emotional and psychological aspects of having an abortion. Even if you are supportive of this measure, to go through with the procedure is likely to weigh heavily on a person. The closer that fetus is to birth, even more so. I would propose that we include a definitive point in development that the unborn receives a basic right to its own life. (edited)

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/14/2022 Before taking into consideration your gender swap suggestion, I would like to know how gender swapping affects administrative efforts. [5:04 PM] Are there any programs that specifically cater to one gender? @Oskar Luchens (NUP) To echo the concerns of the honorable Mr Virsturm, my only opposition to this bill is that it’s so broad concerning Gender Identity and Abortion rights. The right to “self identify” as any gender. I will oppose this on a practically grounds. If it’s so open ended then a person could swap genders at every feasible moment to receive different care or benefits in the moment and from an administration point of view it would cause pure chaos. I would instead propose that citizens do have the right to “identify as a gender” but the stipulation is that decision is made after the age of 25 and can only be made once. “No Take Backs” I propose this age consideration due to the level of maturity that I think such a decision warrants as well as a single use in order to provide consequences for a persons choices. On the topic of Abortion, while supportive of the right of women to have them. What is the limitations? Shall we allow a woman to carry a fetus to full term and abort just prior to birth? Shall we not define the unborn to have its own basic rights at a certain point in this biological process? From a cultural protection standpoint and demographic endangerment I would say we need to think about the heavy emotional and psychological aspects of having an abortion. Even if you are supportive of this measure, to go through with the procedure is likely to weigh heavily on a person. The closer that fetus is to birth, even more so. I would propose that we include a definitive point in development that the unborn receives a basic right to its own life. (edited)

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/14/2022 Also, on the point of abortion, I believe whether or not someone should get an abortion after a certain point should be determined on a case-by-case basis. If a person's life is stable, the baby has no health problems, and the baby is past a certain point of development, then maybe a person should not be able to receive abortion care. However, I believe there should be a non-bias committee or non-biased officials that should look at cases and study a person's stability, financial stability, mental stability, ability to care for a child, etc. I also believe there should be trained doctors to be very scrutinous in looking for medical problems. If a person is ready for childcare, the baby has no health problems, and the baby is past a certain point in development, then maybe abortion care should be refused. That is my standpoint.

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/14/2022 To simplify: All administrative forms have a gender block. Many of these (census, survey data, etc) inform decision making regarding strategic messaging and even market decisions. If the percentage swings widely it will impact the ability of policy makers to adequately protect considerations that affect men vs women. To answer the question of programs. Yes there are quite a few. Many of these are key in disputes when the parties are different genders. Divorce: women are offered additional protections during separation and also with regard to custody of children afterwards. Medical: there are specific care options only available to women. Military service: Men are not exempt from a draft (I need to dig into the simulator we use to see if it’s the case for Kodiak) Sports: obvious considerations for an athlete that can swap to different tournaments based on gender. Use of force: training is different for dealing with women and men @Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) Also, on the point of abortion, I believe whether or not someone should get an abortion after a certain point should be determined on a case-by-case basis. If a person's life is stable, the baby has no health problems, and the baby is past a certain point of development, then maybe a person should not be able to receive abortion care. However, I believe there should be a non-bias committee or non-biased officials that should look at cases and study a person's stability, financial stability, mental stability, ability to care for a child, etc. I also believe there should be trained doctors to be very scrutinous in looking for medical problems. If a person is ready for childcare, the baby has no health problems, and the baby is past a certain point in development, then maybe abortion care should be refused. That is my standpoint.

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/14/2022 I would be supportive of a clause that addresses exemptions for genetic or physical issues of the unborn. @Oskar Luchens (NUP) I would be supportive of a clause that addresses exemptions for genetic or physical issues of the unborn.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/14/2022 It is not always just health problems that affect births though. There are many factors that can make births a catastrophic change in a persons life or that may make the child have a difficult life. What also needs to be taken into consideration are the above mentioned factors: https://discord.com/channels/213642650291535872/984555883340136458/986392302538879087 (edited)

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/14/2022 I understand. I’d be more supportive of the bill with these clarifications and definitions all included. As it is presently drafted, I would actually oppose this bill on the grounds of being underdeveloped @Oskar Luchens (NUP) I understand. I’d be more supportive of the bill with these clarifications and definitions all included. As it is presently drafted, I would actually oppose this bill on the grounds of being underdeveloped

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/14/2022 True, it is somewhat unspecific. I will consider withholding my vote until the bill specifies.

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/14/2022 In the effort of discussion @Yungly, CEO of Chest and co would you be willing if some adjustments to the resolution were made to expand more specifically on each topic? [6:39 PM] Since this is your bill, no changes can be made without your express approval

Yungly, CEO of Chest and co — 06/14/2022 What would the changes be again?

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/14/2022 It hasn't been discussed yet, but if there were some would you be open for additions? [6:43 PM] I will try and compile a synopsis from each party position so you can see sometime this week

Yungly, CEO of Chest and co — 06/14/2022 I would be happy to implement changes so that we can appease as many as we can

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/14/2022 So just to summarise/clarify, we are going to expand on Abortion in this act from now correct? I am not against that if that works better for everyone. @Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) I will try and compile a synopsis from each party position so you can see sometime this week

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/14/2022 I’ll get a NUP proposed revision from my members compiled before the weekend. Do you want me to drop it in here? Or DM to you for final compilation? @Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) So just to summarise/clarify, we are going to expand on Abortion in this act from now correct? I am not against that if that works better for everyone.

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/14/2022 Correct. I believe the idea is we could save ourselves work in the future if we expand the meaning of articles now with the current bill.

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/14/2022 That sounds reasonable to me! @Oskar Luchens (NUP) I’ll get a NUP proposed revision from my members compiled before the weekend. Do you want me to drop it in here? Or DM to you for final compilation?

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/14/2022 If you could kindly drop it in here so I can have it archived all from one space!

1

June 16, 2022

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/16/2022 @Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein). NUP revisions attached.

Kodiak_National_Rights_Act_Rev1.docx 13.21 KB

1

June 17, 2022 Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) pinned a message to this channel. See all pinned messages. — 06/17/2022

John Edwards [KWP] — 06/17/2022 While I am not keen on the revisions and feel that it places too many restrictions, it is streets ahead of the current laws and I can support this revision to get this legislation passed.

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/17/2022 This is my initial thoughts on this, and I am open to discussion. I appreciate the work in extending the original proposed act, thanks for starting the process! 1.2.2 – The Age to Consent to a gender realignment shall be established at 25 years of age. 1.2.3 – Only 1 realignment of gender may be applied for during a lifetime. I'm feeling somewhat dubious about 25, due to support aspects, mental health, and access to appropriate services. This seems excessive to me, considering we believe people can do many life changing things much earlier (and this can include medical decisions). Is 25 an appropriate limiter here. Are we as a nation then excessively intervening in the personal decision of an individual (keep in mind standard practice is mental health support long before this decision)? There is also an impact on mental health for trans people that I feel is definitely an important factor that should be considered and whether a high age limiter can be considered potentially harmful. That said, gender realignment and gender affirming are different things of course. For clarification, sorry if I've misunderstood: Was 1.2.3's intention to refer to 'in the eyes of receiving government services', or in access to the necessary health services for gender realignment? (edited) [6:54 AM] 2.2.5 – Stability of the parents will be evaluated by a state certified social worker prior to the birth of the fetus. If the evaluator determines the parents are unable to provide for the safety and health of the unborn fetus, the state reserves the right to place the child into the care of the Ministry of Social Services. Furthermore, if the evaluator uncovers evidence that meets criteria of the above paragraph, they may recommend the termination of the pregnancy. Hmm, the necessary funding and services to evaluate every single birth in Kodiak would seem like a large undertaking. Should this be on a case by case basis, for example such as if the primary physician believing it necessary? I'm open to either option.

Jocelyn [AND] — 06/17/2022 I'm personally not very keen on 1.2.3 - Only 1 realignment of gender may be applied for during a lifetime. Like what if a person doesn't have the resources to conduct intensive research on genders, transitions to A gender once they hit 25 then realizes that B gender they've discovered after that is who they truly are? What then? Gender dysphoria till they die just because they wanted to escape from gender dysphoria and made things worse? (edited) [8:49 AM] As for 2.2.5 – Stability of the parents will be evaluated by a state certified social worker prior to the birth of the fetus. If the evaluator determines the parents are unable to provide for the safety and health of the unborn fetus, the state reserves the right to place the child into the care of the Ministry of Social Services. Furthermore, if the evaluator uncovers evidence that meets criteria of the above paragraph, they may recommend the termination of the pregnancy. Funding and human resources and the fact that I think this should be folded into Child Protective Services aside, I can think of so many ways for some shady guy to throw some person's child into Ministry of Services. Also, can the Ministry handle an influx of children this act will bring? Can they advertise their adoption programs sufficiently to make sure they don't end up as a child garbage bin? Can they vet the potential adoptive parents thoroughly? Do they have enough resources to make sure the child is happy in their adoptive home? And those are just off the tip of my tongue

[8:50 AM] It could end up beneficial, just needs some detailing @Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) This is my initial thoughts on this, and I am open to discussion. I appreciate the work in extending the original proposed act, thanks for starting the process! 1.2.2 – The Age to Consent to a gender realignment shall be established at 25 years of age. 1.2.3 – Only 1 realignment of gender may be applied for during a lifetime. I'm feeling somewhat dubious about 25, due to support aspects, mental health, and access to appropriate services. This seems excessive to me, considering we believe people can do many life changing things much earlier (and this can include medical decisions). Is 25 an appropriate limiter here. Are we as a nation then excessively intervening in the personal decision of an individual (keep in mind standard practice is mental health support long before this decision)? There is also an impact on mental health for trans people that I feel is definitely an important factor that should be considered and whether a high age limiter can be considered potentially harmful. That said, gender realignment and gender affirming are different things of course. For clarification, sorry if I've misunderstood: Was 1.2.3's intention to refer to 'in the eyes of receiving government services', or in access to the necessary health services for gender realignment? (edited)

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/17/2022 I'm feeling somewhat dubious about 25, due to support aspects, mental health, and access to appropriate services. This seems excessive to me, considering we believe people can do many life changing things much earlier (and this can include medical decisions). Is 25 an appropriate limiter here. Are we as a nation then excessively intervening in the personal decision of an individual (keep in mind standard practice is mental health support long before this decision)? There is also an impact on mental health for trans people that I feel is definitely an important factor that should be considered and whether a high age limiter can be considered potentially harmful. That said, gender realignment and gender affirming are different things of course.

For clarification, sorry if I've misunderstood: Was 1.2.3's intention to refer to 'in the eyes of receiving government services', or in access to the necessary health services for gender realignment? On 1.2.2: The age of 25 was made with the proceeding provision in mind. By establishing a single use clause, it seemed warranted that an age that was beyond the "mental" maturity line of development. On 1.2.3: To clarify, this is not a provision for government funded HRT or surgery. This is merely a government administration change. Similar to a legal name change. I need to change the language to appropriately capture that intent. I do see the confusion. It would cover Identification cards, all legal measures, and demographic information that makes use of gender in the information. (edited) [5:22 PM] Hmm, the necessary funding and services to evaluate every single birth in Kodiak would seem like a large undertaking. Should this be on a case by case basis, for example such as if the primary physician believing it necessary? I'm open to either option. That is a good point, the assumption that was made, was that hospitals had a team of social worker on the staff. (edited) [5:28 PM] I'm personally not very keen on 1.2.3 - Only 1 realignment of gender may be applied for during a lifetime. Like what if a person doesn't have the resources to conduct intensive research on genders, transitions to A gender once they hit 25 then realizes that B gender they've discovered after that is who they truly are? What then? Gender dysphoria till they die just because they wanted to escape from gender dysphoria and made things worse? The state has to draw a line at some point in regard to its part of this process, the cost of continually swapping all of someone's gender ID across all forms of government administration is taxing and time consuming even with an automated algorithm that can run a script through a data base. My position on this, the state will take necessary steps to facilitate it once, however that is person's own internal decision to make thus not really the concern of the government if they "change their mind". This leads into the necessity for 1.2.2 an age that would limit the likelihood of someone "changing their mind" Given the struggles that Kodiak is currently faced with, it seems unlikely that we will be able to accommodate much more in the short term. [5:31 PM] As for 2.2.5 – Stability of the parents will be evaluated by a state certified social worker prior to the birth of the fetus. If the evaluator determines the parents are unable to provide for the safety and health of the unborn fetus, the state reserves the right to place the child into the care of the Ministry of Social Services. Furthermore, if the evaluator uncovers evidence that meets criteria of the above paragraph, they may recommend the termination of the pregnancy. Funding and human resources and the fact that I think this should be folded into Child Protective Services aside, I can think of so many ways for some shady guy to throw some person's child into Ministry of Services. Also, can the Ministry handle an influx of children this act will bring? Can they advertise their adoption programs sufficiently to make sure they don't end up as a child garbage bin? Can they vet the potential adoptive parents thoroughly? Do they have enough resources to make sure the child is happy in their adoptive home? And those are just off the tip of my tongue Additional clarification:  Child Protective Services is within The Ministry of Social Services (I assume, since I don't see any detailed report about the process for Kodiak)   I merely use the Ministry to catch all associated services. Regarding the ability of the Ministry to undertake the influx of affected children, I'll leave that to the most honorable Minister of Social Services as its not my equites to touch. @Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) (edited) [5:34 PM] Finally, anyone with edits. Please tag the Assembly President and drop them here so he can consolidate them for the main author of the bill to consider. Ultimately, it is the bill author's decision to undertake any committee revisions. @Oskar Luchens (NUP) I'm personally not very keen on 1.2.3 - Only 1 realignment of gender may be applied for during a lifetime. Like what if a person doesn't have the resources to conduct intensive research on genders, transitions to A gender once they hit 25 then realizes that B gender they've discovered after that is who they truly are? What then? Gender dysphoria till they die just because they wanted to escape from gender dysphoria and made things worse? The state has to draw a line at some point in regard to its part of this process, the cost of continually swapping all of someone's gender ID across all forms of government administration is taxing and time consuming even with an automated algorithm that can run a script through a data base. My position on this, the state will take necessary steps to facilitate it once, however that is person's own internal decision to make thus not really the concern of the government if they "change their mind". This leads into the necessity for 1.2.2 an age that would limit the likelihood of someone "changing their mind" Given the struggles that Kodiak is currently faced with, it seems unlikely that we will be able to accommodate much more in the short term.

Jocelyn [AND] — 06/17/2022 Maybe allow them to change it twice? @Oskar Luchens (NUP) As for 2.2.5 – Stability of the parents will be evaluated by a state certified social worker prior to the birth of the fetus. If the evaluator determines the parents are unable to provide for the safety and health of the unborn fetus, the state reserves the right to place the child into the care of the Ministry of Social Services. Furthermore, if the evaluator uncovers evidence that meets criteria of the above paragraph, they may recommend the termination of the pregnancy. Funding and human resources and the fact that I think this should be folded into Child Protective Services aside, I can think of so many ways for some shady guy to throw some person's child into Ministry of Services. Also, can the Ministry handle an influx of children this act will bring? Can they advertise their adoption programs sufficiently to make sure they don't end up as a child garbage bin? Can they vet the potential adoptive parents thoroughly? Do they have enough resources to make sure the child is happy in their adoptive home? And those are just off the tip of my tongue Additional clarification:   Child Protective Services is within The Ministry of Social Services (I assume, since I don't see any detailed report about the process for Kodiak)   I merely use the Ministry to catch all associated services. Regarding the ability of the Ministry to undertake the influx of affected children, I'll leave that to the most honorable Minister of Social Services as its not my equites to touch. @Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) (edited)

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/17/2022 The ministry's state orphanage service is ready to take in more children, however, it would be best for the ministry to delegate children to group homes until the parents are more fit for childcare. However, I do believe the orphanage system is ready to accept more children if need be. However, said orphanage system is one I'd like to try and phase out as I regard it as an antiquated system with not much purpose given the current adoption rates and group home availability. I would like to add that our vetting process is state of the art; regular check in's are performed by ministry officials and funds can be delegated from the social services ministry to group homes and parents willing to adopt. @Jocelyn [AND] Maybe allow them to change it twice?

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/17/2022 And also I agree that they should be allowed to change at least twice in order to change back in case of a mistake or in the case of mental instability during the first change.

Patrick Barber — 06/17/2022 This isn't going to be part of my official position later, but I'm not sure the state needs to be placing arbitrary limitations upon the number and types of medical treatments professionals may or may not suggest to patients. To what extent does the state need knowledge of these treatments if provided by a qualified and certified professional? Simply legalising or prohibiting a treatment should be the limit of state interference. Surely anything beyond that is a question for medical professionals and their clients. (edited) [7:28 PM] Especially since care of type is not state subsidised @Patrick Barber This isn't going to be part of my official position later, but I'm not sure the state needs to be placing arbitrary limitations upon the number and types of medical treatments professionals may or may not suggest to patients. To what extent does the state need knowledge of these treatments if provided by a qualified and certified professional? Simply legalising or prohibiting a treatment should be the limit of state interference. Surely anything beyond that is a question for medical professionals and their clients. (edited)

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/17/2022 I agree with this, however I believe a compromise is in order now to at least expand the rights of citizens in regard to these medical procedures. [7:29 PM] The bill may not pass if change is too drastic.

Patrick Barber — 06/17/2022 If the compromise harms medical privacy and personal rights for all, to gain a single right for few, I think that is a poor compromise - it is blackmail (edited)

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/17/2022 True

Patrick Barber — 06/17/2022 I hope to have my position finalised later today.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/17/2022 I yearn for more, but our colleagues in the AND seem not ready to budge on bills of this nature.

Patrick Barber — 06/17/2022 There are ~20 parliamentarian voters - while compromise is good, I don't know if we necessarily must accept their position to ensure passage of good law

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/17/2022 True. [7:32 PM] I will push for more in my statements, but I cannot promise anything. Let me just say I support this bill as long as further rights expansions are ensured. @Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) I yearn for more, but our colleagues in the AND seem not ready to budge on bills of this nature.

Jocelyn [AND] — 06/17/2022 I mean personally increase the number of times people can transition and I'm satisfied [7:33 PM] I don't represent my party tho @Patrick Barber This isn't going to be part of my official position later, but I'm not sure the state needs to be placing arbitrary limitations upon the number and types of medical treatments professionals may or may not suggest to patients. To what extent does the state need knowledge of these treatments if provided by a qualified and certified professional? Simply legalising or prohibiting a treatment should be the limit of state interference. Surely anything beyond that is a question for medical professionals and their clients. (edited)

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/17/2022 Again, to clarify, the provision does not address the procedure itself. Merely the governments role in facilitating a legal gender change for all their methods of identification. @Oskar Luchens (NUP) Again, to clarify, the provision does not address the procedure itself. Merely the governments role in facilitating a legal gender change for all their methods of identification.

Patrick Barber — 06/17/2022 Ah. You'll have to excuse me then that I am still awaiting time to participate properly. Obligations in the other place, Yada yada (edited) [7:38 PM] Could I suggest that a better compromise to limits would be to require a process similar to change of name documents which are onerous and expensive such that the limiting factor isn't upon freedom but personal choices of cost and effort

Jocelyn [AND] — 06/17/2022 Wouldn't that bar poor people from transitioning Jocelyn [AND] I mean personally increase the number of times people can transition and I'm satisfied

Jocelyn [AND] — 06/17/2022 My main concern is about funding and human resources though, where we gonna get both for all this

Patrick Barber — 06/17/2022 The administration of records already exists so the increase in workload from possibly .05% if people per lifetime asking to change likely would cost nothing Jocelyn [AND] Wouldn't that bar poor people from transitioning

Jocelyn [AND] — 06/17/2022 Also wouldn't this allow the rich to transition whenever they please @Jocelyn [AND] Wouldn't that bar poor people from transitioning

Patrick Barber — 06/17/2022 Without sounding callous; we have unemployment over 30%, violent crime and rioting has us at the brink of social collapse, and 1:2 children are homeless. And the argument is if the very rich might get to change gender of a state document more times than the poor? [7:46 PM] Let's legalise civil right if we want and come back to the details some other time @Patrick Barber Without sounding callous; we have unemployment over 30%, violent crime and rioting has us at the brink of social collapse, and 1:2 children are homeless. And the argument is if the very rich might get to change gender of a state document more times than the poor?

Jocelyn [AND] — 06/17/2022 I mean I didn't quite get the time to fully go through the wiki yet so [7:47 PM] Besides if you put it like that, now the argument is people can barely afford food and rent, now they're expected to pay to become who they are?

Patrick Barber — 06/17/2022 The natural incidence of gender incongruence in the general population is approx 1% of 1%. We will do more aide to trans people by building them a home than subsidising an admin change paper (edited)

Jocelyn [AND] — 06/17/2022 I acknowledge that this is near impossible, but still, desperate times, desperate measures, what if people figured that they rather deal with dysphoria than continue to be homeless @Jocelyn [AND] I acknowledge that this is near impossible, but still, desperate times, desperate measures, what if people figured that they rather deal with dysphoria than continue to be homeless

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/17/2022 I do hope the honorable Assembly Member Ms. Jocelyn will submit a version of the bill for consideration here that has all the language she would propose so that the author, Mr. Shoan can consider the input before this bill goes to vote. (edited)

Jocelyn [AND] — 06/17/2022 It's Jocelyn but I'll do it if I have the time @Jocelyn [AND] It's Jocelyn but I'll do it if I have the time

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/17/2022 Damn phone and it’s autocorrect

2

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/17/2022 Thank you Mr Luchens for clarifying, yes it was confusing wording that led me to a pause on whether the proposed updates were referring to actual gender transitions or government administration. I submit that a possible rewording is: 1.2.2 – The age to consent to an administrative change of gender for government administration and services shall be established at 25 years of age. I left the age question as is for now as this is in open discussion. As well as the 'limitation' question, and also possible upcoming proposed changes as well. (edited)

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/17/2022 I believe ages 18-21 have been internationally recognized, albeit as an unwritten rule, as an age where people are considered to be of mental maturity to make their own decisions.

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/17/2022 This is correct internationally, for example once you turn 18 it is generally accepted that you can make your own medical decisions (have the right to, etc), and usually separate your social services (in many cases this is legislated I believe) etc from your parents, and so on. (edited)

Jocelyn [AND] — 06/17/2022 I'm just wondering if we could take inspiration from the gender recognition act 2004 and do a gender recognition certificate, but make the procedure to register one complex with a fee, nothing too expensive, just high to deter the impulsive people from leaping into a gender once they hit twenty five. So if people want to transition, they'll have to consider the fee of surgery and registration as well as the time needed to complete registration. For the people that can't afford the money, maybe they can request government support like the government covering a portion of the fees? [11:49 PM] Idk I'm a bit out of ideas June 18, 2022 @Jocelyn [AND] Idk I'm a bit out of ideas

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/18/2022 Yeah. Maybe we change the age to 21, allow people to gender swap at least twice, but otherwise, I believe we've reached a middle ground.

Jocelyn [AND] — 06/18/2022 I honestly don't mind the age that much since I do believe that allowing people to make this decision too young is going to lead to lots of impulse switching [9:20 PM] But sure

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/18/2022 I can compromise for 21, I still think 25 is extremely excessive. Rewording as well to make clear this is about administration highly necessary. June 19, 2022

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/19/2022 @Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) Edits we discussed added. Additional edits credited. If there is nothing further of this group. I ask @Yungly, CEO of Chest and co to consider the attached edits for his bill  and if he is fine with those as written, I motion that this bill be moved to a vote. Otherwise, I will wait to see the revised bill.

Kodiak_National_Rights_Act_Rev2.docx 13.85 KB

1

June 20, 2022 @Oskar Luchens (NUP) @Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) Edits we discussed added. Additional edits credited. If there is nothing further of this group. I ask @Yungly, CEO of Chest and co to consider the attached edits for his bill  and if he is fine with those as written, I motion that this bill be moved to a vote. Otherwise, I will wait to see the revised bill.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/20/2022 This looks great! Thank you Oskar.

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/20/2022 Thanks for the updates. I think this version clarifies a lot compared to the previous iteration, and I welcome the specificity regarding 'no-cost'. I support the motion to vote assuming the edits are accepted, and there are no other points that are raised. @Oskar Luchens (NUP) @Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) Edits we discussed added. Additional edits credited. If there is nothing further of this group. I ask @Yungly, CEO of Chest and co to consider the attached edits for his bill  and if he is fine with those as written, I motion that this bill be moved to a vote. Otherwise, I will wait to see the revised bill.

Jocelyn [AND] — 06/20/2022 This gave me an idea, how about applying for gender reassignment costs nothing the first time (government absorbs it or something), the second time the person has to start paying for surgery and stuff but only has to pay half, third time and beyond the guy has to pay full price @Jocelyn [AND] This gave me an idea, how about applying for gender reassignment costs nothing the first time (government absorbs it or something), the second time the person has to start paying for surgery and stuff but only has to pay half, third time and beyond the guy has to pay full price

Patrick Barber — 06/20/2022 It is my understanding the bill does not refer to the cost of surgery (which is born by the patient) but the cost of administrative changes (edited)

Jocelyn [AND] — 06/20/2022 I mean I did say surgery and stuff

Patrick Barber — 06/20/2022 It only covers "and stuff" not surgery

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/20/2022 I'm not against the idea but I think actual policy around health procedures should go into a different bill, around health services covered by the government, cost of essential medicines, etc as a whole (this would be a very large undertaking of course)

Patrick Barber — 06/20/2022 As a tangent, I don't think it would be civilly responsible to begin subsidising gender reassignment surgery before other elective surgeries like rotator cuffs or knees (edited)

Jocelyn [AND] — 06/20/2022 I mean you can draft the bill and I'll fight whoever that thinks the sentence "I don't support this bill", but for now the focus is on gender reassignment so @Oskar Luchens (NUP) @Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) Edits we discussed added. Additional edits credited. If there is nothing further of this group. I ask @Yungly, CEO of Chest and co to consider the attached edits for his bill  and if he is fine with those as written, I motion that this bill be moved to a vote. Otherwise, I will wait to see the revised bill.

Yungly, CEO of Chest and co — 06/20/2022 This bill looks good (sorry for the late message, I fell asleep) (edited)

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/20/2022 Great! I will update the page accordingly Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) @Assembly Member A resolution to discuss regarding multiple national rights of citizens of Kodiak. Written by @Yungly, CEO of Chest and co, MGA, CACSPO https://kodiak.fandom.com/wiki/Kodiak_National_Rights_Act_(642)

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/20/2022 @Assembly Member The Kodiak National Rights Act has been modified. If you are not caught up with this, please review before the 24th of June when voting will begin. (edited)

1

3

1

June 24, 2022

yugoslwv — 06/24/2022 Can any right be included (edited)

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) used

EasyPollBOT — 06/24/2022 @Assembly Member The proposed resolution is up for a vote! (edited)

Question Do you support the resolution? Choices Aye  Nay  Abstain Final Result  ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░ [13 • 68%]  ▓▓░░░░░░░░ [3 • 16%]  ▓▓░░░░░░░░ [3 • 16%] 19 users voted Settings  Poll already ended (an hour ago)  Anonymous Poll  allowed choice  No other votes allowed Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: Wm7fqPZuXs

1

1

1

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/24/2022 @Assembly Member Voting on the proposed resolution will end in 3 days. New discussion on the resolution is now prohibited!

June 26, 2022

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — Yesterday at 9:07 PM @Assembly Member the vote for this resolution ends in 15 hours.

1

June 27, 2022

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — Today at 1:08 PM @Assembly Member The proposed resolution has passed. I will be adding this to the Kodiak Law Code and archiving the channel in 24 hours.