Post

Croanique wrote:

That's a good point! Reading the thread on the GA Forum it looks like someone else brought up both of these concerns a few days ago before the resolution went up to vote, and their concerns were never acknowledged in the thread. I might recommend posting in there! I'm also concerned by the vague wording in clause 1b, believing that it leaves too much room for governments to declare criminal activity where there may not legitimately be in the name of disassembling an organization. I've seen it quoted before that if you care about civil rights you must first, always, care about criminal rights, because the only thing a government subsequently has to do to take your rights away is declare you a criminal. This resolution seems well-intentioned, but with the current phrasing does nearly the opposite of placing protections on organizations or the people assembling within them.

When discussing protections, you must also discuss protecting those groups. As a trans woman myself, I think that everyone should get a say,even if the say is saying that trans people arent real "women" or real "men"