This House Would Raise Gender Neutral Children

The 14th Ordinary Meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 13th of February in the Senate Room. It was co-hosted by QUB LGBT+

Ellen Murray and Fionn Rodgers took the proposition. Murray argued that gender is such a big part of our lives that separates us into boxes from the day we are born. These boxes can later affect what people do with their lives with society not accepting gender imbalances. If children were raised as gender neutral then they would learn to not discriminate between each other. Rodgers argued that it shouldn’t be up to the parent to force a preconceived idea of gender onto a vulnerable child that is open to learning whatever it is told. By raising children as gender neutral you’d be giving them the right to do what they want.

Charlie Barnes and Brendan Kelters opposed the motion. Barnes argued that it is the gender binary that is the problem and that gender is not, and should not, be a social construct. Instead of raising children as gender neutral he suggested we get parents to realise that there is a spectrum when it comes to gender. Kelters closed the debate. He suggested that gender neutrality is in itself a distinct gender and that the gender binary is rudimentary psychology that shouldn’t be something where you are classified as one or the other. By raising children as gender neutral, it could lead to confusion about how they interpret themselves.

The debate then went to the floor. Both sides summarised and the motion went to a vote. The motion was defeated.    

This House Would Ban All Forms of Animal Testing

animal

The 3rd Ordinary Meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 17th of October in the Senate Room. It was in conjunction with IDEA.

A vote was taken before the debate: there were 2 abstentions, 8 people for and 34 against.

Mr James McAlister, Mr Jonathan Irwin and My Joshua Wilburn came forward in proposition. Both McAlister and Wilburn explained that equality shouldn’t be reserved for humans. They questioned why it is acceptable to test on animals that are equally aware, intelligent and can feel pain. Wilburn compared animals to orphaned newborns and asked whether we should raid orphanages. Mr Irwin explained that we should be protecting animals, he told the House that the majority of animal testing doesn’t lead to medical advances and that testing is cruel.

Mr Robert Bentall, Mr Brendan Kelters and Mr Nick Millington spoke for the opposition. Robert claimed testing on animals is a necessity and that the animals involved are not in pain. He valued human life more than animal life. Mr Kelters questioned the logic of the proposition. He supported the banning of animal testing for frivolous things but that ethically it is needed for medical research. Mr Nick Millington closed the debate with admitting  that animal testing is not the best model but that there is currently no alternative as science has not yet advanced enough.

Another vote was taken, there were 3 abstentions, 8 ayes and the motion was defeated with 36 nayes and it was off to the bar!
The motion failed.