[PASSED] Sexual Health and Education Act

by **Sierra Lyricalia** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 3:12 pm

United Smalandia wrote:[This is also another reason why I do not like the recently passed law, it enforces me to deal with a problem and a cause that I do not believe exist.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -PKD

by **Separatist Peoples** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 3:18 pm

United Smalandia wrote:
"Sounds like a clear cut violation of GAR#35, what with those discriminatory classifications."

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

I see that the ultimate form of equality, and the only way to avoid discrimination is by treating everyone with exactly the same rights, the most fair thing would be to treat them as the majority, which indeed is normative heterosexual non-transgender smalandians. Since our goverment by law treats exactly everyone as a normative smalandian we cannot be argued to discriminate anyone since in basis we are all just human smalandians and not any other race or sex. HBTQ bullshit denied.

This is also another reason why I do not like the recently passed law, it enforces me to deal with a problem and a cause that I do not believe exist.

"I'm referring to your extraordinary taxation of those who decide to utilize the classes created by this resolution. That said, if you really ignore LGBTQ distinctions in such a manner, it stands to reason that your entire legal code would have to be completely gender-blind to support that. Ignoring a minority is not, in fact, ensuring equality.

"Your inability to understand or obey international law isn't in question here, though. I am referring to your less-than creative compliance plan."

by **United Smalandia** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 3:48 pm

So let's try and adress this in order.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -PKD

Yes, this is an unfortunate truth. However it is also a truth that you biologically as a human almost always are born as a man or a woman, a seedgiver and a seedgrower so to speak. In modern days I do not see any reason why I should treat these in different manners except in the occurances of a pregnancy, in which I could simply state that a couple is allowed one month prior and after the expected birth of their child as an equivialent of sick leave. I cannot simple see the problematics surrounding hallucinations considering genders, and frankly if you believe that you are something that you are not, it is indeed not my problem nor my responsibility, and neither the governments. If you need someone to talk to about your thoughts and confusions, go see a psychiatrist or curator as everyone else does. In this sense is why I do not believe in these things, however I do understand that they exist, I just do not see an important problem, nor something worthy of spending money, resources and time on.

"I'm referring to your extraordinary taxation of those who decide to utilize the classes created by this resolution. That said, if you really ignore LGBTQ distinctions in such a manner, it stands to reason that your entire legal code would have to be completely gender-blind to support that. Ignoring a minority is not, in fact, ensuring equality.

"Your inability to understand or obey international law isn't in question here, though. I am referring to your less-than creative compliance plan."

First off, are you suggesting I am inable to understand international law? As for obeying, I might be trying to find loopholes wherever I can in laws that do not suit me, however that is indeed common for nations and people everywhere.

Secondly I have no problem what so ever with an entirely genderblind lawcode. In fact I would adore and worship the law code that achieves this, and I believe it to be very much achievable. There is no reason for genders to exist in the matters of law and order in this day and age with perhaps the parts considering pregnancies and parental leaves for newborns since the known fact is that males cannot breastfeed nor carry out childbirth. There can neither ever be any abortionlaws that affect men except in the fact that it is possible to demand both parents to try and reach a consensus on the abortion.

This law violates one of my highest principles in doing this, that everyone is supposed to be equal in front of the law, and for everyone to be equal in front of the law, I cannot write in special clauses for person being certain colors, having sexual preferences or genders, make believed or not make believed.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 3:52 pm

United Smalandia wrote:
First off, are you suggesting I am inable to understand international law?

"Not at all, ambassador. I am openly stating that you are unable to understand international law."

As for obeying, I might be trying to find loopholes wherever I can in laws that do not suit me, however that is indeed common for nations and people everywhere.

"And in doing so, bringing yourself into noncompliance with other resolutions. That's just as illegal."

Secondly I have no problem what so ever with an entirely genderblind lawcode. In fact I would adore and worship the law code that achieves this, and I believe it to be very much achievable. There is no reason for genders to exist in the matters of law and order in this day and age with perhaps the parts considering pregnancies and parental leaves for newborns since the known fact is that males cannot breastfeed nor carry out childbirth. There can neither ever be any abortionlaws that affect men except in the fact that it is possible to demand both parents to try and reach a consensus on the abortion.

"Fascinating. Your courts must hate themselves for all the frivolous lawsuits brought out by deliberate nongendering on gender-specific issues. As much as I'd like to hear more, this is drifting off topic and must be left."

This law violates one of my highest principles in doing this, that everyone is supposed to be equal in front of the law, and for everyone to be equal in front of the law, I cannot write in special clauses for person being certain colors, having sexual preferences or genders, make believed or not make believed.

"If the onus is too great, you could always resign."

by **United Smalandia** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 4:16 pm

Ah my dear chap, This reply has made me feel a burst of giggles. I also believe that this is starting to get a bit off the topic, however I do believe it is noteworthy that all of this ties together with my disgust for the said law. So I shall adress and procure statements as per usual for the standpoints you have made.

First, I do not believe I am unable to understand international law, My nation and I merely a tad set on missinterpreting them to my own willing as to further only laws that I personally see as viable. As far as I am familiar with international law there is nothing illegal by having different interpretations of said laws as long as I can argue that they are valid.

I also fail to understand how lawsuits of "deliberatle non-gendering on genderspecific issues" may be a problem since we basically do not have genderspecific issues due to a non-gender law. In fact we have even decided to erase and replace any parts of our law that states a gender such as man, woman or whatever-called from our lawtexts and replace them with the neutral word "person" in order to further ourselves away from genderspecific discrimination. We also do not tolerate lawsuits against government branches themselves, alas we allow complaints to a department that makes sure that we do indeed follow our own rules.

As for resignations it is unfortunately not an idea that I take well.

I will however join you in our quest to return to the topic and foremost request that if someone would please point me the way to a repeal act as soon as it is presented, or a thread debating on the outlines of such I would be glad.

by **Excidium Planetis** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 4:31 pm

United Smalandia wrote:Yes, this is an unfortunate truth. However it is also a truth that you biologically as a human almost always are born as a man or a woman, a seedgiver and a seedgrower so to speak. In modern days I do not see any reason why I should treat these in different manners except in the occurances of a pregnancy, in which I could simply state that a couple is allowed one month prior and after the expected birth of their child as an equivialent of sick leave. I cannot simple see the problematics surrounding hallucinations considering genders, and frankly if you believe that you are something that you are not, it is indeed not my problem nor my responsibility, and neither the governments.

"Actually, Ambassador, it is your government's problem. It was made your problem when GA#91 'A Convention on Gender' was passed, which requires nation to recognize intersex and transgender individuals, as well as prohibits referring to them as mentally ill, as your hallucination comment suggests. Your responses indicate a massive ignorance of WA law and willful noncompliamce."

If you need someone to talk to about your thoughts and confusions, go see a psychiatrist or curator as everyone else does. In this sense is why I do not believe in these things, however I do understand that they exist, I just do not see an important problem, nor something worthy of spending money, resources and time on.

"Maybe because you are required to do so by international law?"

First off, are you suggesting I am inable to understand international law?

"You are unable to understand international law, you Bolt."

Secondly I have no problem what so ever with an entirely genderblind lawcode. In fact I would adore and worship the law code that achieves this, and I believe it to be very much achievable.

"Ah, I see. So you have no problem with me using your men's restrooms as a woman, and vice versa? Okay, cool. I'll just be sunbathing topless over there with the men who do so."

There is no reason for genders to exist in the matters of law and order in this day and age with perhaps the parts considering pregnancies and parental leaves for newborns since the known fact is that males cannot breastfeed nor carry out childbirth.

"It is a known fact that pregnant humans can identify as males, and yes, males can indeed breastfeed, even if they were born male. Male humans do have breast tissue, and are technically capable of lactation in certain circumstances."

here can neither ever be any abortionlaws that affect men except in the fact that it is possible to demand both parents to try and reach a consensus on the abortion.

"Bull****. Go read 'On Abortion' and 'Reproductive Freedoms' again."

This law violates one of my highest principles in doing this, that everyone is supposed to be equal in front of the law, and for everyone to be equal in front of the law, I cannot write in special clauses for person being certain colors, having sexual preferences or genders, make believed or not make believed.

"Your principles violate WA law. Get the f*** out, Ambassador. If you please." Cornelia Schultz smiles, faux politeness extremely evident.

by **United Smalandia** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 5:42 pm

Excidium Planetis wrote:
United Smalandia wrote:Yes, this is an unfortunate truth. However it is also a truth that you biologically as a human almost always are born as a man or a woman, a seedgiver and a seedgrower so to speak. In modern days I do not see any reason why I should treat these in different manners except in the occurances of a pregnancy, in which I could simply state that a couple is allowed one month prior and after the expected birth of their child as an equivialent of sick leave. I cannot simple see the problematics surrounding hallucinations considering genders, and frankly if you believe that you are something that you are not, it is indeed not my problem nor my responsibility, and neither the governments.

"Actually, Ambassador, it is your government's problem. It was made your problem when GA#91 'A Convention on Gender' was passed, which requires nation to recognize intersex and transgender individuals, as well as prohibits referring to them as mentally ill, as your hallucination comment suggests. Your responses indicate a massive ignorance of WA law and willful noncompliamce."

If you need someone to talk to about your thoughts and confusions, go see a psychiatrist or curator as everyone else does. In this sense is why I do not believe in these things, however I do understand that they exist, I just do not see an important problem, nor something worthy of spending money, resources and time on.

"Maybe because you are required to do so by international law?"

First off, are you suggesting I am inable to understand international law?

"You are unable to understand international law, you Bolt."

Secondly I have no problem what so ever with an entirely genderblind lawcode. In fact I would adore and worship the law code that achieves this, and I believe it to be very much achievable.

"Ah, I see. So you have no problem with me using your men's restrooms as a woman, and vice versa? Okay, cool. I'll just be sunbathing topless over there with the men who do so."

There is no reason for genders to exist in the matters of law and order in this day and age with perhaps the parts considering pregnancies and parental leaves for newborns since the known fact is that males cannot breastfeed nor carry out childbirth.

"It is a known fact that pregnant humans can identify as males, and yes, males can indeed breastfeed, even if they were born male. Male humans do have breast tissue, and are technically capable of lactation in certain circumstances."

here can neither ever be any abortionlaws that affect men except in the fact that it is possible to demand both parents to try and reach a consensus on the abortion.

"Bull****. Go read 'On Abortion' and 'Reproductive Freedoms' again."

This law violates one of my highest principles in doing this, that everyone is supposed to be equal in front of the law, and for everyone to be equal in front of the law, I cannot write in special clauses for person being certain colors, having sexual preferences or genders, make believed or not make believed.

"Your principles violate WA law. Get the f*** out, Ambassador. If you please." Cornelia Schultz smiles, faux politeness extremely evident.

OOC: Well, hardly I am ever OOC, I am my nation and my nation are based on my perception on the world. However you my dear whatever-gender are percieved by me as a bit of an asshat. Which is fine, I sometimes unfortunately support your right to be a an in my opinion asshat. Since I am indeed somewhat new to this game and WA in perticular I have not read through all of the laws previously passed, which is a bit dodgey, I fail however to see how this makes me unable to understand international law as you cannot argue that I have not understood, interpret and found loopholes in basically every law I have been presented. I also personally see this post as a bit of an attempt to insult me, and discredit me. I am not sure if it's fine, but by my principles that apparently violates WA law states that it is your right to insult me within reasons as it voices your, surely by me faulty opinion, but no matter less, -your- opinion. Be warned however that if I recieve more utterly hostile posts from you I will either ridicule or just ignore you no matter what. Heck, the wisest choice here for me would probably start to ignore right about 3 posts ago to avoid some form of warning from a moderator since this is going a bit off topic, and for a while, however since we are still debating in a ways the genderspecific part it might be let to slide.

IC:

So let's start adressing the issues of myself as the uttermost representation of my nations unability to understand or follow international law I feel as I more fail to understand the insult of the word "bolt" since it is the first time ever I've heard it.
Alas, my nation and I are new to the WA assembly and have not yet arrived at the point that we have read and properly adjusted nor contested or agreed every proposed and passed law except those enacted since our entry, so the fault is not in not understanding the law, it is in not (yet?) being fully informed about all the containments of such laws.

As for unisex bathrooms I do not either have a problem with their existance nor the lack of gender specific ones. In fact i'd willingly support the increase of unisex bathrooms in every nation as I fail to see the point of seperated bathrooms. I'd stretch myself to perhaps allow unisex and bathrooms explicit for the handicapped, or even better, we could just make sure that all public restrooms are disabled-friendly unisex ones. I believe I will inform my superiors of this idea. We as a nation also do not have any problems with a female sunbathing topless for basically the same reason, however I urge her to be advised that others unfortunately might not think the same, nor neither appriciate or respect her privacy.

Let us continue to the pregnancy part.

Even though I am certain that there might very well be biologially females identifing as men giving birth I must digress that this is due to my poor wording.
i should indeed have said that since no biologically male men can become pregnant, at least not that I know of, I am also aware that anatomically men can in some cases lactate, however as I understand it not in due part enough to be exchanged for a biologically female. However this is also easily cast aside in an genderfree law due to the fact that I can procure writings that simply state breastfeeders, pregnant persons and others that might arise a need for being described as a person, not their gender, percieved gender, race or sexuality, but just in the law treat them with uttermost equality as persons. As for abortion laws, what I meaned to proclaim was that no biological male have ever so far had an abortion on their body, therefore it is natural to assume that only females are concerned in the questions of laws surrounding the abortion itself, now in parts of consequences or issues leading up to an abortion do indeed see the point of men having place under the genderfree laws. These are a part where I persosnally actually have some moral difficulties with a genderfree law however I can live with that all laws stating around these as well substitute a subjective gender towards a more neutral "person" instead of a proclaimed gender.

Now note that in doing this, and that all genders, races, percievied sexes or other things a person can be defined as is generalised and given equal rights under the neutral person. This means that a homosexually transgendered african female has exactly the same rights in all questions that might arise as a white european cis male and no more rights, no more less. I fail to understand how this is percieved as being discriminating.

Now to make a public statement surrounding the fact that I indeed have broken a WA law by stating that transgenders are make believe, hallucinating and other somewhat hurtful things. This is not entirely acceptable, even though it is as I feel. To explain, this is how I percieve, not how I treat nor how I would ever allow them to be treated under law. I and my nation support the HBTQ movements rights to have exactly the same rights I and my brethren have, no more, no less regardless of my personal views on them as persons. They do indeed have every right to a workplace, childcare, education, some form of marriage or in the face of the law as any other smalandian, however, that doesn't mean that I should be required to give them more rights than I allow other more normative citizens.

We smalandians tend not to be good at apologizing, however we are very sure to do it when we deem that it is in place. Therefore I as ambassador and spokesman want to apologize for my unthoughtful and hurtful description of these persons and their perceptions of themselves.

As for your statement dear Cornelia I extremely fail to see how that telling someone to gently dissapear in the manner you did is more acceptable than my misstep, but I'll forgive you this once, and describe why I haven't left yet. I once voiced it elsewhere, on the passing of the first vote I was against, one vote that later was repealed and contained allowance for pedophilia which by the way could be considered a sexual orientation and therefore forbidden to discriminate or punish. However, at that time I was told in a somewhat alike manner. "You cannot leave just because you disagree, we need people like you to stay and vote against these idiotic laws." This is the sole reason I have not resigned, and my nation has not withdrawn. We do however consider installing our recent colony of brazilistan under a different name as a puppetnation voting on our behalf so that our main population does not need to concern themselves as much, however that is another matter.

by **Excidium Planetis** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:54 pm

United Smalandia wrote:
OOC: However you my dear whatever-gender are percieved by me as a bit of an asshat... I also personally see this post as a bit of an attempt to insult me, and discredit me... Be warned however that if I recieve more utterly hostile posts from you I will either ridicule or just ignore you no matter what...

OOC: There is a rather high level of hypocrisy in this post. Your character repeatedly says things extremely offensive to transgenders, and then my character is the insulting one? "You gotta give respect to earn respect" or something like that.

IC:

So let's start adressing the issues of myself as the uttermost representation of my nations unability to understand or follow international law I feel as I more fail to understand the insult of the word "bolt" since it is the first time ever I've heard it.

IC:

"I'm going to be honest, Ambassador, I understood very little of what you just said. However, as to the word 'Bolt' used as an insult, it is a reference to our AI-controlled military starfighters, which are quite stupid."

Alas, my nation and I are new to the WA assembly and have not yet arrived at the point that we have read and properly adjusted nor contested or agreed every proposed and passed law except those enacted since our entry, so the fault is not in not understanding the law, it is in not (yet?) being fully informed about all the containments of such laws.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

-snip-

"Okay. Good for you."

Now note that in doing this, and that all genders, races, percievied sexes or other things a person can be defined as is generalised and given equal rights under the neutral person. This means that a homosexually transgendered african female has exactly the same rights in all questions that might arise as a white european cis male and no more rights, no more less. I fail to understand how this is percieved as being discriminating.

"It isn't. But why do you have an objection to the current resolution, then?"

Now to make a public statement surrounding the fact that I indeed have broken a WA law by stating that transgenders are make believe, hallucinating and other somewhat hurtful things. This is not entirely acceptable, even though it is as I feel. To explain, this is how I percieve, not how I treat nor how I would ever allow them to be treated under law. I and my nation support the HBTQ movements rights to have exactly the same rights I and my brethren have, no more, no less regardless of my personal views on them as persons. They do indeed have every right to a workplace, childcare, education, some form of marriage or in the face of the law as any other smalandian, however, that doesn't mean that I should be required to give them more rights than I allow other more normative citizens.

"So, now that you have admitted to having broken WA law, perhaps you would care to apologize to the Separatist Ambassador?"

-snip-

As for your statement dear Cornelia

"That's Ambassador Schultz to you. Or at least Miss Schultz. We aren't on a first name basis."

I extremely fail to see how that telling someone to gently dissapear in the manner you did is more acceptable than my misstep, but I'll forgive you this once, and describe why I haven't left yet. I once voiced it elsewhere, on the passing of the first vote I was against, one vote that later was repealed and contained allowance for pedophilia which by the way could be considered a sexual orientation and therefore forbidden to discriminate or punish.

"Pedophilia as an orientation? No, that can't be punished. As an act of child molestation? Absolutely. Having sex wit a minor is a crime regardless of sexual orientation. Heterosexual, Homosexual, or Necrophilic, having sex with a minor is illegal."

However, at that time I was told in a somewhat alike manner. "You cannot leave just because you disagree, we need people like you to stay and vote against these idiotic laws." This is the sole reason I have not resigned, and my nation has not withdrawn. We do however consider installing our recent colony of brazilistan under a different name as a puppetnation voting on our behalf so that our main population does not need to concern themselves as much, however that is another matter.

"May I remind you that moving WA status to a puppet nation means your main nation no longer benefits from WA funding and aid, including emergency aid and WA disease databases, among other things? Your soldiers and humanitarian aid also lose the protections afforded to them in wartime, of course."

by **United Smalandia** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:06 am

"Pedophilia as an orientation? No, that can't be punished. As an act of child molestation? Absolutely. Having sex wit a minor is a crime regardless of sexual orientation. Heterosexual, Homosexual, or Necrophilic, having sex with a minor is illegal."

Let us start right here since I do not like overly quoting.

1) The curriculum must give students accurate information on STIs, teen pregnancy, reproductive rights, pubescence, sexuality, gender identity, human anatomy, and methods of birth control. For those between the ages of 10 and 13 years old, only information on pubescence, sexuality, gender identity, and human anatomy are required. For students aged 13 and up, the curriculum must include lessons on STIs, teenage pregnancy, reproductive rights, and birth control as well. Age-appropriateness should be taken into consideration when planning how to approach each topic.

Another reason for me to then attempt to rise against this resolution in every possible way. Otherwise I might be forced to teach persons as young as ten yearolds extensivly about sexual orientations like pedophilia, necrophilia, and zoophilia. Does Cor- Sorry, Miss Schulz find this morally agreeable?

I also are a bit distressed by your quotations out of contexts, however my next issue to adress is an apology directed personally at the Separatist ambassador, and alas, I did if you read somewhat haphazardly apologize for my harsh language and inconsiderate wording. However I do want to argue once again that I should be allowed to adress them as whatever I like (in fact, I am pretty sure I am allowed to call a christian delusional for believing in something that cannot be biologically or physically proven, the real crime would be if we as a nation started acting and declaring them all mentally ill by law.), since the fact is that i need to treat, not just think nor have the opinion of transgendered to be delusional to actually breaking the law. This is another loophole, and practically dancing on a line, so yes, I should have been a bit more considerate which I also have made clear and if this ambassador indeed is hurt by my statement I will apologize for not being more considerate, will I apologize for my opinions and beliefs? Never, that would be censorship. I would also like to point out that me claiming them to be hallucinating is just one part of a sentance, and should be read in context.

I cannot simple see the problematics surrounding (CENSOREDFORYOURFEELINGS) considering genders, and frankly if you believe that you are something that you are not, it is indeed not my problem nor my responsibility, and neither the governments.

The main point are therefore that the statement is that whatever you believe in, or percieve yourself as should never be the governments concern since to them you should all be equal.

Now onto how not knowing the law which if you actually read what I wrote I admit is my own fault in part, even though I politely ask others to take that as a mitigating factor not an absolution from guilt.

I am not going to argue my staying or leaving the WA further here since it has barely nothing to do with the regulation other than what I have previously stated Miss Schulz.

And now to as shortly as possible and preferably somewhat consideratly recounting a few reasons why this is a resolution I do not support at all.

First and perhaps the one I've argued mostly for: We do not ever wish to be forced to give special treatment to any of our citizen due to their race, sexuality or gender whatever they might be as we feel that this would discriminate the normative persons by giving extra rights to those non-normative.

Secondly this law diminishes my nations sovereignity which seems to be common amongst wa regulations, something I dislike but in many cases can allow, except in areas surrounding ideology, social development, education and religion, and what we percieve as violating civil rights.

Third. This law forces my educational system to completely adjust itself to overly teaching something we as a nation do not believe to be treated as a recouring course for public schools, we would deem it sufficient to have sexual education for a week per class every third or fourth years starting from age 12 surrounding the subjects of how children are made, menstruation, puberty and lighter subjects. We see no reason to teach them increasingly about sexual activities at this age. We could agree to that surrounding the age of 15-16, in terms of safe sex, general information about stds and how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Where we would have no problem whatsoever informing the classes that they may seek a psychiatrist or curator or counselor or an equivalent employed by the school either by email or an anonymous pre-booked visit. We just do not see why we should be forced to educate them especially and extensivly on non-normative sexual intercourse, orientations and percieved genders in large classes.

Fourth. This law has so many loopholes that there is no point that I should be forced to follow it against my will.

Fifth. This law would have me teach extensively about every sexual orientation in existance. I will state some I do especially not want to teach to ten year olds, I warn everyone to not google these if you are easily distressed by graphic images and/or written text.

OOC and lastly the OOC. Yes, i do find that more insulting than my statement that

since this is an explaination of my viewpoint, not a direct assault of characther. Even though I in retrospect can agree I could have made basically the same point without using the word hallucinations, it isn't directed as an insult to a person nor even the group of hbtq:ers or whatever they are called. It's merely a statement that I who do not agree that this is something I need to adhere especially to be forced to cede extra rights for.

You however included several insults, deliberate attempts at belittling my views and used words even an outstanding person as yourself had to censor. In fact, if you read your post again, you will hopefully notice that most of it is designated to argue myself and not the contents of my view. You just argue my knowledge and how well I have adhered to the law, not the points I am trying to make.

There is the difference, and for me that is not hypocritic. I can also not see where I have failed to respect others and keep a civil tone even when they have argued against me, something which your characther, which I see as you, have not. In fact I only see two attempts at openly disagreeing with my views and not myself.

by **Excidium Planetis** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 9:19 am

United Smalandia wrote:So is there any way this bullshit law is repealed anytime soon or do I have to leave the WA for refusing to adhere to rules forcing me to accept HBTQ rights that I do not want to cede?

-snip-

I just cannot ever accept that because in your little world your make-believe bullshit is real to be forced upon and influencing otherwise sane young humans into believing that they can be whatever the heck they want, because everything is a choice.

OOC:
Oh really? I used words I had to censor? Well you didn't even bother censoring them, hypocrite. Also "your little world of make-believe bullshit" is not a viewpoint, that is a direct insult to any transgender person. It is one thing to say "I believe that transgenderism is a mental disorder", it is another to call the mentality other people have "make believe bullshit".

United Smalandia wrote:Well then my dear sire, as I stated, I am not against their rights as human beings, I am against their rights over normative human beings due to over-coddling with these traumatized make-believers. I believe every human has basic rights no matter how idiotic I percieve them as, however I do not believe that anyone due to their non-normaive or non-conformist behaviour is entitled to extra attention either, especially not from a government, but alas, if you could point me towards where this law that forces me to abide HBTQT rights I would most certainly ask for a repeal against it myself.

And calling transgenders "traumatized" and "idiotic"? Really, if these were not IC statements, I would have reported you for flaming.

IC:
"As far as I am aware, the Separatist Ambassador Bell is not transgender. The apology in question would refer to your refutation of their claims that your discrimination was illegal, when it fact you admitted that your statements reflected non-compliance with WA law.

"But I suppose it does not matter much to me, since I am not Ambassador Bell.

"As for your claims that this resolution would require teaching ten year olds about Pedophilia, I do not see how this could be the case. The resolution does not require teaching ten year olds about sexual orientation.

"Also, what is this 'google' you speak of?"

by **United Smalandia** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:40 pm

OOC. Sigh. You just don't get it? Good going SJW girl. I'm pretty sure now that no matter how much I argue, how much I cede you always demand new apologize and continue to antagonize without de facto arguing what I say, you are hooked up on my somewhat in retrospect unfortunate wording. Now picture the quote was any of these instead.

Is it still as offensive? OR maybe, was it just offensive because I attacked something that matters to you, that you believe in?

For those between the ages of 10 and 13 years old, only information on pubescence, sexuality, gender identity, and human anatomy are required.

It does not specify any sexuality, and since it would be discriminating to only teach some sexual orientations, yes, indeed this states and forces I have to teach pedophilia to 10-13 year olds. GJ.

Now I'm going to ignore your threat of reporting me for flaming for I would probably have reported you already if I knew how, and frankly as I stated a few posts up, I was going to ignore you if I didn't think you could follow a civil tone towards myself as an individual, I don't believe you have. Do people often claim you are very passive-aggressive? Anyway, I read somewhere in a rule that I am allowed to state that I am hereby ignoring you. Since I don't know how to actually block or ignore someone here, (or if you can do that?) I'm going to go ahead and do that until my memory forgets I am doing that. Which probably will be a few weeks at least. Have a nice day.

by **Vancouvia** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:44 pm

To block: user control panel, friends & foes, manages foes

by **United Smalandia** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:49 pm

Vancouvia wrote:To block: user control panel, friends & foes, manages foes

Ah, thank you!

by **Wrapper** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 3:24 pm

Locked while I trawl through this muck.

by **Wrapper** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 3:59 pm

United Smalandia wrote:Don't take me wrong, I couldn't really care less if you born as a white male human identifies as a trans-female cat-orc trapped in the body of a man that should have been born black.

United Smalandia wrote:OOC: Well, hardly I am ever OOC, I am my nation and my nation are based on my perception on the world. However you my dear whatever-gender are percieved by me as a bit of an asshat. Which is fine, I sometimes unfortunately support your right to be a an in my opinion asshat.

United Smalandia wrote:OOC. Sigh. You just don't get it? Good going SJW girl.

*** Warned for trolling, flaming and flamebaiting. ***

The rest of you, this threadjack is done. As Mouse said, you want to debate gender issues, take it to General. Thread stays locked.

[PASSED] Sexual Health and Education Act

Who is online