[DEFEATED] Repeal "LGBTIQA Inclusiveness In Schools Act"

[Equai]

The Blavatskya Intelligence Bureau identified in this topic that the majority of nations that support this resolution and are threatening to leave the WA if it is not passed (which is unlikely to happen), are 90% of nations with low levels of Civil Rights, Political Liberties or both. Really, for that alone we know well why it is important to be against this proposal.

well nations like mine who do have reasonable freedom scores are in support of the repeal because the resolution that the repeal is targetting goes against freedom for example free speech is banned under this resolution

Currently active General Assembly Resolution #603, titled LGBTIQA Inclusiveness in Schools Act, does not prohibit free speech. It prohibits and battles HATE speech. Our delegation stated that hate speech cannot and will never be part of free speech so many times that we began to sound like a broken record, but so does you with that freedom of speech card, ambassador. If your "freedom of speech" feels threatened because you cannot call other people (mainly members of minority and marginalized groups) slurs, insults, discriminate and call for the violence against them then that becomes you problem - you as a person problem. Not to mention that this proposal is actively trying to reduce presence of LGBTQ+ issues in schools. Things such as religion or "its not for kids" are not valid arguments in saying why we shouldn't have LGBTQ+ subjects in schools because we always expose oUr PrEcIoUs kids to straight stuff. If you want to play that LGBTQ+ issues shouldn't be discussed in schools or be protected from hate speech then lift protection for anyone.. give kids battle axes and fight for a dominance then.

Furthermore, freedom of speech as an absolute thing where "you can say everything and no one can do anything about it" does not exist. Even in the most democratic countries you cannot say what you want without consequences. Free speech only applies to opinions and not harmful stereotypes, slurs, insults or call for a violence. If we go by your logic where freedom of speech should be absolute and that no one has a right to shut down your hate speech then by that logic no one should actually be sent to prison for a murder or any crime because why should they go to prison? It would restricts their freedom of movement (which also btw is not absolute). Hate speech is a crime, not some "quirky" extension of the freedom of speech. There is no right for anyone to actively spread hate about a group of people and mask it under a free speech parole. Your words, just like your actions will always have a weight of a consequences, either from the authorities or from the people you try to dehumanize by using hate speech.

[Minskiev]

people be pretending free speech is mutually exclusive with queer rights

[Xanthorrhoea]

Perhaps using the term "actual science" was sloppy on my end. I apologise. But I believe I've already answered your question regarding those with de la Chapelle syndrome per the definition I provided: they are male. That's why another term used for the disorder is "XX male syndrome". These males can also exhibit cells with XXY, and more often than not, do.

I like that you bring this particular disease to the fore because it highlights the failure of a particular gene in the Y chromosome: the SRY gene. Current research indicates that it is this gene that is responsible for male characteristics. Phenotype is the more technical term, as you have used it. The lacking of male characteristics however does not render them any less male. And I know this because, in every scientific sense, sex is determined by the presence of the Y chromosome and not the presence of so-and-so characteristics. Again, you have clarified this yourself, but seem to have missed the point.

Regardless, I'd like to shed light on the SRY gene in particular. In the late 1980s, Peter Goodfellow — a London geneticist who specialised in sex-determination research — discovered the SRY gene and by means of experiments came to conclude that it was the "chief determinant of male attributes, but not male sex". The one experiment that he did (that I want to emphasise) was when he injected bouts of the SRY gene into the gestating female young of pregnant mice. The result was genetically female mice that had very clear male attributes. These mice were female (having XX), but were anatomically male. They even exhibited male breeding patterns. Yet, interestingly, failed to impregnate any other female mice. Goodfellow concluded that a fully functioning and ever-present Y chromosome was required to both exhibit "maleness" and ensure male sex. It was chiefly via Goodfellow's that I made my assertion because nobody has (yet) contradicted his findings.

There's also a reliable redundancy to his findings. People with Swyer syndrome — genetically male but characteristically female — have deformed/malformed SRY genes, but never an absence of it or various other genes found in the Y chromosome. What Goodfellow did to the mice also demonstrated the reverse of Swyer syndrome. So yes, it does indeed cover every conceivable case.

Your argument also ignores the fact that the majority of people simply have not been genotyped. How then do you define the gender of a person in whom the presence of a Y chromosome is uncertain? Secondary sexual characteristics can help, but are not reliable. A person may appear male or female, but their genes may be different. That doesn't mean you should be able to walk up to Gloria in the office and demand she show proof of her genes before you will call her "her".

I don't know who Gloria is, but it wouldn't be wrong to refer to Gloria using the pronoun "her". I would assume your mental image of Gloria was of female appearance? As well as a stereotypically female name? If so, then my first inclination would be to use "her" and "she". You've clearly implied this assumption yourself. In normal everyday circumstances, I do not need to double-check her chromosomes. That's because the confusion in matters of sex determination is inherent in extremely rare congenital conditions. Hence, the great majority of people's phenotypes conveniently align with their genotype.

Besides, I don't really give a damn about people's pronouns. It serves literally no practical purpose to be arguing about language conventions like this. Also, it's absurd. You don't choose your pronouns in the same way you don't choose your sex. You just don't. Choosing pronouns would be the equivalent of choosing, say, adjectives.

"Oh my adjectives are handsome and brilliant. And you can't refer to me in any other way. Otherwise, you're a bigot!"

Would you willingly use my self-assigned adjectives?

You misunderstand XX male disorder, and you seem to have mixed it up with some form of androgen insensitivity and/or Klinefleter syndrome. Male XX syndrome occurs when a person has two X chromosomes, however one of them carries a copy of the SRY gene that is functional, resulting in them being "males" as you so helpfully emphasised. They do not "exhibit cells with XXY". You are incorrect. The SRY gene, as you have correctly pointed out, imparts male characteristics, and is part of the Y chromosome. It is not the Y chromosome, merely part of it.

My question was whether this counts as having a Y chromosome or not as per your proposed definition of sex? They possess a portion of it, just not in the usual way. Does this count to you as possessing a Y chromosome? What if they possess a complete copy of the Y chromosome bonded to one of the X chromosomes, does that count? If you agree that a person in either case counts as male (which it appears you do), then what is your threshold for how much of the Y chromosome must be present for that person to count as male? Is it merely the SRY gene (in which case I suggest you amend your definition), or are other components of the Y chromosome needed to be male? Which parts and how much of a Y chromosome counts as a Y chromosome under your definition? You are oversimplyfying a continuum into a binary choice, and ignoring the complexity of genetics in doing so.

I would still like to hear your opinion on people with mosaicism who possess cells with both XX and XY genotypes. Do they count as male to you? If they do, then what percentage of XY cells must a person have to count as male under your definition? If it's a very low percentage, can I change a person's sex by giving them a genetically modified virus to change some of their cells to XY?

My point about Gloria is that your use of pronouns for her is not at all based on her genes. It is based on her exhibiting outwardly female characteristics (phenotype). You yourself have stated that you would call her "her" based on how she presents. Surprise! She's genotypically XY, but transitioned in her teens and is now happily living as a woman with regular hormone therapy, with narry a care in the world (other than having some slightly annoying work collegues). Why does that knowledge suddenly change what you would call her?

As a last question, how do you treat someone with an androgenous appearance who you are genuinely unsure of their gender? Do you ask them and use the pronouns that they give you? If you do, then why not extend that same courtesy to everyone else?

People do in fact choose their pronouns, and their gender, and "you just don't" is a rather weak justification for your worldview. Pronouns are a basic and common part of language, that are used in everyday speech, hence people should have the politeness to use the ones people prefer. When referring to a person, you most commonly use their name or a pronoun to be convenient. People choose them because having your identity undermined as a part of everyday speech is psychologically gruelling. Adjectives are different, because they are used so much less often, so people typically don't need to inform others of their prefenence. Additionally, the context of polite society dictates that people are generally complimentary when using adjectives unless they are being deliberately rude. If someone's being polite, they will be complimentary, so you mostly don't need to correct them. If they're being rude, they'll ignore your correction anyway. The difference in frequency of pronouns vs adjectives menas that a preference is warrented for one, but not for the other.

If you honestly wished it (which context suggests you don't), I would be happy to use the adjectives handsome and brilliant when talking about your appearance and intelligence and wanted to be polite. If I wanted to be rude, I would use far less complimentary language.

[Life empire]

well nations like mine who do have reasonable freedom scores are in support of the repeal because the resolution that the repeal is targetting goes against freedom for example free speech is banned under this resolution

Currently active General Assembly Resolution #603, titled LGBTIQA Inclusiveness in Schools Act, does not prohibit free speech. It prohibits and battles HATE speech. Our delegation stated that hate speech cannot and will never be part of free speech so many times that we began to sound like a broken record, but so does you with that freedom of speech card, ambassador. If your "freedom of speech" feels threatened because you cannot call other people (mainly members of minority and marginalized groups) slurs, insults, discriminate and call for the violence against them then that becomes you problem - you as a person problem. Not to mention that this proposal is actively trying to reduce presence of LGBTQ+ issues in schools. Things such as religion or " its not for kids" are not valid arguments in saying why we shouldn't have LGBTQ+ subjects in schools because we always expose oUr PrEcIoUs kids to straight stuff. If you want to play that LGBTQ+ issues shouldn't be discussed in schools or be protected from hate speech then lift protection for anyone.. give kids battle axes and fight for a dominance then.

Furthermore, freedom of speech as an absolute thing where "you can say everything and no one can do anything about it" does not exist. Even in the most democratic countries you cannot say what you want without consequences. Free speech only applies to opinions and not harmful stereotypes, slurs, insults or call for a violence. If we go by your logic where freedom of speech should be absolute and that no one has a right to shut down your hate speech then by that logic no one should actually be sent to prison for a murder or any crime because why should they go to prison? It would restricts their freedom of movement (which also btw is not absolute). Hate speech is a crime, not some "quirky" extension of the freedom of speech. There is no right for anyone to actively spread hate about a group of people and mask it under a free speech parole. Your words, just like your actions will always have a weight of a consequences, either from the authorities or from the people you try to dehumanize by using hate speech.

right with your "give kids battle axes" thing how on earth is that even remotely similar to free speech? and you mentioned 2 other arguments people who want it repealed might use which are mentioned where in the post you replied to? and for another thing hate speech can include a hatefull opinion which you yourself said free speech applies to so that would contradict eachother (here is the qoute: "Free speech only applies to opinions")

[Reino cruz]

Bom, não é obrigação de escola nenhuma ajudar. Mas é bom ajudar, assim futuramente podemos ter uma sociedade com menos preconceito, com mais respeito ao próximo.

[YuriFornia]

Currently active General Assembly Resolution #603, titled LGBTIQA Inclusiveness in Schools Act, does not prohibit free speech. It prohibits and battles HATE speech. Our delegation stated that hate speech cannot and will never be part of free speech so many times that we began to sound like a broken record, but so does you with that freedom of speech card, ambassador. If your "freedom of speech" feels threatened because you cannot call other people (mainly members of minority and marginalized groups) slurs, insults, discriminate and call for the violence against them then that becomes you problem - you as a person problem. Not to mention that this proposal is actively trying to reduce presence of LGBTQ+ issues in schools. Things such as religion or " its not for kids" are not valid arguments in saying why we shouldn't have LGBTQ+ subjects in schools because we always expose oUr PrEcIoUs kids to straight stuff. If you want to play that LGBTQ+ issues shouldn't be discussed in schools or be protected from hate speech then lift protection for anyone.. give kids battle axes and fight for a dominance then.

Furthermore, freedom of speech as an absolute thing where "you can say everything and no one can do anything about it" does not exist. Even in the most democratic countries you cannot say what you want without consequences. Free speech only applies to opinions and not harmful stereotypes, slurs, insults or call for a violence. If we go by your logic where freedom of speech should be absolute and that no one has a right to shut down your hate speech then by that logic no one should actually be sent to prison for a murder or any crime because why should they go to prison? It would restricts their freedom of movement (which also btw is not absolute). Hate speech is a crime, not some "quirky" extension of the freedom of speech. There is no right for anyone to actively spread hate about a group of people and mask it under a free speech parole. Your words, just like your actions will always have a weight of a consequences, either from the authorities or from the people you try to dehumanize by using hate speech.

right with your "give kids battle axes" thing how on earth is that even remotely similar to free speech? and you mentioned 2 other arguments people who want it repealed might use which are mentioned where in the post you replied to? and for another thing hate speech can include a hatefull opinion which you yourself said free speech applies to so that would contradict eachother (here is the qoute: "Free speech only applies to opinions")

You know, I never got an answer to my question of where free speech, as you define it, is guaranteed in writing (I'm a puppet of Neuer California and Neu California, before you ask)

[Equai]

Currently active General Assembly Resolution #603, titled LGBTIQA Inclusiveness in Schools Act, does not prohibit free speech. It prohibits and battles HATE speech. Our delegation stated that hate speech cannot and will never be part of free speech so many times that we began to sound like a broken record, but so does you with that freedom of speech card, ambassador. If your "freedom of speech" feels threatened because you cannot call other people (mainly members of minority and marginalized groups) slurs, insults, discriminate and call for the violence against them then that becomes you problem - you as a person problem. Not to mention that this proposal is actively trying to reduce presence of LGBTQ+ issues in schools. Things such as religion or " its not for kids" are not valid arguments in saying why we shouldn't have LGBTQ+ subjects in schools because we always expose oUr PrEcIoUs kids to straight stuff. If you want to play that LGBTQ+ issues shouldn't be discussed in schools or be protected from hate speech then lift protection for anyone.. give kids battle axes and fight for a dominance then.

Furthermore, freedom of speech as an absolute thing where "you can say everything and no one can do anything about it" does not exist. Even in the most democratic countries you cannot say what you want without consequences. Free speech only applies to opinions and not harmful stereotypes, slurs, insults or call for a violence. If we go by your logic where freedom of speech should be absolute and that no one has a right to shut down your hate speech then by that logic no one should actually be sent to prison for a murder or any crime because why should they go to prison? It would restricts their freedom of movement (which also btw is not absolute). Hate speech is a crime, not some "quirky" extension of the freedom of speech. There is no right for anyone to actively spread hate about a group of people and mask it under a free speech parole. Your words, just like your actions will always have a weight of a consequences, either from the authorities or from the people you try to dehumanize by using hate speech.

right with your "give kids battle axes" thing how on earth is that even remotely similar to free speech? and you mentioned 2 other arguments people who want it repealed might use which are mentioned where in the post you replied to? and for another thing hate speech can include a hatefull opinion which you yourself said free speech applies to so that would contradict eachother (here is the qoute: "Free speech only applies to opinions")

Why focused on that small thing about battle-axes but not on what I said by your logic should freedom of movement do as well? Also i mentioned those two because they connect itself to mY fReEdOoM iS aT rIsK rhetoric whenever marginalized group of people get rights.

[Life empire]

right with your "give kids battle axes" thing how on earth is that even remotely similar to free speech? and you mentioned 2 other arguments people who want it repealed might use which are mentioned where in the post you replied to? and for another thing hate speech can include a hatefull opinion which you yourself said free speech applies to so that would contradict eachother (here is the qoute: "Free speech only applies to opinions")

You know, I never got an answer to my question of where free speech, as you define it, is guaranteed in writing (I'm a puppet of Neuer California and Neu California, before you ask)

it may not be garunteed by the WA but that doesn't mean banning free speech isn't moraly wrong

right with your "give kids battle axes" thing how on earth is that even remotely similar to free speech? and you mentioned 2 other arguments people who want it repealed might use which are mentioned where in the post you replied to? and for another thing hate speech can include a hatefull opinion which you yourself said free speech applies to so that would contradict eachother (here is the qoute: "Free speech only applies to opinions")

Why focused on that small thing about battle-axes but not on what I said by your logic should freedom of movement do as well? Also i mentioned those two because they connect itself to mY fReEdOoM iS aT rIsK rhetoric whenever marginalized group of people get rights.

are you saying marginalized groups of people get the right not to be insulted? because that doesnt sound like that is a right that sounds like it is infringing on free speech

[YuriFornia]

You know, I never got an answer to my question of where free speech, as you define it, is guaranteed in writing (I'm a puppet of Neuer California and Neu California, before you ask)

it may not be garunteed by the WA but that doesn't mean banning free speech isn't moraly wrong

Why focused on that small thing about battle-axes but not on what I said by your logic should freedom of movement do as well? Also i mentioned those two because they connect itself to mY fReEdOoM iS aT rIsK rhetoric whenever marginalized group of people get rights.

are you saying marginalized groups of people get the right not to be insulted? because that doesnt sound like that is a right that sounds like it is infringing on free speech

Because obviously insults and bullying are completely harmless.

Oh, wait.

Personally, I think bullying and the like should be banned at schools. Restricting a damaging form of speech is a far lesser evil than allowing people to literally be insulted to death (via suicide, homocide, drug abuse, etc.)

Edit: List of suicides attributed to bullying, added for posterity

[Equai]

You know, I never got an answer to my question of where free speech, as you define it, is guaranteed in writing (I'm a puppet of Neuer California and Neu California, before you ask)

it may not be garunteed by the WA but that doesn't mean banning free speech isn't moraly wrong

Why focused on that small thing about battle-axes but not on what I said by your logic should freedom of movement do as well? Also i mentioned those two because they connect itself to mY fReEdOoM iS aT rIsK rhetoric whenever marginalized group of people get rights.

are you saying marginalized groups of people get the right not to be insulted? because that doesnt sound like that is a right that sounds like it is infringing on free speech

Insults, as done in intention of bullying, dehumanizing or diminishing someone are all bad and should not be endorsed, promoted or even considered. That's toxicity and should not be allowed. In schools and public areas that type of behavior is strictly prohibited and punishable. If you can't insult your professor without a consequence of being punished then why its okay to insult a marginalized and minority groups then? Its not infringing on any speech by prohibiting toxic and harmful language.
Put yourself in the shoes of any minority group. Think about how would you feel to every day, constantly wherever you go you keep being harassed, bullied, insulted and got called slurs for years to no end. It wouldn't feel nice, right?
If you want to insult someone then do not cry when someone you insult charges physically at you because that is the consequences you carry when you insult someone. You insulted someone, you picked a fight. If your freedom of speech is at risk because harmful language is banned then its someone's freedom of movement to beat you up as a result.

[Glatixland]

"While clause 1a does provide a fair argument for addressing a potential problem with the LGBTIQA Inclusiveness in Schools Act, it is the opinion of Glatixland that such a small oversight is not grounds for a repeal of an otherwise overwhelmingly beneficial act. An amendment to narrow the definition of schools would be much better suited to rectify the existing issue, which we again stress seems to be largely semantic.

Regarding clause 1b, we outright reject this reasoning. We fail to see how providing support to children via counseling and the validation of their identities is 'redundant'. No sane individual would ever suggest revoking career counseling past a certain age, or denying spousal abuse victims access to resources under specified conditions. Were this argument applied to any other form of counseling or social service, it would come across as equally nonsensical. The reduction of resources to alleviate and counter abuse only serves the interests of abusers.

Clause 2a is nonsense. Homosexuality occurs in nature, observable across a myriad of mammalian species. We understand that the more fundamentalist delegates among the World Assembly might disagree with this assertion, and we strongly urge them to pray on the matter until such time that their respective deities present a solution to their woes.

Finally, clause 2b provides a feckless argument for repeal. It begins by conflating morality with sexuality, then proceeds to accuse the bill of that exact same brand of essentialization. As a result, writes the author, we should repeal an anti-hate bill (and the protections that come with it) on the basis that protecting an actively targeted minority group is an act of bigotry.

Given the repeal's focus on nonsensical religious dogma in lieu of any informed arguments, we have decided to vote 'against'."

[Condala]

There is enough evidence to support that nobody can change the way they fall. The psychology of it, being no there, as you identity is you. You don't decide to like stake, so how could someone decide to like a guy for the reason of being different. Or choose to be trans. No one chooses to feel the way they do, and it makes it worse to try and change it. You can change how you think, but not what you feel. I think that it is stupid that we still attack people based on the fact that they love the person they love. We should avoid all counter arguments to inclusiveness, because if the white people were on the other end of this, they would revolt saying bull. Stop this idiocy.

[Tarsonis]

Why go for democratic repeal and not a legality challenge?

[Otaku Stratus]

I miss when repeals just went through automatically. And that was for far less reprehensible things. Even most differentsexuals I talk to are not pleased with forced inclusiveness crap.
NS is rapidly becoming a major source of day-ruining anger for me, it's getting really close to where I'm going to have to stop participating. And I can only assume the shift in demographics has been the result of that happening for some time now.

[Federation of Anterica]

As one person said earlier when explaining why they would vote against the repeal, it’s trying to reduce the presence of LGBTQ+ issues in schools, which is exactly why I support the repeal, those matters have no place in schools, places of academic education

[Equai]

As one person said earlier when explaining why they would vote against the repeal, it’s trying to reduce the presence of LGBTQ+ issues in schools, which is exactly why I support the repeal, those matters have no place in schools, places of academic education

They have and should have a place in the school. School should prepare you for life, show you a differences in people, show you that people are not all straighties and cis.ç
Schools and kids need to understand and learn the social inequality and issues minority and marginalized groups face so they can then help in building a better, inclusive and safe world.

[Federation of Anterica]

As one person said earlier when explaining why they would vote against the repeal, it’s trying to reduce the presence of LGBTQ+ issues in schools, which is exactly why I support the repeal, those matters have no place in schools, places of academic education

They have and should have a place in the school. School should prepare you for life, show you a differences in people, show you that people are not all straighties and cis.ç
Schools and kids need to understand and learn the social inequality and issues minority and marginalized groups face so they can then help in building a better, inclusive and safe world.

Yes that is a very valid point, but not so valid in my own nation…

[Germannyyy]

this act is bad. we need to get rid of it.

[Untecna]

this act is bad. we need to get rid of it.

How so is it bad? Explain.

[Germannyyy]

this act is bad. we need to get rid of it.

How so is it bad? Explain.

This act is terrible! Why should we teach kids about this info? It would be just a waste of time to teach kids all about this type of information when they could be learning more useful things.

[Neuer California]

How so is it bad? Explain.

This act is terrible! Why should we teach kids about this info? It would be just a waste of time to teach kids all about this type of information when they could be learning more useful things.

Is the school day in most countries so jam packed with stuff that we can't add something like this to it? Because here, there tends to be quite a bit of flexibility in the school schedule that easily allows for adding or removing topics as needed or desired.

[Life empire]

it may not be garunteed by the WA but that doesn't mean banning free speech isn't moraly wrong



are you saying marginalized groups of people get the right not to be insulted? because that doesnt sound like that is a right that sounds like it is infringing on free speech

Because obviously insults and bullying are completely harmless.

Oh, wait.

Personally, I think bullying and the like should be banned at schools. Restricting a damaging form of speech is a far lesser evil than allowing people to literally be insulted to death (via suicide, homocide, drug abuse, etc.)

Edit: List of suicides attributed to bullying, added for posterity

I amn't sure I agree because if somebody decides to commit suicide over another student insulting them they probably weren't ok in the head and I wouldn't get rid of free speech which is incredibly important because of that

it may not be garunteed by the WA but that doesn't mean banning free speech isn't moraly wrong



are you saying marginalized groups of people get the right not to be insulted? because that doesnt sound like that is a right that sounds like it is infringing on free speech

Insults, as done in intention of bullying, dehumanizing or diminishing someone are all bad and should not be endorsed, promoted or even considered. That's toxicity and should not be allowed. In schools and public areas that type of behavior is strictly prohibited and punishable. If you can't insult your professor without a consequence of being punished then why its okay to insult a marginalized and minority groups then? Its not infringing on any speech by prohibiting toxic and harmful language.
Put yourself in the shoes of any minority group. Think about how would you feel to every day, constantly wherever you go you keep being harassed, bullied, insulted and got called slurs for years to no end. It wouldn't feel nice, right?
If you want to insult someone then do not cry when someone you insult charges physically at you because that is the consequences you carry when you insult someone. You insulted someone, you picked a fight. If your freedom of speech is at risk because harmful language is banned then its someone's freedom of movement to beat you up as a result.

"If you can't insult your professor without a consequence of being punished" never said that you should get punished for it "Its not infringing on any speech by prohibiting toxic and harmful language." so not being able to say what you want doesn't mean you cant say what you want?
"If you want to insult someone then do not cry when someone you insult charges physically at you" so saying you don't like a specific group should be illegal but physically asaulting someone over something they said is fine? so in your nation can you legally asault someone for saying something you don't like?

[Neu California]

Because obviously insults and bullying are completely harmless.

Oh, wait.

Personally, I think bullying and the like should be banned at schools. Restricting a damaging form of speech is a far lesser evil than allowing people to literally be insulted to death (via suicide, homocide, drug abuse, etc.)

Edit: List of suicides attributed to bullying, added for posterity

I amn't sure I agree because if somebody decides to commit suicide over another student insulting them they probably weren't ok in the head and I wouldn't get rid of free speech which is incredibly important because of that

Insults, as done in intention of bullying, dehumanizing or diminishing someone are all bad and should not be endorsed, promoted or even considered. That's toxicity and should not be allowed. In schools and public areas that type of behavior is strictly prohibited and punishable. If you can't insult your professor without a consequence of being punished then why its okay to insult a marginalized and minority groups then? Its not infringing on any speech by prohibiting toxic and harmful language.
Put yourself in the shoes of any minority group. Think about how would you feel to every day, constantly wherever you go you keep being harassed, bullied, insulted and got called slurs for years to no end. It wouldn't feel nice, right?
If you want to insult someone then do not cry when someone you insult charges physically at you because that is the consequences you carry when you insult someone. You insulted someone, you picked a fight. If your freedom of speech is at risk because harmful language is banned then its someone's freedom of movement to beat you up as a result.

"If you can't insult your professor without a consequence of being punished" never said that you should get punished for it "Its not infringing on any speech by prohibiting toxic and harmful language." so not being able to say what you want doesn't mean you cant say what you want?
"If you want to insult someone then do not cry when someone you insult charges physically at you" so saying you don't like a specific group should be illegal but physically asaulting someone over something they said is fine? so in your nation can you legally asault someone for saying something you don't like?

Yes, because all the research showing that bullying is harmful and can easily lead to suicide is just caused by people not being right in the head

I just hope others realize how patently offensive this sort of logic is, especially those who have had to deal with extensive bullying (raises hand. I went through a period of suicide ideation because it was so bad and still suffer the aftereffects) and/or lost someone to suicide.

[Germannyyy]

This act is terrible! Why should we teach kids about this info? It would be just a waste of time to teach kids all about this type of information when they could be learning more useful things.

Is the school day in most countries so jam packed with stuff that we can't add something like this to it? Because here, there tends to be quite a bit of flexibility in the school schedule that easily allows for adding or removing topics as needed or desired.

well yes, schools are flexible but schools would still have to push back assignments just to talk about a controversial subject. I don't think that's a good use of time.

[Untecna]

Is the school day in most countries so jam packed with stuff that we can't add something like this to it? Because here, there tends to be quite a bit of flexibility in the school schedule that easily allows for adding or removing topics as needed or desired.

well yes, schools are flexible but schools would still have to push back assignments just to talk about a controversial subject. I don't think that's a good use of time.

I think you're just making excuses here for some actual controversial opinions...