Cowardly Pacifists wrote:Attempted Socialism wrote:*snip*
Briefly: I do consider it a victory that SL acknowledged being mistaken when he accused that clause of rule breaking. I never sought to convince him of the merits or that it was an argument worth accepting; only that it wasn’t illegal to make the argument.
I took that acknowledgment as an opportunity for deescalation and, without altering the thrust of the arguments made in the repeal, moderated the other objectionable clauses and language so they made the same points but with more weasily words and phrases.
So the victory here is that you're allowed to make IC attacks on transgender people, yet you try to seem hurt when people recognise your actions as indistinguishable from transphobia (And, indeed, your own justification being "Nationstates needs a villain")? I don't think it's namecalling to say that everything you've done here has been basically identical to what one would expect of a pseudointellectual transphobe - that was one of my points; I genuinely cannot tell from your actions which you are.
You chose to attack transgender people with what you explicitly acknowledged were lies, misrepresentations and exaggerations. Is it any wonder, then, that people might pay attention to your actions, rather than whatever legal cases you claim to have been involved in?
If you have a non-transphobic point to make, I'd suggest making it in a way where you do not burn bridges you might want to keep. I gave you two ways to convince me that while your mistakes aren't honest, you're not a transphobe. I'll just note that you so far have chosen not to respond to them, except to hide behind the veneer of an IC entity believing what you, the OOC person, wants them to.
Second, you didn't actually resolve the illegalities in your second draft. As I enumerated, several clauses are still as flawed as when several GenSec members helpfully adviced you to steer clear of the HM rule.