I agree with other commenters. You may have some good notions going, but I don't like this mode of presentation. The community guidelines call for developing your ideas in long form. In that way they can be discussed. This presentation is bordering on spam. Still, I am still interested in what your point is. For the time being I will ask, if you feel like it, to expand your post with the ideas you present in this app, but in text form. Please resubmit. I will lock this in the meantime, because you have been downvoted by the community.

According to a commentator, TERFs lobbied UK Gov to stop companies from building gender neutral toilets

The full comment was this:

The TERFs successfully lobbied the previous government to make exclusively gender neutral toilets illegal under Part T of the building code. Because exclusively gender neutral toilets don't discriminate against anybody and would therefore be acceptable to trans people and if the TERFs went dishonest far-right cranks, it would have presumably been on with them too, and it would have ended the culture war. That's why they had them banned, because it wasn't about toilets, changing rooms or sports, it was about keeping the culture war going to make life impossible for trans people.

So this is not just a clerical ramification, but a genocidal move. See my other comment.

For all the talking heads still "asking questions" and demonstrating absolute ignorance, if not bad faith, after all these years, here are some very tangible takes as to why bathroom bans means genocide.

If people are to use exclusively the restrooms that match their assigned at birth sex, then all people must be the sex that they are perceived to be. Trans advocates were not paranoid enough to imagine that the right wants to wipe trans people out of public life to such a degree, that no ambiguity about a person’s sex can further be possible, except for those “extremely rare genetic accidents” Ben Shapiro keeps talking about. Public erasure, however, of transgender and gender-nonconforming people amounts to the enforcement of cisgenderism by a state that defines sex as a natural binary with no exceptions, and no behavioral, nor performative, nor psychological deviations from the norm. (From my previous essay on this.)

The rest of this post comes from the real experts on the topic, the Lemkin institute for genocide prevention.

1

Statement on the Genocidal Nature of the Gender Critical Movement’s Ideology and Practice

Genocidal ideologies are ideologies that deny or seek to erase the existence of a specific group because of the supposed threat it poses to the holders of the ideology.

Focusing primarily on the imagined threat posed by transgender women, gender critical ideologues believe that transgender women are in fact men who are seeking to dominate cisgender women (women whose sense of self corresponds with their birth sex) by impersonating them and thereby gaining access to women’s bathrooms, women’s locker rooms, women’s sports teams, and other women’s spaces.

Transgender women are represented as stealth border crossers who seek to defile the purity of cisgender women, much as Tutsi women were viewed in Hutu Power ideology and Jewish men in Nazi antisemitism.

Like the religious targets of genocidal violence, trans people are often described as somehow polluted, sinful, or against God.

A fundamentalist gender binary was a key feature of Nazi racial politics and genocide.

2

Red Flag Alert on Anti-Trans and Intersex Rights in the UK

Since the ruling, “birth sex,” “biological sex,” and “natal sex” have all been used interchangeably, ignoring the multiple relevant components of biological sex and the existence of intersex people. Analysts immediately warned that the decision could be used to render single sex spaces off limits for trans people, including hospital wards, sports, and domestic violence shelters. For a group especially vulnerable to domestic violence, exclusion from specialised shelters is nothing short of cruel and could, in some cases, prove a death sentence. Transgender and intersex people may find themselves excluded not only from spaces of their current sex but also from spaces for their sex assigned at birth. Trans men would find themselves excluded from both male spaces on the basis of their assigned sex at birth, and female spaces if they are deemed to look too much like men.

The EHRC has, in the past few years, seemed to become a lobby group for erasing the rights of intersex and trans people on the basis of gender critical views. This has been explicitly confirmed by leader of the UK’s Official Opposition Kemi Badenoch. Following the UKSC Ruling, the EHRC erased decades of established practice protecting transgender and intersex people by taking a restrictive interpretation of the ruling in their interim guidance and refusing to consider the welfare of intersex or transgender people. The guidance dictates that anyone who is not binarily male or female is excluded from single sex spaces, ranging from public toilets to groups such as a single-gender choir. This interim guidance has been noted by the Good Law Project to be either wrong in law or a breach of human rights.

Those who have transitioned will be forced to choose between being someone who is either excluded from society or who lives a criminalised life shrouded in secrecy. If the law in the UK makes people living beyond sex and gender binaries second-class citizens, it will also lay the groundwork for increased genital mutilation of intersex infants and conversion therapy of transgender people.

All of the actions described above fit neatly into the 9th Pattern of Genocide: “Denial and/or Prevention of Identity.” As we have repeatedly stated over the years, genocide does not only manifest in the killing of an entire group. In the case of trans and intersex people, genocide is often perpetrated by making it impossible for individuals to exist as their true selves.

3

Red Flag Alert for Genocide - USA

An apparently committed transphobe like Knowles may believe that transgender people are not real and are instead misled by something called “transgenderism,” so that by eradicating “transgenderism” he would not be eradicating a real identity. To that line of thought we can only note that the arrogance of determining which identities are real and not real, and therefore which identities can be slated for elimination, is already a giant step in the direction of genocide. Moreover, once an identity is determined to be illegitimate, criminal, and threatening, the killing of people with that identity is never far behind.

The Lemkin Institute reminds American voters and legislators that “the gender critical movement is a totalitarian and genocidal social force that targets not just transgender people, but also all the institutions of democracy that protect individual and collective human rights,”

Anti-trans legislation, anti-trans organizations, and the anti-trans movement must be fought forcefully in the name of saving lives as well as securing democratic institutions from the accelerating threat of fascism in the United States.

4

Red Flag Alert 2 for the Anti-Trans Agenda of the Trump Administration in the United States

The anti-trans movement in the US has made it clear that it will not stop at banning gender affirming care for children. Emboldened by this Supreme Court decision, they will continue their attempts to restrict gender affirming care for adults as well. Furthermore, they will ramp up their attempts to erase trans identity through various non-medical policies, including bathroom bans, bans on conversations related to gender in schools, preventing schools and workplaces from using pronouns or names that don’t align with a person’s sex at birth, banning trans athletes from competition, and criminalizing dressing as a gender other than the one assigned at birth.

The Lemkin Institute reminds people that the genocidal process involves far more than just mass murder. Most genocidal processes involve complex policies aimed at actively and systematically obstructing an identity from manifesting itself within the social world through laws, decrees, speech acts, and practices enacted by groups in power. As a result of these acts, people within a threatened community cannot live publicly as who they are and community identity development becomes impossible.

Given that leaders in the anti-trans movement view trans people as internal enemies and U.S. President Donald Trump has identified them a national security threat, the recent Supreme Court decision can be seen as part of a much larger internal cleansing operation aimed at creating a white, heterosexual, cisgender ethnostate

Curiously enough, for years and years the main criticism of GrapheneOS is that it only runs on Google Pixel phones. Finally, they announce they will work with another provider, Motorola. Some people proceed to simply forecast enshitification, spyware, and ads. I don't think this is sane at all.

Weekends are a scam. This is what absenteeism is for.

I read this title 5 times before parsing it properly.

is simply the word for rooster (male chicken).

As is in English?

Knuth's book states plainly that the X sounds like the 'ch' in the Scottish word "Loch". (Or the 'h' in hawk-tua for more modern readers.)

Indeed, the rate of democratic backsliding is considered to be fast, compared to other countries. Below I include some links and quotes. What I really wanted to say is that the resistance is too mild, and too slow. Also, you know that book "On Tyranny"? Very relevant under the circumstances.

We are sliding towards an illiberal democracy. The phrase, first popularized in the 1990s, took on new urgency in the United States as major figures in Donald Trump’s orbit came to view Viktor Orbán as a leadership role model. As Bill Kristol posted, “ABC’s settlement with Trump feels like it could be an inflection point in the Orbanization of our politics.” To be clear, the United States is not yet an illiberal democracy, but the movement towards it has accelerated in the weeks since the election. What is most disturbing is that Trump has not yet even taken power. https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/we-are-on-our-own/ (2024-12-22)

The scary thing is that I've watched a Trump/Musk style takeover of the government in my home country of Hungary a long time ago and it went great for them. Turns out the general population accepted every institution being gutted and stripped in obviously corrupt ways. They were simply distracted by a constant stream of culture war shit which normal people cared more about than institutional change, and those who did look thought "the boys are fixing the system" or "it was corrupt anyway". https://mas.to/@Techaltar/113943270068786481 (2025-02-04)

In the last few days alone, Trump has smashed past several new milestones. He's just called his predecessor's pardons void and vacated. He gave a bitterly partisan speech at the Department of Justice, demanding the prosecution of the media and certain adversaries. He threatened numerous universities with sanctions. He invoked a 227-year-old war measures law during peacetime — for the first time ever — to deport accused gang members without due process. And, most importantly, when that deportation plan wound up in court, he may have — although it's still in dispute — defied a court order, cracking the ultimate constitutional safeguard. It's not just the scope of what Trump's done that has Lindberg envisioning the once-unthinkable: removing the U.S. from the democratic list and shifting it to the second-lowest tier among five, to a so-called electoral autocracy. It's also the speed. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-democracy-report-1.7486317 (2025-03-18)

By the time we left in late 2004, Moscow had been transformed. People who had happily talked with us at the start were now afraid to return our calls. “Now I have this fear all the time,” one told us at the time. There is a similar chill now in Washington. Every day someone who used to feel free to speak publicly against Mr. Trump says they will no longer let journalists quote them by name for fear of repercussions, both Democrats and Republicans. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/26/us/politics/trump-putin-russia.html (2025-02-26)

Yet another report out Thursday from Freedom House, a Washington, D.C.-based democracy think-tank, said that among free countries, the U.S. joined Bulgaria and Italy in registering the largest declines in political rights and civil liberties last year. "The developments in the United States are moving towards dictatorship, what the founders wanted to avoid," said Staffan Lindberg, the V-Dem Institute's founding director, who spent seven years in the U.S. "It's the most rapid decline ever in the history of the United States and one of the most rapid in the world." V-Dem stands for Varieties of Democracy. More than 4,000 scholars contributed data to the report, which is the largest of its kind. https://www.npr.org/2026/03/20/nx-s1-5754021/trump-democracy-autocracy-dictatorship-reports

And this complementary piece, for no reason whatsoever.

How Hitler Dismantled a Democracy in 53 Days - He used the constitution to shatter the constitution. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/hitler-germany-constitution-authoritarianism/681233/

He feels safe enough to utter that shit. If only the left had a fraction of the right-wing propaganda apparatus. There should be three times the January 6 crowd taking him straight to the scaffold. Yet here we are watching a fascist dystopia installing itself, in slow motion.

I am locking this for the time being. Consider a more descriptive title or a short post with the point you want to make. Then I can unlock it.

Reason: Clickbaity and gives an unintended impression.

How about Pinker? You dig Pinker? I am not delving in the books of this jester without a little wager. Just tell me any linguist you esteem, they probably state somewhere that English is a peculiar language. Then you'll strip for Lemmy if you are wrong mf.

Well, my bad. I meant CC-BY-ND.

The rest of your word salad isn’t even worth responding to.

Now go refute my other arguments, which totally refute your fallacious statement that open source entails copyleft because Richard Stoolman wants it that way. Let's not discuss what other things he wants his way, lol.

Thanks for manspreading this point for me. You see in this earlier comment (before I had the displeasure of meeting you), I demonstrate knowledge of this fact. Therefore, removed my removed.

Thanks for the tip, but I would appreciate if you actually read the post. TL;DR I do mention its Nazi issue.

“/c/[insert_community_name]” is not necessarily linking that community, only invoking it to illustrate a point. “Badlinguistics” was a popular community on the other website for discussing comments like yours.

Well here it is not that popular. It has two members and since you are not the mod, you are probably the one. Since there are no posts why don't you write proper essays instead of attacking random people on Lemmy. I am not gonna respond to this shit.

English is a human language, ok fucker? But it is an uncommon one, thus making it hard to generalize from English to other languages. This is well known in linguistics. I would bother to get you some quote, but I prefer to leave you seething here.

the notion that I wrote anything resembling “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license” is nonsense

Let's see.

“Open Source” is a term coined by the Open Source Initiative, and they control its definition. Every license that counts as “Open Source” according to OSI also counts as Free Software according to the Free Software Foundation.

This is the same thing. To quote someone very important:

Words have meanings. You don’t get to just change them and pretend they mean the same things when they don’t!

You can make derivative works with CC-BY-SA.

No.

No, copyright law itself restricts people from sharing code. “Open Source” or “Free Software” licenses relax those restrictions. Restrictions are never added by the license, only conditions limiting when they may be relaxed.

This is exactly why copyleft licenses are now implemented within the context of intellectual property law. You can't have a socialist biodome specifically for code.

CC-BY-SA is also not, in fact, “Open Source” because it doesn’t appear on the list of OSI-approved Open Source licenses.

Any license that prohibits modification will do. As any license that prohibits redistribution under a closed license will also do.

EDIT: "do" = to refute your statement, from which you just so vehemently distanced yourself, lmao

Every license that counts as “Open Source” according to OSI also counts as Free Software according to the Free Software Foundation.

Who is not authoritative on the issue. I might agree with the spirit of your comment, but I think it messes up an "ought to" with an "is a". Let's replay this: Every open source license should be a copyleft license. Sure! It should. Like all property should belong to the community.

But as it is right now, the creator has intellectual property on the code. They may choose to reserve none or some rights on it. But as long as F/L/OSS is defined within the framework of intellectual property, it is not true that "by definition every open source license is a copyleft license". This is a fallacy.

(Sorry I wouldn't bother to use the same terms you used. I mean the same things though.)

Any licenses that restrict what you can do are neither

I am not so sure. What about CC-BY-SA? Open source, share-alike, but restricts modifying the code. More broadly, from the start CC licenses were described as "Some rights reserved".

Libre software restricts people from sharing code under another closed license. So I think that your statement is not correct either. FLOSS licenses can very much restrict what you can do, and do so very regularly.