flamingos

That’s not what the linked article nor anything you have said says.

This part:

In teaching this, schools should be mindful that beyond the facts and the law about biological sex and gender reassignment there is significant debate, and they should be careful not to endorse any particular view or teach it as fact.

Imagine if the government held this view for any other issue where's there's a public debate, like the view that vaccines are a public health benefit is controversial these days, should schools avoid 'endorsing any particular view' on vaccines to avoid offending anti-vaxxers?

The claim that “everyone has a gender identity” is not a fact.

I'm curious what you think gender identity means here. You state that sex is binary 'with exceptions' and should be taught as such, but I imagine the number of people without a gender identity to be fairly small (I can't image there's that many agender people). Do you think cis people don't have a gender identity?

it’s not actually that complicated - it’s a simple binary with some rare exceptions.

So not a binary. Male, female and exceptions makes three, not two. Intersex people make up an estimated 1.7% of the population, they deserve more than just to be a footnote. What harm does teaching kids that sex isn't binary, but bimodal, actually do?

and you were objecting to it being seen as something static not something simple.

There's more to biological sex than chromosomes, things like hormone levels, muscle mass, other secondary sexual characteristics play a part and aren't static. A trans woman who has taken oestrogen for a while will have a muscle mass akin to a cis woman's.

The government also hasn't actually said what it means by 'biological sex' anywhere, you're just assuming chromosomes because that's what you believe.

So your take on Labour moving away from a ban on teaching gender identity that we would have had and replacing it with a requirement not to “teach as fact that all people have a gender identity” which would be incorrect is that Labour is introducing a “Section 28”?

The classic Labour "we're not as bad as the others, so stop criticising us". These guidelines literally state that schools shouldn't teach kids facts because they're politically controversial.

Children will now learn about how people experience gender and will be better able to understand what is going on if their, or their friends’ experiences don’t match their biology. Things are improving. Couching this guidance in terms of “facts” opens the policy up to evolution as research establishes more of the facts, and where this contradicts what a school is teaching, or what the guidance says in other areas, to challenge in court.

These guidelines are step back, but I can't be arsed to type out an explanation so I'm just going to link the Katy Montgomerie video on this.

I don’t know what you’re getting at here. Do your chromosomes change as you get older? If you don’t call it biological sex, what do you call the aspect of sex which does not change through life?

Biological sex is a really complicated and not at all like it's been made out to be, any definition of biological sex will have numerous exceptions that prevent it from being the simple end-of-debate definition anti-trans types want it to be. There's a reason the Supreme Court didn't bother to define it, just stating it's whatever was recorded on your birth certificate originally.

Did you mean to link this https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/21/audrey-white-74-tells-of-pain-and-fear-after-arrest-at-liverpool-pro-palestine-rally ?

In fact, how do I know that you’re not being prejudiced against people from Ballymena by just assuming that they are all racist? There is a pattern to these comments such as “Unionist racism” and a media narrative somehow that the Ulster Scots people - who are a national minority themselves - are mainly a bunch of racist bigots. Which couldn’t be further from the truth.

Fuck off, calling a bunch of people celebrating the 'amazing atmosphere' after getting rid an ethnic minority racist is clearly not racist in and of itself. God, this so typical of you and your privilege. We shouldn't analyze a literal pogrom through the lens of race, but calling people who did one racist is actually the real racism because Unionist is being used a dog whistle for Ulster Scots or something.

But once again, I cannot stress enough that I do not defend this. But our takeaway from this should be that communities need to be developed more, not just “them racists at it again”

You don't develop from ethnic cleansing by digging your head in the sand and ignoring the uncomfortable truth that there is something deeply wrong.

And no, these people weren't 'concerned' about the anti-social behaviour of the local Roma community (how you don't see the problem with this framing but do bristle at Unionist being tarred as racists is baffling), they wanted to do a pogrom:

There, some people directly pointed the finger at the Roma community, calling the town “Rommena” (a portmanteau of Romania and Ballymena) with one person claiming that certain places were “a no-go area now if you’re not a Roma or Bulgarian”.

Several people called for violence, commenting things like “Time there was a good clean out”, “[It's] about time the town was cleansed”, “Remove the rats” and “Time to take our town back”.

Are you seriously defending a pogrom? And to preempt your 'but I said violence is bad' response, you're still defending the logic of pogrom, that it's OK to paint an ethnic minority by the actions of its worst. The absurdity to suggest that these people had 'valid concerns' and weren't just racists who already hated the Roma and are using thinly veiled excuses to do what they always wanted, ethnic cleansing.

Why is there an Animal Crossing video attached to this? Also, what happened to the original article, did they delete it?

It's a pretty game, but I think games needs to do more than look good to be beautiful and I honestly didn't find it all that engaging. I got all the way to Radegon but never bothered to finish because I just didn't care enough to complete the story.

This is the Torygraph, don't read the comments unless you want to do psyc damage to yourself.

It is open source, though the section in the FAQ just links to github.com, but I found the actual source code: https://github.com/patchwork-hub/channels. Seems to be a Mastodon fork, which becomes even more apparent when you actually look at a channel: https://channel.org/@feelgoodart

From what I can gather, this is a way of having an account boost content from certain creators or hashtags with some filters applied on top, honestly pretty cool but I wish they explained it better than 'connecting the open social web'. Like the page explaining it has a terminal case of marketing speak.

Me when I'm a social media logo.

I really think a lot of this problem could be easily engineered away by turning off downvotes from external instances or something similar. But the way lemmy development is going, I’m not holding my breath for those options. If we end up getting a piefed instance, I’ll think I’ll be recommending all the genAI communities move there.

https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/pull/5038 adds this, 1.0 only unfortunately, but looking at the code it looks like you could get away with backporting it.

TBF, Chrome doesn't support it on Linux either.