Vivian (they/them)

No plugins though is kind of a dealbreaker

What are you talking about this wasn’t even Apple’s invention, it was used in quite a few devices, it’s probably more that people aren’t aware of it

And you knowing gay people exist when you were 7 didn’t turn you gay? Whoah, that’s soo surprising /s

Somehow knowing gay and straight people exist somehow didn’t turn me anything, I’m ace, it’s almost as if it has nothing to do with it…

Sometimes I wonder with these bigots, like how does their worldview even remotely make sense? (not talking about you ofc to be clear)

Practically nonexistant, it is not possible for children under 16 to access HRT, if anything they are prescribed puberty blockers (so that you know… they can avoid suffering from the changes in their body and not be permanently affected).

The general figure of regret for transgender affirming care is 1%, and 82.5% of these people do not detransition because they are no longer trans, but because of external factors. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33794108/

By age 17, 0.1% of trans children get HRT. Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2828427

Now let’s calculate some numbers: 1% of these 0.1% will regret it, that’s 0.001%. And 17.5% of these might not be transgender, so that’s 0.000175%

According to that second study, there’s about 300000 trans children, so 0.000175% of that is 0.525 people.

So… less than 1 child in the whole United States would maybe regrets it because they’re not trans. In other words, you can stop fear mongering.

And yet some kids do know they’re totally straight, or gay, or transgender, before they even turn 12, or 11, etc.

They might not have the vocabulary to express it, and others might not know how it works or how they feel, so that’s just all the more reason to teach them.

Imagine if we treated any other subject like this: “oh the children have no idea how it works, lets not subject them to it”. It doesn’t make sense, of course they don’t understand if they’ve never heard of it.

The way I understand it is that they can relicense it and then publish it if they want, but the GPL would still fully apply to the previous versions.

The first question you cited seems to refer to any different organisation/individual making changes to the source code. And the second seems to refer to revoking the GPL for an already released version, which they would of course not be allowed to do.

This would make sense as ownership of the copyright would supersede a license.