Amanita Green
LightNews LightNews
banner
amanita.green
Amanita Green
@amanita.green
210 followers 140 following 410 posts
🇪🇪🏳️‍⚧️ 25 - they/them - full-stack web developer full time, game developer sometimes. Account contains personal political views and may contain cartoon ponies.
Posts Replies Media Videos
amanita.green
I think I would literally break my controller in half doing PoP
December 2, 2025 at 7:12 PM
amanita.green
omg this is huge
December 1, 2025 at 6:59 PM
amanita.green
Yeah, so that they can’t do this to us..
Sony was granted a patent to make a tv that will only stop showing a commercial once you stand up and say the brand name out loud.
November 13, 2025 at 7:33 PM
amanita.green
Gabecube!
November 12, 2025 at 8:12 PM
Reposted by Amanita Green
esqueer.net
Do they believe gendered nouns in Spanish are biological too? Does my chair have a biological noun that renders it female while my car is biologically male? What the fuck are we doing here.

They're literally erasing the entire concept of gender in service of harming trans people.
November 7, 2025 at 3:59 AM
Reposted by Amanita Green
esqueer.net
What the fuck are "biological pronouns?" This is the dumbest thing I've ever read in service of endorsing the bullying of trans kids. Half the world uses languages that don't have gendered pronouns and these illiterate and ignorant judges are creating entirely nonsensical concepts.
OPINION MURPHY, Circuit Judge. An Ohio public school district bars its students from referring to transgender and nonbinary classmates using the pronouns that match their biological sex if the classmates prefer to go by different pronouns. The plaintiff in this case has parent and student members who believe that a person's sex is immutable. The members want to express this view by using biological pronouns. And they believe that they would convey a falsehood —that a person's gender is fluid—if they use preferred pronouns. So the plaintiff challenged the school district's speech ban on behalf of its members under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. This case about pronouns pits two important interests against each other. On the one hand, the school district has prohibited speech (biological pronouns) that expresses a message on a matter of pressing public concern. And because the district requires other speech (preferred pronouns) that expresses a competing view, it has discriminated based on its students' viewpoints. Its approach thus raises serious free-speech concerns. On the other hand, the school district rightly responds that it has a duty to protect all students- including transgender and nonbinary students— from bullying and harassment. And this protection, while necessarily restricting speech, does not violate the Free Speech Clause. So which of these competing concerns should prevail in this case?
November 7, 2025 at 3:52 AM