Sex is the biological category, whereas gender is the culturally shaped expression of sexual difference: the masculine way in which men should behave and the feminine way in which women should behave.
So since it's people talking about the biological male/femaleness they're literally imposing cultural values on it right there, which I think qualifies as gendering.
Democracies usually have laws and some kind of government. There are no laws in Freetown Christiania and there's no individual who has direct power over another.
I think this is a common misconception about anarchies - that there's no social control of any kind. If you look at actual real world anarchies like Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen they don't believe in a complete absence of organisation. Far from it - they develop community-based committees which have no actual power in themselves but are used to develop concensus on issues that affect the whole community. So rather than abolishing all rules they're all about human collaboration and concensus.
For instance when hard drugs became a problem in Christiana the residents got together and banned hard drugs. It's not a law as such but everyone's in agreement that if you try to sell hard drugs you'll be ejected.
It's not a perfect place and it's hard to say that their brand of anarchy works well as a system of government. It seems to have been a mixed experience for many people who've lived there. But it's definitely been an interesting social experiment.
Most likely it's got poor security and has been compromised to use as part of a DDOS network. ie. Someone has taken it over to use your bandwidth (and tens of thousands of other people's) to sell on the dark web as a service to attack others on the internet.
But maybe they removed it because they saw it as unnecessary? It'd be restating the obvious since it already says insurrectionists can't be officials, then goes on to list a few examples which were pertinent when the law was created in response to the aftermath of the civil war. In the end it depends whether they decide to interpret part of the clause literally and as more important than the intent of the clause, which seems pretty clear. How they interpret it seems to be a bit up in the air given their party affiliations.
Still, this doesn't meet a reasonable bar of plagiarism. I get the hypocrisy but two wrongs don't make a right and this should never have been taken seriously.
I think people are missing something important here - this ruling is merely that he can appear on a party primary ballot, which is something not explicitly covered by the constitution. Even if he wins a primary the supreme court can then rule that he's still ineligible to run as president.
"He hasn't been convicted of insurrection" isn't a legal gray area, that's just misdirection by his supporters. Just like most other legal proceedings this one isn't dependent on the result of other legal proceedings. The supreme court will decide for themselves whether he was "involved in insurrection" - the law here doesn't depend on him being previously convicted of "insurrection", a different charge which has a much higher legal bar.
There's overwhelming evidence that he was "involved" in this insurrection so he'll almost certainly be held accountable. But whether the supreme court decides to disqualify him depends mostly on their interpretation of the clause naming the offices which he can be banned from. Given that the supreme court are republicans will they rule that "public office" does or doesn't include the presidency since it isn't named explicitly in the clause?
I mean he should know since he was one of the people paying to influence the election.