> While we are deeply disappointed with the Second Circuit’s opinion in Hachette v. Internet Archive, the Internet Archive has decided not to pursue Supreme Court review. We will continue to honor the Association of American Publishers (AAP) agreement to remove books from lending at their member publishers’ requests.
> We thank the many readers, authors and publishers who have stood with us throughout this fight. Together, we will continue to advocate for a future where libraries can purchase, own, lend and preserve digital books.
> Apertis relies on the Debian Free Software Guidelines to ensure all software shipped is open source or, in limited cases, at least freely distributable. However, for some customers this is not enough to be able to adopt OSS solutions as in their evaluations some provisions in common licenses like the GPL-3 are at odds with regulatory constraints they are subject to. Apertis does not set to solve this decades-long debate, and instead its goal is to increase the adoption of modern, maintained OSS solutions in markets where this has historically been a challenge. To enable this, Apertis supports avoiding the use of any software under some licenses (like the [GPL v3.0 license family) on target images, while still making them fully available for development and for customers that do not share those licensing concerns. To avoid these licenses, Apertis uses more modern alternatives instead of relying on outdated and unmaintained pre-GPL-3 versions. For instance, coreutils and findutils (GPL-3+) are replaced in Apertis by rust-coreutils and rust-findutils.
> Conservative US Supreme Court justices signal their willingness to uphold a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors.
This makes sense: just as religion or skin color does not affect one’s ability to perform a job, neither does gender identity.
However, the movement has also pushed for equity-driven changes that defy biological reality and conflict with the existing sex-based protections women have fought for. This is where things begin to unravel.
In U.S. v. Skrmetti, the Department of Justice is asking the Supreme Court to afford “gender identity” the same heightened review standard that “sex” currently receives, which it hopes will thereby render state laws that ban “gender-affirming” medical treatment for minors unconstitutional. But our legal system’s framework for sex-based protections is built on the recognition of biological differences between men and women.
Laws that discriminate based on sex are subjected to “intermediate scrutiny,” a judicial test that allows for sex-based distinctions when they serve an important purpose, such as preserving fairness in women’s sports by preventing men from competing on female teams. If a sex-based discriminatory law is reasonably related to achieving an important interest — such as providing opportunities for females to participate and compete fairly in athletics — the court will find that the law is constitutional.
Since “gender identity” occurs outside the confines of objective biological reality, and often renders the meaning of the words “men” and “women” interchangeable, it cannot logically be classified on par with sex. To classify it that way would eliminate all current legal distinctions based on sex, which is why the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to do what the Justice Department has asked. It is a losing proposition from a legal standpoint, precisely because it puts transgender rights directly at odds with women’s rights, making the two mutually exclusive.
Traditionally, progressive movements pursue one of two approaches: equality or equity, depending on the specific needs of the group they aim to support. Equality-focused movements push for equal treatment across the board, while equity-driven movements advocate for special accommodations to level the playing field for vulnerable groups.
A prime example of an equality-based movement is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which mandates that institutions receiving federal funding cannot discriminate based on race, color, or national origin. This law demands equal treatment, leaving no room for differential treatment, even when well-intentioned.
On the other hand, the Americans with Disabilities Act exemplifies an equity-driven approach. It recognizes that individuals with disabilities need specific accommodations to ensure they can participate in society on an equal footing. The ADA requires treating people with disabilities differently from those without in order to achieve fairness, which acknowledges their unique challenges.
Title IX, which protects women’s rights in educational settings, balances both equality and equity. It prohibits discrimination based on sex in academic admissions (an equality measure), acknowledging that biological differences have no bearing on intellectual capabilities. But it also allows for separate men’s and women’s sports teams (an equity measure), recognizing that biological differences can affect fairness and safety in athletic competition.
The transgender rights movement has had notable success using equality-based legal strategies. For example, the Bostock decision held that discrimination based on gender identity in employment is illegal under Title VII.
@lxo > hat's the thing, that page just tells me to go away (that's how I read "you must enable JavaScript"), and that's the case of all mastodon servers
Yes, that's a problem, and unless your (non-js) fedi client (e.g. gnu social web client, mastodon.el, tusky etc.) supports an anonymous/public view, it will show you a view from your server login of boosters of that post, which in your case is erroneous. The corresponding public view json api is https://nondeterministic.computer/api/v1/statuses/113570633315051759/reblogged_by
> maybe I'll give it another try, and then we can talk privately about it, if you'd welcome that.
@lxo IA web client does try to fall back to simpler version. When executing wget -O- 2>/dev/null https://archive.org/details/mit_press_open_access the output contains the following, among other things:
<h2>Redirecting you to a lite version of archive.org...</h2></div><meta http-equiv="refresh" data-owner="nginx" content="0; url=/details/mit_press_open_access?noscript=true"></noscript>
@lxo I assume the post you are referring to is the original post of this thread by mjg59, because I see on the gnusocial web client that both I and @alcinnz appear to have repeated (boosted in mastodon speak) it, see https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/4096717. I definitely did not. The closest post I repeated was one of your responses https://gnusocial.jp/notice/8020532. Something is wrong with gnusocial here.
@xgranade It's certainly convenient to label questions challenging one's ideology transphobic and avoid answering it. Just like a religious zealot calling heresy on questions challenging their religious dogma.
I did not mention urination or defecation.
To @lxo, in case you are still paying attention to this thread, please take note of the anti-freedom and anti intellectual nature of trans rights activism. @mjg59
@xgranade How does someone not believing men can be women affect another person's bodily autonomy? Does the bodily autonomy of an adult man that believes he's a woman include rights to change and shower with teenage girls? @lxo@mjg59
Yuchen's political account. For the nonpolitical account see @semi.Left is not woke.Just because I'm right does not mean I'm far right. Against real bigotry, fascism and regressive politics. Free software & free speech.(not me in the banner photo)Reincarnation of @dragestil@hostux.social, which was suspended by admin of that instance on 2024-04-09.