Yes, I agree, that’s essentially what I was saying before.
Some people seem to think what makes a man or a woman is purely biological (or like you said, “anatomy”), whereas others think the distinction has more to do with what’s understood as a “social construct” (or like you said, “behavioral cues”).
So, in the comment you were replying to I was taking the second interpretation, that’s why I was saying it’s defined by social/behavioral traits.
I agree. But this also applies to all social/behavioral labels.
Not all pizza-lovers are the same, not all left-handed people are the same… etc.
The question is: what is it that makes a “man” be considered different than a “woman”?
What do those 2 men, who are different, have in common that makes you still call them “men”?
In an island of men (not women) you would be exposed to the same different external behaviors and preferences associated to the archetype that you do not identify with, so of course you would feel a difference.
These external behaviors and preferences you perceive as different is what I was referring to with archetype/label/stereotype/pick-your-word.
The experience you describe requires interaction with other people who you (and society) categorizes as “girls” and “boys”.
Without this interaction with this external categorization: would you have been able to find anything was “different”?
I feel that in order to have something feel “different” you need to have something to compare it to. Something reflected externally and not just something purely internal at the level of qualia (otherwise you would not be able to compare it). So this is what I meant by archetype/label/stereotype/pick-your-word. That thing you felt was different which you perceived when comparing with other people outside of yourself.
I don’t know, I would not say that I knew automatically when I was born what’s the difference between “man” and “woman”. Of course I have had clear feelings and preferences about a variety of topics, some instinctive and well defined, ever since I was born. But I don’t think that’s determined by a label. They clearly can fall into a particular label, but only “after the fact”.
To me, “man” and “woman” can’t be labels that go beyond the social/behavioral because I don’t know what it feels like to be a man anymore than what I know it feels like to be a woman… I only know myself, I can’t possibly compare what I feel to what others feel, because those feelings are a “qualia” that cannot be simply be transmitted with words.
And without communication to compare and reference, I could not judge whether what I feel is “man” or “woman” at the level that you choose to do it. To me it’s logically impossible to set a gender at such a deep level.
An analogy would be how I can never be sure that other people experience the same thing I experience when we both see and point to the color “green”. “Green” is a construct based on our common understanding of the experience a particular wavelength that is emitted by an object we are pointing to. But the label “green” cannot go beyond that external consensus, because what I experience when the impulses caused by that wavelength reach my brain could perfectly be different than what you experience when that same wavelength causes yours.
We might even agree on what are the wavelengths that we call green, based on our own internal experience, because the experience I feel when seeing green might be similar every time I see green (and the same will happen for you)… but that does not mean that we are both having the same experience, it could be that what you experience as blue I experience as green and that what you experience as green I experience as blue, and yet every time we would agree on calling the same wavelengths the same way, because we would have learned to call them that way.
So it would be meaningless to say beyond any social agreement that I deeply think that this color should be “green” only based on my experience alone, because it would not be any different from saying that this color should be “blue”… the only thing that makes us both agree on calling a particular color experience as green and not blue is the social understanding of that experience matching a common external pattern we both agree on, and that we each match it with our respective (and possibly different) subjective experiences (qualia) when we see that color.
But the identity that I’m describing with that label, that exists at a level below social norms, and below stereotypes, even whilst being influenced by them.
Ok, then I see we are talking about different concepts. I was talking about the label itself. To me “woman” or “man” are just labels, they don’t define what I am and don’t affect in any way the image I have of myself.
By your definition I’m neither a “woman” nor a “man” because I don’t personally feel like I should box myself in an identity to fit any particular definition of a label.
However, I’ll be perfectly ok with boxing myself in one particular label so other can better understand my behavior and the language they use.
So I’m not a woman or a man, but the result of my behavior can be commonly classified as one… and that’s the only thing that makes me, commonly, refer to myself in public as one of those roles. But I’m not adapting my behavior to those roles… it’s the other way around: the roles are created to classify my behavior. People would commonly say I’m “cis” because the category that fits me best happens to be the same one that I was assigned at birth, but the category does not have influence over what I am… it’s the category the one that fits me, not me who fits the category.
To me, the words “woman” and “man” only make sense when linked to specific properties that the label is trying to find ways to describe as a group. They only make sense as stereotypes, they don’t make sense in a deep internal level because what I am is more complex than a set of specific behaviors and looks… the expression of my internal complexity might be classifiable after-the-fact (for example, you could say I’m a person who drives themselves by logic, sometimes a bit too much), but they are just external aspects and not something that goes much deeper than a set of behaviors I appear to present to the outside world.
Stereotypes are complicated… when I say “gender stereotypes” I don’t mean that there are only 2 stereotypes.
Is perfectly possible (in fact, it might be common) to have in mind different stereotypes for the word “feminine” and for the word “woman”… otherwise terms like “feminine man” or “masculine woman” would make no sense.
The stereotype of what’s a woman (ie, what makes people consider a person a woman independently of their lower bits) is not necessarily the same as the stereotype of a feminine person.
What I said is that for a trans, “gender relates to what stereotype (social construct) a person identifies with”. I did not say their gender matches a particular stereotype, but that it relates to it.
Someone who does not identify with a typical stereotype and believes that this makes them be of a different gender, is defining their gender based on whether they fit (or don’t fit, in this case) a specific social stereotype.
However, someone who does not believe gender relates to stereotypes at all would not see that person as having a different gender because that person’s gender (for those people) would be unrelated to whether they match (or identify themselves with) a stereotype or not.
Of course you (or anyone) don 't need to have surgery to conform to other people’s gender stereotypes. But I don’t think that’s what was implied here.
What’s “feminine”? is that not a gender stereotype? I don’t think there’s anything wrong about being a man that does not fit a masculine stereotype.
what they really mean is that “men are supposed to be one way and women are supposed to be another,” with the implication that someone isn’t a real man or women if they are not that stereotype
I think what they often imply is that for them gender is just a way to refer to male and female sex, and not really a stereotype. If someone is female/male then in their eyes they are a woman/man regardless of what they look or how they behave, because it’s not about social stereotypes for them. Even if a man looks and behaves like a stereotypical woman, it would not stop being “a real man” because for them gender isn’t about looks, behavior or feelings of identity.
However, the trans community sees gender as something that relates to what stereotype (social construct) a person identifies with, and this makes gender independent of sex, because you can identify with a gender stereotype that does not match the stereotype that you might typically associate with your biological sex.
interoperability == API standardization == API homogeneity
standardization != monopolization
Yes, this is why I was mentioning the AGPL being a better fit when the software is a service, for the reasons I explained.
I think many hobby developers also see “hobby” developing as part of their career, so they would happily try and have their hobby align with future employment possibilities. Since companies avoid GPL, those devs will rather choose a license that is more attractive to those potential employers when they see their portfolio.
Thunar is a much better alternative, in my opinion.
To me, the problem is not really so much about “locking people in” (it’s also unclear what you mean by that, if they were already using that ecosystem before using uutils aren’t they already locked in?)
To me, the problem is how the MIT removes legal protections when it comes to ensuring accountability to changes in the source… how can I be sure that the version of uutils shipped with “X Corp OS” has not had some special sauce added-in for increased tracking, AI magic, backdoor or “security” reasons? They are perfectly free to make changes without any public audit or having to tell their users what their own machine is doing anymore.
If you are using a GPL library that is statically linked to code with a different license the result is one binary that has inside both GPL and other license code, which would not be allowed under the GPL terms, because it requires that the binaries that use the source code must have their source code available in full (including other source and modifications that are part of the same binary).
The only case in which you don’t need to provide the source for GPL software is if you don’t actually distribute the binary to customers… private binaries do not have to be published with their source, as long as you never made the binaries public and never gave it to anyone else. Only when you give it to someone you need to provide the code.
This allows for a loophole in which if you are providing a service, then you can run the software privately in your private server without sharing the source code to the clients using the service, since they do not really run the server program although they indirectly benefit from its results. This is why the AGPL was created, since it has a clause to force also those offering services to make the source of the server available to the users of the service.
Yes. Did I deny that?
Can anyone confirm or deny if what I said is wrong?
I get downvoted for stating one advantage an AGPL fork would have, and yet nobody seems to be disagreeing with what I said… *shrugs* 🤷
developers should be able to license code that they write under whatever license they like
What if they choose a license that limits the freedom from all other developers to improve that copy of the software? is allowing a developer to restrict further development actually good for the freedom of the developers? Because I would say no.
The spirit of the GPL is to give freedom to the developers and hackers (in the good sense of hacker). The chorus of the Free Software Song by Stallman is “you’ll be free hackers, you’ll be free”.
the GPL restricts freedom without adding any that MIT does not also provide
“Your freedom ends when the freedom of others begins”
The only “freedom” the GPL restricts is the freedom to limit the freedom of other developers/hackers that want to edit your software. This is in the same spirit as having laws against slavery that restrict the “freedom” of people to take slaves.
Would a society that allows oppression (that has no laws against it) be more “free” than a society that does not allow oppression (with laws to guarantee the freedom of others is respected)?
It doesn’t even say “you should use the GPL”
That sounds a lot more confrontational and less diplomatic than the Github issue, though.
The ticket was actually indirectly asking it, by explaining the potential problems with non-copyleft. They just added “If you plan to carry on…” to introduce a compromise, which actually allowed for at least some minor change to be made, and made it clear that the different license is intentional and not just for lack of awareness (which implies the devs have no intention on switching).
it says “you MUST say GNU doesn’t agree with you”
Somehow you added the “MUST” to this sentence, but not to the first one… even though the github issue did not say they MUST, instead it even used the word “please” and appealed to having some deference to the GNU coreutils.
At least this issue managed to get a change through for clarity… I don’t think you would have gotten anything at all with the other approach.
Yes, I agree with all that.
Social / behavioral archetypes can be complex and fuzzy, they might change with the society and with time. It could be that what we consider today as a “pizza-lover” might not be what was considered a “pizza-lover” in the antiquity, when Europe did not even have such a thing as a “tomato” and the word “pizza” might have been used for a completely different dish that today we would not call “pizza”.
This is why I personally think that the internal way in which I feel should be independent from the concept of gender role / gender expression… I am what I am… I’m not necessarily a “man” or “woman” in a universal and unequivocal social way, I’m just me. I might fit very precisely one of those labels now as generally they are understood… but who knows if I’ll fit the social label they’ll have in the year 4000… or if I fit the label from year -4000. Or the labels they might use in the planet Aldebaran 2.