7340
29 Sep 14 at 2 am

cultureunseen:

The Dapper Rebels of Los Angeles, originally published in LIFE magazine, July 15, 1966.

(via nblk)

 922
25 Sep 14 at 4 pm

thepoliticalfreakshow:

Remembering LGBT Hispanic Victims of Murder/Police Brutality

Lawrence “Larry” Fobes King, 15 (California) - Transgender Student Murdered By Their 14-Year-Old Classmate After Giving The Classmate A Valentine, The Murderer Used The So-Called “Gay Panic” Defense To Justify His Killing, The Killer Was Sentenced To 21 Years in Prison

Larry King of Oxnard, California, was a gay or bisexual[9] 15-year-old eighth-grade student who was shot to death at his school on 12 February 2008. He wore gender variantclothes, jewelry and make-up[10] and had come out as gay at school.[10] King was bullied and teased by his fellow students due to his effeminacy and openness about being gay, having come out at ten-years-old and while in the third grade.[9] On the morning of 12 February, Lawrence was in the school’s computer lab with 24 other students. Fellow student, fourteen-year-old Brandon McInerney was witnessed repeatedly looking at King during the class. At 8:15 a.m, McInerney shot King twice in the head using a handgun.[11] King was declared brain dead the next day but kept on a ventilator to preserve his organs for donation.[10] Prosecutors charged McInerney as an adult with murder as a premeditated hate crime and gun possession.[10] The crime was reputed to be the most high-profile hate crime case of 2008. Newsweek described it as “the most prominent gay-bias crime since the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard”, bringing attention to issues of gun violence as well as gender expression and sexual identity of teenagers. On 21 November 2011 McInerney pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and use of a firearm. He will receive 21 years behind bars, with no credit given for time served prior to the trial and no credit will be given for good behavior. He will initially serve his sentence in a juvenile facility and then be transferred to prison upon turning 18.[9] [Wikipedia]

(via misandry-mermaid)

thepoliticalfreakshow:

Remembering LGBT Hispanic Victims of Murder/Police Brutality
Lawrence “Larry” Fobes King, 15 (California) - Transgender Student Murdered By Their 14-Year-Old Classmate After Giving The Classmate A Valentine, The Murderer Used The So-Called “Gay Panic” Defense To Justify His Killing, The Killer Was Sentenced To 21 Years in Prison
Larry King of Oxnard, California, was a gay or bisexual[9] 15-year-old eighth-grade student who was shot to death at his school on 12 February 2008. He wore gender variantclothes, jewelry and make-up[10] and had come out as gay at school.[10] King was bullied and teased by his fellow students due to his effeminacy and openness about being gay, having come out at ten-years-old and while in the third grade.[9] On the morning of 12 February, Lawrence was in the school’s computer lab with 24 other students. Fellow student, fourteen-year-old Brandon McInerney was witnessed repeatedly looking at King during the class. At 8:15 a.m, McInerney shot King twice in the head using a handgun.[11] King was declared brain dead the next day but kept on a ventilator to preserve his organs for donation.[10] Prosecutors charged McInerney as an adult with murder as a premeditated hate crime and gun possession.[10] The crime was reputed to be the most high-profile hate crime case of 2008. Newsweek described it as “the most prominent gay-bias crime since the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard”, bringing attention to issues of gun violence as well as gender expression and sexual identity of teenagers. On 21 November 2011 McInerney pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and use of a firearm. He will receive 21 years behind bars, with no credit given for time served prior to the trial and no credit will be given for good behavior. He will initially serve his sentence in a juvenile facility and then be transferred to prison upon turning 18.[9] [Wikipedia]
 102161
25 Sep 14 at 4 pm

notfuckingcishet:

socialjusticekoolaid:

Can’t stop, won’t stop: Protesters in Ferguson rally again, seeking justice for Mike Brown. More than a month and a half after his death, his killer, Darren Wilson, is still a free man. (Pt 2) 

Because it wouldn’t be a protest in Ferguson without fuckery from the police. A driver plowed his car through protesters, grazing several and running over a young boys foot. Beyond taking several hours to transport the boy to the hospital, they took even longer to arrest the motorist. Who did they not wait long to arrest? Two of the protesters who had been documenting the altercation for the world to see. If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention. #staywoke #farfromover #nojusticenopeace

September 20th, 2014

Just in case anyone thinks these are old posts still going round Tumblr: they’re not. 

(via fluorescented-adolescent)

 132435
25 Sep 14 at 4 pm

ignitionremix:

I’m crying

(via patarnon)

ignitionremix:

I’m crying
 8032
25 Sep 14 at 4 pm

thepoliticalfreakshow:

In Case You Missed It: Meet Ronald Ritchie, The White Man Who Lied About African-American Man John Crawford In A Walmart 911 Call, That Led To Police Murdering Crawford, Who Was Holding A BB Gun Which Was Pointed To The Ground & Then Sat On The Ground, & See How Twisted This Entire Case Is: An Explainer On The Murder of John Crawford

Sunday September 7th’s Guardian story on the Beavercreek, Ohio police murder killing of 22-year-old Wal-Mart shopper John Crawford, on August 5th, brings to light new facts about the case which should make any reader’s blood curdle.

Here’s the excerpt of the opening of the story…


Doubts cast on witness’s account of black man killed by police in Walmart

Alleged to have threatened customers, John Crawford, 22, was having a phone conversation while holding an unloaded BB gun

Jon Swaine in New York
theguardian.com
Sunday 7 September 2014 10.37 EDT

When Ronald Ritchie called 911 from the aisles of a Walmart in western Ohio last month to report that a black man was “walking around with a gun in the store”, he said that shoppers were coming under direct threat.

“He’s, like, pointing it at people,” Ritchie told the dispatcher. Later that evening, after John Crawford III had been shot dead by one of the police officers who hurried to the scene in Beavercreek, Ritchie repeated to reporters: “He was pointing at people. Children walking by.”

One month later, Ritchie puts it differently. “At no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody,” the 24-year-old said, in an interview with the Guardian. He maintained that Crawford was “waving it around”, which attorneys for Crawford’s family deny.

Ritchie told several reporters after the 5 August shooting that he was an “ex-marine”. When confronted with his seven-week service record, however, he confirmed that he had been quickly thrown out of the US marine corps in 2008 after being declared a “fraudulent enlistment”, over what he maintains was simply a mixup over his paperwork….

And, here are just a few of the additional/primary pieces of information about the case covered later on in the story…

• After everything was said and done, “Crawford, 22, turned out to be holding an unloaded BB air rifle that he had picked up from a store shelf. After Ritchie said Crawford appeared to be ‘trying to load’ the gun, the 911 dispatcher relayed to an officer that it was believed the gunman ‘just put some bullets inside’…”

• Crawfords’ attorneys informed the Guardian that autopsy findings concluded Crawford was shot “in the back of his left arm and in his left side, supporting their claim that he was turned away from the police officer who shot him.”

• Crawford’s family has “pleaded” with Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine to release the store’s surveillance video of the shooting to the public. For all intents and purposes, it fullyundermines statements made by 911 caller Ronald Richie, who, according to the story, made the only call to the police about “the incident.” And, while DeWine is quoted stating that releasing the tape to the public “would be ‘playing with dynamite,’” someone from DeWine’s office let Ritchie review the recording (apparently, to get his fabulist story “straight”)!

• Crawford’s father notes this about the video in the article: “‘It was an execution, no doubt about it,’ alleged Crawford’s father, John Crawford II. ‘It was flat-out murder. And when you see the footage, it will illustrate that.’”

• The Crawfords’ attorneys have requested that “the department of justice…open a civil rights investigation into the Ohio incident, only the second fatal police shooting in Beavercreek’s history.”

• Aside from the reported facts dictating the greater truth that Crawford was focused upon his phone call—pretty much totally unaware that the police were approaching him with their guns drawn—it would appear that it wasn’t until after he was shot that he realized they were even speaking to him and telling him to put his gun down.

• Perhaps the most ominous new fact—and there are many, so you’ll have to read the article in its entirety to understand how truly twisted this case is—reported in this Guardian story is the following excerpt. It’s…

…only the second fatal police shooting in Beavercreek’s history. A white officer has been placed on administrative leave following Crawford’s shooting…

…Beavercreek police and the attorney general’s office have declined to name the officer who shot Crawford. However, after Sergeant David Darkow and Officer Sean Williams were placed on leave following the incident, Darkow has returned to work but Williams has not.
Williams was the officer behind the only other fatal police shooting in Beavercreek. In 2010, he shot dead Scott Brogli, a retired master sergeant in the US air force. According to Williams and a colleague, Brogli charged at them with a large knife after they went to investigate the 45-year-old’s drunken beating of his wife. A grand jury declined to bring any charges…

(Bold type is diarist’s emphasis)

The story concludes by informing readers that a Greene County grand jury “is scheduled to begin hearing evidence on 22 September.”


#            #            #

SIGN THE CHANGE.ORG PETITION TO DEMAND A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION OF THE BEAVERCREEK, OHIO POLICE KILLING OF JOHN CRAWFORD III AND TO INSIST THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL MIKE DEWINE RELEASE THE VIDEOTAPE OF THIS SHOOTING NOW!

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION.

UPDATE (7:43 PM 9/24/2014): The grand jury has failed to indict the officers involved in John Crawford’s murder. They have also released the surveillance video of the shooting [TW: Violent Content]

UPDATE (7:46 PM 9/24/2014): The Department of Justice has announced that it is opening a federal investigation of the murder of John Crawford.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine announced that he is turning the investigative files over to the U.S. Department of Justice for a civil rights review. The federal government has been monitoring the case and agreed to a review.

"The Civil Rights Division, the United States Attorney’s Office, and the FBI will conduct a thorough and independent review of the evidence and take appropriate action if the evidence indicates a prosecutable violation of federal criminal civil rights statutes," said Jennifer Thornton, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office. [Cincinnati Enquirer]

UPDATE (7:53 PM 9/24/2014): More information about the officers who shot John Crawford has been released.

image

Officer Sean Williams (left) and Sgt. David Darkow (right) were already on the scene, according to a statement released by Beavercreek Police on Aug. 6. They moved to the pet section, at the back of the store, where they confronted Crawford “holding a rifle,” the statement said.

“Officers gave verbal commands to the subject to drop the weapon,” the statement said. After he failed to comply with officers’ commands, police said, he was shot. [NBC News]

This post will be updated when new updates are available.

Source: Bob Swern for Daily Kos

(via misandry-mermaid)

tags: John Crawford 
thepoliticalfreakshow:

In Case You Missed It: Meet Ronald Ritchie, The White Man Who Lied About African-American Man John Crawford In A Walmart 911 Call, That Led To Police Murdering Crawford, Who Was Holding A BB Gun Which Was Pointed To The Ground & Then Sat On The Ground, & See How Twisted This Entire Case Is: An Explainer On The Murder of John Crawford
Sunday September 7th’s Guardian story on the Beavercreek, Ohio police murder killing of 22-year-old Wal-Mart shopper John Crawford, on August 5th, brings to light new facts about the case which should make any reader’s blood curdle.
Here’s the excerpt of the opening of the story…

Doubts cast on witness’s account of black man killed by police in Walmart
Alleged to have threatened customers, John Crawford, 22, was having a phone conversation while holding an unloaded BB gun
Jon Swaine in New Yorktheguardian.comSunday 7 September 2014 10.37 EDT
When Ronald Ritchie called 911 from the aisles of a Walmart in western Ohio last month to report that a black man was “walking around with a gun in the store”, he said that shoppers were coming under direct threat.
“He’s, like, pointing it at people,” Ritchie told the dispatcher. Later that evening, after John Crawford III had been shot dead by one of the police officers who hurried to the scene in Beavercreek, Ritchie repeated to reporters: “He was pointing at people. Children walking by.”
One month later, Ritchie puts it differently. “At no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody,” the 24-year-old said, in an interview with the Guardian. He maintained that Crawford was “waving it around”, which attorneys for Crawford’s family deny.
Ritchie told several reporters after the 5 August shooting that he was an “ex-marine”. When confronted with his seven-week service record, however, he confirmed that he had been quickly thrown out of the US marine corps in 2008 after being declared a “fraudulent enlistment”, over what he maintains was simply a mixup over his paperwork….


And, here are just a few of the additional/primary pieces of information about the case covered later on in the story…
• After everything was said and done, “Crawford, 22, turned out to be holding an unloaded BB air rifle that he had picked up from a store shelf. After Ritchie said Crawford appeared to be ‘trying to load’ the gun, the 911 dispatcher relayed to an officer that it was believed the gunman ‘just put some bullets inside’…”
• Crawfords’ attorneys informed the Guardian that autopsy findings concluded Crawford was shot “in the back of his left arm and in his left side, supporting their claim that he was turned away from the police officer who shot him.”
• Crawford’s family has “pleaded” with Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine to release the store’s surveillance video of the shooting to the public. For all intents and purposes, it fullyundermines statements made by 911 caller Ronald Richie, who, according to the story, made the only call to the police about “the incident.” And, while DeWine is quoted stating that releasing the tape to the public “would be ‘playing with dynamite,’” someone from DeWine’s office let Ritchie review the recording (apparently, to get his fabulist story “straight”)!
• Crawford’s father notes this about the video in the article: “‘It was an execution, no doubt about it,’ alleged Crawford’s father, John Crawford II. ‘It was flat-out murder. And when you see the footage, it will illustrate that.’”
• The Crawfords’ attorneys have requested that “the department of justice…open a civil rights investigation into the Ohio incident, only the second fatal police shooting in Beavercreek’s history.”
• Aside from the reported facts dictating the greater truth that Crawford was focused upon his phone call—pretty much totally unaware that the police were approaching him with their guns drawn—it would appear that it wasn’t until after he was shot that he realized they were even speaking to him and telling him to put his gun down.
• Perhaps the most ominous new fact—and there are many, so you’ll have to read the article in its entirety to understand how truly twisted this case is—reported in this Guardian story is the following excerpt. It’s…

…only the second fatal police shooting in Beavercreek’s history. A white officer has been placed on administrative leave following Crawford’s shooting……
…Beavercreek police and the attorney general’s office have declined to name the officer who shot Crawford. However, after Sergeant David Darkow and Officer Sean Williams were placed on leave following the incident, Darkow has returned to work but Williams has not.Williams was the officer behind the only other fatal police shooting in Beavercreek. In 2010, he shot dead Scott Brogli, a retired master sergeant in the US air force. According to Williams and a colleague, Brogli charged at them with a large knife after they went to investigate the 45-year-old’s drunken beating of his wife. A grand jury declined to bring any charges…


(Bold type is diarist’s emphasis)
The story concludes by informing readers that a Greene County grand jury “is scheduled to begin hearing evidence on 22 September.”
#            #            #
SIGN THE CHANGE.ORG PETITION TO DEMAND A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION OF THE BEAVERCREEK, OHIO POLICE KILLING OF JOHN CRAWFORD III AND TO INSIST THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL MIKE DEWINE RELEASE THE VIDEOTAPE OF THIS SHOOTING NOW!
CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION.
UPDATE (7:43 PM 9/24/2014): The grand jury has failed to indict the officers involved in John Crawford’s murder. They have also released the surveillance video of the shooting [TW: Violent Content]

UPDATE (7:46 PM 9/24/2014): The Department of Justice has announced that it is opening a federal investigation of the murder of John Crawford.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine announced that he is turning the investigative files over to the U.S. Department of Justice for a civil rights review. The federal government has been monitoring the case and agreed to a review.
"The Civil Rights Division, the United States Attorney’s Office, and the FBI will conduct a thorough and independent review of the evidence and take appropriate action if the evidence indicates a prosecutable violation of federal criminal civil rights statutes," said Jennifer Thornton, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office. [Cincinnati Enquirer]

UPDATE (7:53 PM 9/24/2014): More information about the officers who shot John Crawford has been released.


Officer Sean Williams (left) and Sgt. David Darkow (right) were already on the scene, according to a statement released by Beavercreek Police on Aug. 6. They moved to the pet section, at the back of the store, where they confronted Crawford “holding a rifle,” the statement said.
“Officers gave verbal commands to the subject to drop the weapon,” the statement said. After he failed to comply with officers’ commands, police said, he was shot. [NBC News]

This post will be updated when new updates are available.
Source: Bob Swern for Daily Kos
 109018
25 Sep 14 at 4 pm

undisclosing:

when i was 3 i insisted on having this picture taken

(via halfasiangirlproblems)

undisclosing:

when i was 3 i insisted on having this picture taken
 160446
25 Sep 14 at 1 am

unceremoniouslykarly:

tin-d0g:

xeansan:

camerongale:

drakensberg:

ttthegingerqueer:

Just filled out my health insurance forms!

yeah!!! fucking around with health insurance forms!!!!

I hate when people complain about “oh health forms are stupid they want my biological sex instead of my gender!!!!” or “they only have male or female!!!”

There’s a reason for that, you dumb fucks, and they’re referring to biological sex

Different health risks are present in different sexes, and whatever gender is in your head does not change the fact that if you were born female, you have a higher risk for certain cancers and osteoporosis, and if you were born male you have a higher risk for heart disease and often a shorter lifespan than a female.

In other words, your biological sex is an important factor in health and health insurance, and your special snowflake status doesn’t change that.

Coulda said it nicer but it’s true; it’s about health.

No. There gets a point where nice doesn’t work. There’s too many stupid ass angsty teens on here that are gonna get themselves seriously hurt or sick because they wanna be a special fucking snowflake. Lemme tell you a thing. Doctors don’t give a flying fuck what you identify as. All they want to know is do you have two X chromosomes or an XY? Because cancer and lupus and certain medicines don’t give a flying fuck what pronouns you use. This is about your fucking LIFE. stop being angsty for TWELVE SECONDS because when you’re in an ambulance or going into cardiac arrest or whatever the situation may be, it’s ESSENTIAL that you get your head out of your ass long enough to tell them your BIOLOGICAL SEX that you were BORN WITH. It literally may save your life.

Firstly, there is some really unnecessary invalidating of identities and name calling in this post that is very uncool.

In my experience, it’s very easy for those of us who study science and medicine to forget that our information is developed within society, and isn’t the end-all, be-all 100% FACT that we often make it out to be. We can’t forget that the process of science is imperfect, as are humans. Medicine and science, like anything else, are created by flawed human beings.

1. Identities and language DO matter when someone is interacting with their doctor.

Many times in medicine, your identity has very little effect on your treatment. If you go to the doctor with allergies, you should have the same medical solution whether you’re a lady, have no nose, don’t speak Czech, or hate the taste of toast. However, some of these things will change the best way for your doctor to interact and communicate with you.

If a lady visits her doctor for allergies and spends the entire visit being called “sir” and “MISTER Fernandez,” not only will this likely bother her, but it may also distract her from hearing important medical information from her doctor or, even worse, make her reluctant to seek out medical treatment again, either from that doctor or any healthcare at all.

If someone who doesn’t have a nose visits a doctor for allergies, prescribing a nasal spray won’t be very helpful for that person. That’s why it’s useful that the doctor not only is aware of that, but accepts the reality of that fact and has alternatives to offer.

A monolingual English speaker won’t reap much benefit from a detailed breakdown of how to treat allergies in Czech, but an interpreter, written English resources, or information from a doctor fluent in English would all be useful to this patient, while a fluent Czech speaker would find these things relatively useless.

There is also something to be said about human decency. I understand if you’re performing CPR on someone that using the right pronouns isn’t your priority in that moment (nor would it be mine), but if I’m putting a bandaid on someone it might behoove me to check in before I start “ma’am” and “sir”-ing them all over the place. Not just in medicine, but in every aspect of human interaction, we as a species need to get better at respecting peoples’ wishes about how they be referred to. If you insisted on calling Bill, your boss, William “since that’s his real name,” even though Bill and all your coworkers asked you to stop, you would be an inconsiderate ass. Same goes for Phillip whose legal name is Kathleen.

2. We need to be more specific when we talk about “sex” (the characteristic, not the act - though that could use some clarification on that in the medical setting as well). The way I understand it, there are four major points that determine how we determine someone’s “sex”:

  • Anatomy: so, what genital anatomy someone has (this could include a penis, vulva, vagina, testicles, clitoris, uterus etc.)
  • Chromosomes: sex chromosomes can come in many configurations: X0, XX, XXX, XY, XXY, XYY - sex chromosomes are not routinely tested in the US, so a majority of the population is unaware of their chromosomal makeup
  • Hormones: this includes both hormones produced during puberty and hormones added in adulthood, which produce secondary sex characteristics including body and facial hair growth, body fat distribution, and voice changes
  • Legal sex: simply the letter “F” or “M” on someone’d identification documents (birth certificate, government ID, passport, etc.)

3. Often, even doctors aren’t really sure why they need to know your “sex”

I’d like to provide examples from my above categories, as they impact healthcare in distinct ways.

Anatomy. I’m talking specifically about genital anatomy here. Often, this is irrelevant - an eye doctor could care less what’s in your pants when determining the health of your corneas, for example. But in some ways, this does matter. People need access to the medical care relevant to the body parts they actually have. Regardless of their gender, someone who has had a hysterectomy isn’t going to need access to all the same options to prevent unwanted pregnancy as someone of reproductive age with a functioning uterus and ovaries will. Similarly, someone who doesn’t have testicles probably isn’t really at risk for testicular cancer, and someone probably doesn’t need a pap smear unless they have a cervix. In this regard, someone’s pronouns/identity may not be directly relevant to the medical care they are receiving - but they anatomy certainly is.

In this instance, when a healthcare provider is asking “what is your sex?” what they’re really trying to figure out is what anatomy you have.

Hormones. This comes into play mostly when talking about medications and risk factors for certain diseases. Osteoporosis, for example, is much more common in women. But why? Is there something about wearing dresses that causes bone degeneration? Something about being referred to with feminine pronouns that causes lower bone density? Something inherent in having a vagina that makes bones easier to fracture? Of course not. The difference is hormones.

Healthy people almost always have sufficient levels of estrogen production to generally keep their bone density to healthy levels. The difference is that people who undergo menopause experience a dramatic drop in estrogen, which is one of the key components in keeping bones strong and healthy. Since disease and drug research is conducted almost exclusively on cisgender people, it is easy for these factors to run together. But it is peoples’ relative lack of estrogen later in life - not their inherent female-ness or woman-ness, that increases the risk of osteoporosis.

In this instance, when a healthcare provider is asking “what is your sex?” what they’re really trying to figure out is which levels of certain hormones you have in your body. This can help them determine which drugs might be most effective for you, and also give them a heads up for which diseases to look out for.

Legal sex. Unfortunately this is most often used as a proxy for everything else. Many people who work in healthcare (embarrassingly, myself also included) look for that little “M” or “F” on someone’s records and decide whether to call them sir or ma’am, what anatomy they have (and, therefore, which services they will need accordingly), and a general idea of their hormone levels. While it is important to determine someone’s legal sex for insurance purposes, that’s about the most effectiveness I’ve ever seen it have.

With insurance, for example, sometimes someone’s legal sex determines which procedures and health interventions will be covered. An insurance provider may only cover pap smears or breast exams for people listed as “F,” even though not everyone who is legally female has a cervix and breasts, and not everyone who has a cervix and breasts is legally female.

What I’m trying to tell you is this. Healthcare, medicine, and science, are incredibly complicated, flawed, and evolving disciplines. We all want to help improve peoples’ lives as much as we can, and sometimes what we want to give our patients clashes with what our patients want and need from us. It would make many of us better providers to harness our frustration with words and identities we don’t understand to try and provide as best we can for our patients.

Additionally, science itself can be bettered by deconstructing our current understanding about biological sex. Where we have before found risk factors of “women over 65,” if we are forced to understand more specifically what biological and chemical forces are at work, we will get a clearer picture not only of how diseases function, but of how to treat or even prevent them. If what we know about abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs or triple A’s) is that they affect men more, then our solutions are basically limited to “stop being a man,” which is neither likely nor possible for many people. However, if we research further and discover which aspect of what we assume is biological sex (whether it be genetic, hormone related, or linked to social factors), then we’ll know more about AAAs and how to help prevent them.

When our patients react to healthcare provider questions with anger, creativity, or protest, if we respond with genuine inquiry and a desire to improve - both in terms of human interaction and scientifically - we can only make medicine better.

(via fuckyeahstellapeach)

unceremoniouslykarly:

tin-d0g:

xeansan:

camerongale:

drakensberg:

ttthegingerqueer:

Just filled out my health insurance forms!

yeah!!! fucking around with health insurance forms!!!!

I hate when people complain about “oh health forms are stupid they want my biological sex instead of my gender!!!!” or “they only have male or female!!!”
There’s a reason for that, you dumb fucks, and they’re referring to biological sex
Different health risks are present in different sexes, and whatever gender is in your head does not change the fact that if you were born female, you have a higher risk for certain cancers and osteoporosis, and if you were born male you have a higher risk for heart disease and often a shorter lifespan than a female.
In other words, your biological sex is an important factor in health and health insurance, and your special snowflake status doesn’t change that.

Coulda said it nicer but it’s true; it’s about health.

No. There gets a point where nice doesn’t work. There’s too many stupid ass angsty teens on here that are gonna get themselves seriously hurt or sick because they wanna be a special fucking snowflake. Lemme tell you a thing. Doctors don’t give a flying fuck what you identify as. All they want to know is do you have two X chromosomes or an XY? Because cancer and lupus and certain medicines don’t give a flying fuck what pronouns you use. This is about your fucking LIFE. stop being angsty for TWELVE SECONDS because when you’re in an ambulance or going into cardiac arrest or whatever the situation may be, it’s ESSENTIAL that you get your head out of your ass long enough to tell them your BIOLOGICAL SEX that you were BORN WITH. It literally may save your life.

Firstly, there is some really unnecessary invalidating of identities and name calling in this post that is very uncool.
In my experience, it’s very easy for those of us who study science and medicine to forget that our information is developed within society, and isn’t the end-all, be-all 100% FACT that we often make it out to be. We can’t forget that the process of science is imperfect, as are humans. Medicine and science, like anything else, are created by flawed human beings.
1. Identities and language DO matter when someone is interacting with their doctor.
Many times in medicine, your identity has very little effect on your treatment. If you go to the doctor with allergies, you should have the same medical solution whether you’re a lady, have no nose, don’t speak Czech, or hate the taste of toast. However, some of these things will change the best way for your doctor to interact and communicate with you.
If a lady visits her doctor for allergies and spends the entire visit being called “sir” and “MISTER Fernandez,” not only will this likely bother her, but it may also distract her from hearing important medical information from her doctor or, even worse, make her reluctant to seek out medical treatment again, either from that doctor or any healthcare at all.
If someone who doesn’t have a nose visits a doctor for allergies, prescribing a nasal spray won’t be very helpful for that person. That’s why it’s useful that the doctor not only is aware of that, but accepts the reality of that fact and has alternatives to offer.
A monolingual English speaker won’t reap much benefit from a detailed breakdown of how to treat allergies in Czech, but an interpreter, written English resources, or information from a doctor fluent in English would all be useful to this patient, while a fluent Czech speaker would find these things relatively useless.
There is also something to be said about human decency. I understand if you’re performing CPR on someone that using the right pronouns isn’t your priority in that moment (nor would it be mine), but if I’m putting a bandaid on someone it might behoove me to check in before I start “ma’am” and “sir”-ing them all over the place. Not just in medicine, but in every aspect of human interaction, we as a species need to get better at respecting peoples’ wishes about how they be referred to. If you insisted on calling Bill, your boss, William “since that’s his real name,” even though Bill and all your coworkers asked you to stop, you would be an inconsiderate ass. Same goes for Phillip whose legal name is Kathleen.
2. We need to be more specific when we talk about “sex” (the characteristic, not the act - though that could use some clarification on that in the medical setting as well). The way I understand it, there are four major points that determine how we determine someone’s “sex”:
Anatomy: so, what genital anatomy someone has (this could include a penis, vulva, vagina, testicles, clitoris, uterus etc.)
Chromosomes: sex chromosomes can come in many configurations: X0, XX, XXX, XY, XXY, XYY - sex chromosomes are not routinely tested in the US, so a majority of the population is unaware of their chromosomal makeup
Hormones: this includes both hormones produced during puberty and hormones added in adulthood, which produce secondary sex characteristics including body and facial hair growth, body fat distribution, and voice changes
Legal sex: simply the letter “F” or “M” on someone’d identification documents (birth certificate, government ID, passport, etc.)
3. Often, even doctors aren’t really sure why they need to know your “sex”
I’d like to provide examples from my above categories, as they impact healthcare in distinct ways.
Anatomy. I’m talking specifically about genital anatomy here. Often, this is irrelevant - an eye doctor could care less what’s in your pants when determining the health of your corneas, for example. But in some ways, this does matter. People need access to the medical care relevant to the body parts they actually have. Regardless of their gender, someone who has had a hysterectomy isn’t going to need access to all the same options to prevent unwanted pregnancy as someone of reproductive age with a functioning uterus and ovaries will. Similarly, someone who doesn’t have testicles probably isn’t really at risk for testicular cancer, and someone probably doesn’t need a pap smear unless they have a cervix. In this regard, someone’s pronouns/identity may not be directly relevant to the medical care they are receiving - but they anatomy certainly is.
In this instance, when a healthcare provider is asking “what is your sex?” what they’re really trying to figure out is what anatomy you have.
Hormones. This comes into play mostly when talking about medications and risk factors for certain diseases. Osteoporosis, for example, is much more common in women. But why? Is there something about wearing dresses that causes bone degeneration? Something about being referred to with feminine pronouns that causes lower bone density? Something inherent in having a vagina that makes bones easier to fracture? Of course not. The difference is hormones.
Healthy people almost always have sufficient levels of estrogen production to generally keep their bone density to healthy levels. The difference is that people who undergo menopause experience a dramatic drop in estrogen, which is one of the key components in keeping bones strong and healthy. Since disease and drug research is conducted almost exclusively on cisgender people, it is easy for these factors to run together. But it is peoples’ relative lack of estrogen later in life - not their inherent female-ness or woman-ness, that increases the risk of osteoporosis.
In this instance, when a healthcare provider is asking “what is your sex?” what they’re really trying to figure out is which levels of certain hormones you have in your body. This can help them determine which drugs might be most effective for you, and also give them a heads up for which diseases to look out for.
Legal sex. Unfortunately this is most often used as a proxy for everything else. Many people who work in healthcare (embarrassingly, myself also included) look for that little “M” or “F” on someone’s records and decide whether to call them sir or ma’am, what anatomy they have (and, therefore, which services they will need accordingly), and a general idea of their hormone levels. While it is important to determine someone’s legal sex for insurance purposes, that’s about the most effectiveness I’ve ever seen it have.
With insurance, for example, sometimes someone’s legal sex determines which procedures and health interventions will be covered. An insurance provider may only cover pap smears or breast exams for people listed as “F,” even though not everyone who is legally female has a cervix and breasts, and not everyone who has a cervix and breasts is legally female.
What I’m trying to tell you is this. Healthcare, medicine, and science, are incredibly complicated, flawed, and evolving disciplines. We all want to help improve peoples’ lives as much as we can, and sometimes what we want to give our patients clashes with what our patients want and need from us. It would make many of us better providers to harness our frustration with words and identities we don’t understand to try and provide as best we can for our patients.
Additionally, science itself can be bettered by deconstructing our current understanding about biological sex. Where we have before found risk factors of “women over 65,” if we are forced to understand more specifically what biological and chemical forces are at work, we will get a clearer picture not only of how diseases function, but of how to treat or even prevent them. If what we know about abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs or triple A’s) is that they affect men more, then our solutions are basically limited to “stop being a man,” which is neither likely nor possible for many people. However, if we research further and discover which aspect of what we assume is biological sex (whether it be genetic, hormone related, or linked to social factors), then we’ll know more about AAAs and how to help prevent them.
When our patients react to healthcare provider questions with anger, creativity, or protest, if we respond with genuine inquiry and a desire to improve - both in terms of human interaction and scientifically - we can only make medicine better.

ashtonspankme:

sam pepper made a video of him sexually assaulting women as a fucking prank (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0LtTFbin6c) and it’s absolutely disgusting. let’s signal boost this shit and make sure this dude feels the consequences for his scumbag actions

(via blackwidowitch)

 313607
21 Sep 14 at 12 pm

youbestnotmiss:

cognitivedissonance:

feministbatwoman:

huffingtonpost:

Columbia University Student Will Drag Her Mattress Around Campus Until Her Rapist Is Gone

"I think the act of carrying something that is normally found in our bedroom out into the light is supposed to mirror the way I’ve talked to the media and talked to different news channels, etc," Emma continues in the full video which you can watch here. 

So, I just want to go into HOW MUCH Columbia and the NYPD has failed, and revictimized, Emma Sulkowitz.

In her school hearing, Sulkowitz ” had to explain to the three administrators on the panel how anal rape worked. She told them she had been hit across the face, choked and pinned down, but, she said, one still seemed confused about how it was possible for someone to penetrate her there without lubricant. Sulkowicz said she had to draw them a diagram.”

"Her best friend was meant to be at the hearing; Sulkowicz had chosen her as her one “supporter.” But her friend was kicked out of that role for talking about the case, according to Sulkowicz, in violation of the university’s confidentiality policy. As punishment, her friend was also put on probation and made to write two reflection papers: one from the perspective of Sulkowicz and another from the accused."

FROM THE PERSPECTIVE
OF HER FRIEND’S RAPIST

- Two other women at Columbia have accused this guy of sexual assault/rape. But he’s been found not responsible in all instances, and is still on campus

- When she went to the police, one officer said: “”You invited him into your room. That’s not the legal definition of rape.”

- Another officer told her friends, who came with her: ““For every single rape I’ve had, I’ve had 20 that are total bull——,” he added. “It’s also my type of job to get to the truth. If that means being harsh about it, that’s what I do.”

And that’s.
Why.
People.
Don’t.
REPORT.

I want to set literally everything on fire.

Same

"20 that are bullshit" - quit making shit up. Every statistic out there shows that false rape reports happen at the same rate as false reports for other crimes. Rape victims are also far more likely to withdraw their report, which is often counted as being false when it’s really being done because of the absolute bullshit victims go through at the hands of police (and in this case, school administrators).

airdick:

she wants the d(econstruction of capitalism)

(via blackwidowitch)

kookie667:

Let’s play a game called “I’m totally joking, but would do that in a heartbeat if you were into it”

(via dumquat)

jesus: i died on the cross for your sins
me: aint nobody tell u to do that tho
 90357
18 Sep 14 at 11 pm

tedx:

Leslie Morgan Steiner was in an abusive relationship, though at first she didn’t realize it. In a talk at TEDxRainier, she tells the disturbing story of her relationship, correcting misconceptions many people hold about victims of domestic violence, and explaining how we can all help break the silence.

If you or someone you know is facing domestic violence or an absuive relationship, you can find a list of resources here. The U.S. National Sexual Assault Hotline is 1-800-656-4673 (HOPE), and RAINN offers a secure online hotline.

(via brunette-nymphette)