Link reblogged from somewhere different now with 131 notes
5.2 (1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if
(a) the passenger presents a piece of photo identification and does not resemble the photograph;
(b) the passenger does not appear to be the age indicated by the date of birth on the identification he or she presents;
(c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents; or
(d) the passenger presents more than one form of identification and there is a major discrepancy between those forms of identification.fuck stephen harper, fuck transphobic security theatre bullshit, fuck every american who thinks canada is some sort of ~liberal safe haven or what have you
The last time I flew out of Canada was, apparently, just before this became policy. Looks like I won’t be doing that again any time soon.
Been thinking about this more, now that it’s not the middle of the night. Here’s what’s especially diabolical about this: most provinces require genital surgery in order to change the gender on a legal ID. Most doctors in Canada require one to two years of “living full-time” before they will perform genital surgery. So you can’t fly if your presentation doesn’t match the gender on your ID, but in order to change the gender on your ID you are required to present in a way that differs from the gender on your ID for at least a year. Heaven forbid you should want to fly to visit family and friends during that time… or move someplace else… or go on a vacation… or, hell, travel to see your surgeon…
(And some provinces’ health care systems won’t cover surgery for trans people, GID diagnosis or no. And — oh, yeah — many trans people don’t have genital surgery, including most who are FAAB. I guess Stephen Harper wants us permanently grounded.)
Source: pugswithdrugs
Quote reblogged from you are not guilty to me with 485 notes
In an effort to get people to look
into each other’s eyes more,
and also to appease the mutes,
the government has decided
to allot each person exactly one hundred
and sixty-seven words, per day.
When the phone rings, I put it to my ear
without saying hello. In the restaurant
I point at chicken noodle soup.
I am adjusting well to the new way.
Late at night, I call my long-distance lover,
proudly say I only used fifty-nine today.
I saved the rest for you.
When she doesn’t respond,
I know she’s used up all her words,
so I slowly whisper I love you
thirty-two and a third times.
After that, we just sit on the line
and listen to each other breathe.
Source: gammasandgerunds
Link reblogged from Pomme, poire, pêche with 131 notes
5.2 (1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if
(a) the passenger presents a piece of photo identification and does not resemble the photograph;
(b) the passenger does not appear to be the age indicated by the date of birth on the identification he or she presents;
(c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents; or
(d) the passenger presents more than one form of identification and there is a major discrepancy between those forms of identification.fuck stephen harper, fuck transphobic security theatre bullshit, fuck every american who thinks canada is some sort of ~liberal safe haven or what have you
The last time I flew out of Canada was, apparently, just before this became policy. Looks like I won’t be doing that again any time soon.
Source: pugswithdrugs
Photoset reblogged from you are not guilty to me with 100 notes
dude. you GO, Vancouver!
These are so wonderful.
Source: sindirimba
Quote reblogged from fuck yeah sex education with 26,180 notes
I think it’s very healthy to spend time alone. You need to know how to be alone and not be defined by another person.
Oscar Wilde. (via myrustyhalo)
Tumblr misquotes strike again! Not Oscar Wilde, the famed Irish playwright… OLIVIA Wilde, the actor from House, M.D. If Oscar said it, it’d be witty, dammit.
Source: hookahsmoke
Quote reblogged from Oberlin College with 21 notes
If I could travel back in time? That’s a no brainer. I’d go back to the times of the rocks I’ve studied to see if I was right or not.
- Professor of Geology Bruce Simonson, in a video interview by Nikki Heyman ‘12. (via oberlin-college)
Bruce Simonson is single-handedly saving my honors project from my complete geological incompetence. I run into his office, flailing wildly, going “Bruce! These thin sections are so complicated!”, and he says, “Yeah! Isn’t it great?!” Love that man.
Source: oberlin-college
Photo reblogged from Pomme, poire, pêche with 828 notes
A telegram from Dorothy Parker to her editor Pascal Covici (via)
This is how I feel about all the papers I’m not writing right now.
Source: otherpress
Photoset reblogged from Art of Transliness with 1,361 notes
Very sexy ties from The Cyberoptix TieLab
I’m not such a fan of the guns, but the rest of these ties are incredibly cool, as are the ones on their website (EKGs! wind turbines! Apollo cockpit controls! squid!) Reblogging this for a few science-geek followers (you know who you are :)
Source: etsy.com
Photo reblogged from "You learn something new every day" with 84,000 notes
OK BUT
Y’all know I’m all about body love and positive portrayals in the media, but Barbie was designed AS A DOLL. Her exaggerated figure is meant to be clothed. Seam allowances are much larger, percentage-wise, on tiny figures than on life-size ones. When clothed, she is not any worse than a fairly slim, tall Caucasian woman. Which is its own battle, but my point is that Barbie is not meant to portray the ideal nude body. So whenever I see people getting all up in arms about Barbie’s naked body, it seems to me like they’re picking a fight, a little bit.
But… people give Barbies to three-year-olds. Little kids are forming a ton of ideas about the world but they’re not thinking terribly deeply about them, and they’re not all that great at distinguishing realism from exaggeration. Even if they keep their Barbies clothed most of the time (and, anecdata: most Barbies in the possession of little kids spend a substantial amount of time naked or half-naked), they’ll still see plenty of Barbie’s body.
And Barbie’s body may be the only nude body they see. Depending on their family, their school, and their level of Internet access, they may not see realistic depictions of naked bodies — let alone, like, actual naked people — for at least another decade. At that point most will have already formed ideas about body size and started to act on them, whether they’re accurate and healthy or not. (“By middle school, thirty to forty percent of American girls say they feel too fat, and twenty to forty percent are dieting-many by the age of ten.”)
It’s easy to look at Barbie and say that it’s only a doll. And if kids had plenty of dolls to play with that showed different kinds of human bodies, this would be a whole different story. But Barbie is one of the only dolls that kids are given that actually look like a “realistic” adult (as opposed to a baby doll, or a humanoid abstraction like Raggedy Ann), and for many kids it’s one of very few available opportunities to learn what a nude adult body is supposed to be. When kids look at Barbie they’re not thinking about seam allowances — they’re thinking, “This is what a grown-up looks like under their clothes”, and there’s little else around to teach them otherwise. That’s the problem.
Source: imakenopromises
Post reblogged from Oberlin College with 19 notes
“Sing, O Muse, the rage of Sci-Fi Hall who descended with their Nerf guns, set on blood, but were thwarted by the ranks of noble Greek- and Roman-lovers, and made peace.”
There’s a blog post about Hall’s raid on Classics Hall! This is amazing and I love it, and it’s also an epic poem why is this the best thing ever asfhioehf.
The only thing it’s missing is a picture of what we looked like. So here:
Now you can even see the rage of SciFi Hall.
Our themed halls take their “rivalries” quite seriously.
I’m offended by the scare quotes around “rivalries”…
Source: horrorwine
Page 1 of 11