- 3 months ago
Whitney Lee, a trans woman serving a three-year sentence at an Ohio prison, has filed suit against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for wrongfully discontinuing her hormone treatment in 2012.
Lee, 36, began hormone replacement therapy in 1999. In February 2012, a prison psychiatrist determined that she “did not meet the medical criteria for gender dysphoria” and took her off the hormones. Here’s what’s happening:
The complaint argues that denying an inmate necessary medical treatment is a violation of that individual’s Eighth Amendment rights. Hormone replacement therapy has been deemed medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria by the American Medical Association and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
According to Cincinnati’s WLWT, the state has dismissed Lee’s accusation, contending that the denial of treatment constitutes, at most, medical malpractice, and not a violation of a prisoner’s constitutional rights.
This is not only a severe health risk to this woman, but it’s completely dehumanizing and degrading. It is disgusting to assert that access to necessary medical care is not within a “prisoner’s constitutional rights.” Don’t stop fighting, Whitney.
(via arcticbonobos)Source: gaywrites
- 3 months ago
- 3 months ago
- 7 months ago
Programme for Coriolanus - signed by:
- Tom Hiddleston
- Mark Gatiss
- Hadley Fraser
- Deborah Findlay
- Peter De Jersey
- Elliot Levey
- Birgitte Hjort Sørensen
- Helen Schlesinger
*Note: Eliot Levy signed in the space of Jacqueline Boatswain.
It’s got some nice rehearsals pictures, and an interesting article. I’m aiming to get it signed by the remaining 4.
So if there is anyone that wants this, I’ll be giving it away. I’ll ship internationally.
- Reblogs only please.
- You don’t have to be following me if you don’t want.
- Winner will be chosen at random.
- Ends 27/01/14.
Here is a photo of Tom signing this programme.
(via startrekspeare)Source: sherlocksmoustache
- 7 months ago
Net neutrality is dead.
At least that’s the verdict of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which today struck down a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order from 2010 that forced Internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner Cable to abide by the principles of network neutrality. These principles broadly stipulate that ISP network management must be transparent, and that ISPs can’t engage in practices that block, stifle or discriminate against (lawful) websites or traffic types on the Internet.
That’s the bare bones story, wrapped in ugly acronyms (FCC, ISP, etc.). But why should you care that network neutrality (“net neutrality”) may be gone for good?
1. No more net neutrality means ISPs can now discriminate against content they dislike.
Everyone gets their Internet from an Internet service provider — an ISP like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast or Time Warner Cable. Under net neutrality rules, these ISPs have to treat all content you access over the Internet “roughly the same way" — they can’t speed up traffic from websites they like or delay competitor’s traffic.
Now, with net neutrality gone, ISPs can discriminate, favoring their business partners while delaying or blocking websites they don’t like. Think your cable CEO hates free online porn? Now you’ll know for sure!
2. No more net neutrality means ISPs can now force websites to PAY for faster content delivery.
You know how some sites you go to just load slower than others? Usually, that’s just because the slower site is image heavy, poorly coded, or dealing with intense server load. But with net neutrality gone, ISPs can now start charging hefty fees to websites that want quick content delivery — shifting the long load times to poorer sites that can’t pay up.
3. Destroying net neutrality is bad for small businesses.
Put together items one and two and it becomes clear — negating net neutrality is bad for small businesses. If ISPs force website owners pay for faster load times, tiny retailers and personal websites will be the ones to suffer from slower content delivery.
Alternately — or additionally — ISPs will have no reason not to favor partner sites: Time Warner Cable, for instance, might favor the website of CNN (owned by the Time Warner Corporation) over the websites of competing cable news networks MSNBC and Fox News. Still, it’s the indies again that will lose out here. While Time Warner Cable might favor CNN and Comcast MSNBC, independent news networks almost certainly won’t get special treatment from any ISPs. Expand this out to music sites, web publishing, etc., and you begin to see the problem.
In extreme cases, ISPs may hinder or block content that isn’t produced by partners —much like AT&T did when it owned the telephone networks back in the day.
4. Without net neutrality, entire types of online traffic (like Netflix) may be in jeopardy.
Netflix watchers and BitTorrent users might want to beware — soon your beloved services may not work like they used to. Now that net neutrality’s down for the count, ISPs can discriminate against entire types of traffic: For instance, an ISP could slow or block all peer-to-peer file sharing, or all online video streaming.
From an ISP’s perspective, discriminating against some traffic types makes business sense: Many ISPs are also cable television providers, which means the “cord-cutting" enabled by peer-to-peer and streaming online video isn’t good for their bottom line.
5. Without net neutrality, your ISPs can make even more money without actually improving the Internet.
Right now, America’s broadband is slow. It’s slow because ISPs can already make gobs of money by charging the rich a ton for high-quality Internet while leaving the rest of America with subpar (or no) service.
Now, with net neutrality gone, ISPs will be able to make even more money off their existing customer base. They won’t need to improve service or bring broadband to rural areas because they’ll be able to keep growing (financially, at least) by charging content providers more for faster delivery and charging customers more for faster access. In all likelihood, Tuesday’s ruling means the problems with America’s Internet will be magnified.
This FINALLY shows up on my dashboard and it only has 300 notes.
Here’s a petition on Whitehouse.gov that needs 88,000+ by the middle of February:
SIGNAL BOOST THE FUCK OUT OF THIS SHIT AND LET THEM KNOW THAT WE AIN’T HAVIN’ IT!
YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE A US CITIZEN TO SIGN THIS.
Why should someone outside the US care? What passes in one industrialised nation gives companies and politicians more leverage to pass similar laws in their own.
Having this sort of discrimination in the hands of companies has political consequences in addition to the ones mentioned above. Think of the influence these ISPs would have if allowed to keep these powers? Any ISP with a political bias, or influenced by a political party, would have the power to direct access to information on the internet at their will.
Guys, this is so important. If you want to continue using sites like tumblr, you need to sign this petition and call your congressman or congresswoman.
(via hpanaro)Source: ofpotterandwho
- 7 months ago
a guy walked into the board room and said
"hi sweetheart if you could fix me up a coffee real quick im meeting with the regional reports manager in like five minutes, thanks darling"
and i just stared at him and coldly said
"i am the regional reports manager"
we are now twenty minutes into this board meeting and i dont think i’ve ever seen a man look so embarrassed and afraid in my whole life
(via watsonsstripeyjumper)Source: sofiajonze