Photoset

image

(x)

(Source: drakefeathers, via wilwheaton)

Text

no-youth:

i have an incredibly hard time believing the fact that the phrase “i will face god and walk backwards into hell” was created by dril and not taken from some 16th century literary epic

(via judithstateofmind)

Photo
zagreus-taking-time-apart:

my little brother draws memes but like. terrifying memes

zagreus-taking-time-apart:

my little brother draws memes but like. terrifying memes

(via a-storm-for-every-spring)

Photoset

nosdrinker:

i don’t know what these are but i love them

These are cows.

(Source: weeaboo-chan, via sever-these-ties)

Text

2creepychihuahuas:

illbeyourfavouritedrug:

heathyr:

partybarackisinthehousetonight:

my life changed forever when i found out the word “slang” was actually slang for “shortened language”

image

so slang is slang for slang

Okay tumblr, once again, not every word is a portmanteau. Slang is actually of uncertain origin, but it is definitely unrelated to the French langue, from which “language” is derived. It is possibly from a Norwegian word derived from the Old Norse slyngva, literally “to sling,” but the OED disputes this. Another possibility is from a slang word for “narrow piece of land,” itself of unknown origin.

(And while we’re at it, even if the portmanteau etymology was correct, it still wouldn’t be slang. Portmanteaus and abbreviations aren’t slang; slang is informal, typically verbal language. Slang is a perfectly good word in formal written usage, even if it is derived, at least two centuries ago, from a slang term.)

(via flatbear)

Photo
transyoite:

hkirkh:

This is not a cat. This is not a ferret. This is a stoat.

no it’s a tube sock


Look at this long hamster

transyoite:

hkirkh:

This is not a cat. This is not a ferret. This is a stoat.

no it’s a tube sock

Look at this long hamster

(via exploding-into-nothing)

Photo
panic-at-the-bilbo:

I thought this was hilarious when I was drunk

panic-at-the-bilbo:

I thought this was hilarious when I was drunk

(via tookiebelle)

Text

argylesockspdx replied to your post “Hey, so, question for my Social Justice friendos here. Someone on a…”

There’s also the case of cis women with masculinizing medical disorders, which can give them nearly as much testosterone as cis men (I think there have been women Olympians disqualified for this)

True! How does this fit into the whole framework of sex-segregated sports? It seems weird that we say that we want our athletes to be the best of the best, unless they’re naturally too good, in which case they’re disqualified.

Text

Hey, so, question for my Social Justice friendos here. Someone on a forum I frequent posted an article (which I won’t link here for reasons of it being WILDLY offensive and gross) about trans MMA fighter Fallon Fox knocking out a cis opponent, breaking her eye socket, and giving her a concussion. The gist of the article was that, since Fox was AMAB and went through puberty in the manner typical of cis boys, she had an unfair advantage over cis fighters. This got me thinking about the role of gender-segregated sports, especially in the context of increasing visibility and acceptance of trans people and athletes.

On the one hand, I see why gender-segregated sports leagues exist: on average, men have higher body mass, upper body strength, height, etc. If sports were not segregated by sex, very few women would have a place in competitive sports. (Some would, for sure, but they would be the exceptions rather than the rules.) On the other hand, this segregation makes it that much easier for women’s sports teams to be ignored and underfunded. They are already treated, in many cases (especially in the professional realm), as less important than even minor league men’s teams. Furthermore, women who can hold their own against men are often allowed to play in men’s leagues, such as the amazing Mo’Ne Davis, which further cements the idea that women’s leagues are some sort of consolation prize for women who can’t make it on “real teams.” I am genuinely not sure whether free-for-all leagues, in which the best players compete regardless of gender, would be preferable or not. (In the context of MMA/boxing/wrestling specifically, this seems like a particularly good idea, given that they are already organized by weight class. Shouldn’t some version of these be enough to ensure that fights are relatively fair regardless of sex? I imagine that a 200-pound cis man at peak fighting condition and a 200-pound cis woman at peak fighting condition would have very similar bodies in all the ways that matter.)

Adding trans people to the mix makes this issue even more complicated. If we do decide that sex-segregated sports leagues are a good idea, where does that leave trans women, particularly those who, like Fox, transitioned after puberty? Presumably the arguments for why it would be unfair to allow cis men to compete would also apply to trans women, with the exception of “this is a space for women.” Any argument regarding height/weight/musculature of cis men would be equally true for trans women. However, it seems transphobic to say that, because of factors essentially outside their control, trans women cannot compete against other women, in leagues specifically for women. Does the extensiveness of the trans individual’s physical transition make a difference? An AMAB woman who has been on hormones since before puberty is going to have a very different body than an AMAB woman who chose not to physically transition at all. I see little argument to be made against the former, and a significant argument to be made against the latter, but it would be incredibly insensitive and gross to have some sort of transition-measuring-stick by which officials decide whether a woman has transitioned “enough” to compete in a women’s league. What, for that matter, about trans men? Men on T are taking, as a medical necessity, a steroid that is banned in nearly all competitive sports. Should they all be forbidden from playing sports at all? Should they have to stop taking hormone supplements, which would almost always result in them being unable to compete in competitive men’s leagues?

In short, my initial reaction is to do away with sex-segregated sports leagues altogether. However, I do worry that that would make it impossible for all but the very best female athletes to participate at a competitive level at all. So I genuinely don’t know what the solution is. Or, to further clarify: how should competitive sports be organized so as to meet the needs of persons of every gender identity?

Thoughts? Did I inadvertently say something wildly gross, offensive, or just plain wrong? Do you have a solution for how to deal with this issue? Please let me know what you think.

Text

Someone save me from Marx.

Quote
"Let me get some clitter so I can vajazzle myself this weekend"

— Fiona argylesockspdx Byrne

Text

S/o to my mom just cuz

(Source: fingerblaster113, via bonerfart)

Photo
slendertroll:

Free him

He is free

slendertroll:

Free him

He is free

Photo
Free him

Free him

Photoset

destielkills:

the-secret-world-of-hairy-yetis:

capitolprostitute:

nationalbuttlickersassociation:

hachestark:

samuel-vimes:

honestlyiamironman:

didn’t the goblet of fire cover this

because how else would Ireland win but krum catch the snitch

actually in prisoner of Azkaban, didn’t Gryffindor need a certain amount of points to proceed to the finals, and that’s why Oliver Wood told Harry to wait until they had scored a certain amount of points before he caught the snitch?

Catching the snitch ends the game and is worth the most points, but it doesn’t guarantee a win. Just like tumblr user samuel-vimes said, Krum caught the snitch at the World Cup Finals, but Ireland still won in the end because they still had more points.

Also the way the ranking system works in the international quidditch league, and I assume at Hogwarts, according to JK Rowlings new reveal, is that teams are awarded a certain amount of points based on the amount of points a team wins by and thats how they are ranked against each other. Rowling said that a win by 150 points = 5 points, 100 points = 3 points, 50 points = 1 point, and a winner of a tie is whoever caught the snitch the quickest. So theoretically a team that only catches the snitch but wins by a margin of less than 50 points is awarded no points and might as well of not caught thats why Wood told Harry to wait until they were up a certain number of points in order to increase their overall ranking and win the cup.

And gosh, a good chunk of you people claim to hate sports.

We do hate sports. All the ones that don’t involve flying broomsticks and slightly murderous balls that try to knock you off them.

I still think that a team comprised entirely of Seekers (or, actually, one where the Chasers were replaced with Seekers) would do much better than the standard setup. Plus tell the Beaters to keep an eye out for the Snitch. If you can just end the game as quickly as possible, you don’t need to worry about point differences, since the other team won’t have a chance to score more than a couple times before it’s over.

The obvious rebuttal is that only the official Seeker can end the game by getting the Snitch, but that actually makes this strategy even better. As soon as one of your Chasers catches the Snitch, they can pocket it while the rest of the team goes into point-scoring mode, jacking their score up as high as possible. As soon as the tide starts turning against them, they pass the Snitch off to the Seeker and end the game.

(Source: funnybutt, via exploding-into-nothing)