You could never really know William Onyeabor. The Nigerian former record label owner and electro-funk musician lived a life shrouded in storybook-like mystery, with some of the only verified information about him traceable to the nine albums he self-released on his Wilfilms label between 1977 and 1985. Once you divert from the music that drew in fans from around the world beyond Onyeabor's hometown of Enugu, details start to fade.

Rumors about him touched on everything, from opening a flour mill in Nigeria once he retired from music to studying film in the Soviet Union. Or maybe it was England? Perhaps France. "To his great amusement (and to ours for that matter), this mythic image was at times so deeply ingrained, that we often encountered people who were convinced that he didn't actually exist," wrote Eric Welles, Paul Diddy, and Yale Evelev of David Byrne's record label Luaka Bop, announcing the news of Onyeabor's death on Facebook on Wednesday morning. "Whenever we shared this with him, or would ask him a question about his past, he would just smile and say, 'I only want to speak about God.'"

Read more on Noisey

Let's face it: we all swear. Some of us do so more than others. But while it's generally frowned upon to be a foul-mouthed mess in public, new science is telling us that people who curse a lot actually might be more honest and trustworthy than those who stick to a conservative vocabulary.

According to a joint study (aptly titled "Frankly, We Do Give a Damn")—published by the University of Cambridge, Stanford University, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and Maastricht University this month—cursing, both online and in real life, is heavily associated with honesty because honest people get emotional, and emotional people swear.

"There are two conflicting perspectives regarding the relationship between profanity and dishonesty. These two forms of norm-violating behavior share common causes, and are often considered to be positively related," the study reads.

"On the other hand, however, profanity is often used to express one's genuine feelings, and could therefore be negatively related to dishonesty. "

Scientists broke down their research in three different ways. First, they tested dishonest behaviour against swearing in a lab environment by asking the 276 participants to describe their swearing habits. Participants were asked to write down the curse words they like to use, the curse words they feel like they cannot use but still like to say privately, and how they use different curse words in different settings.

The researchers then compared those results against another questionnaire, in which the participants were asked about different ethical scenarios and how to handle them. For example, "If you say you will do something, do you always keep your promise no matter how inconvenient it might be?"

Contrary to popular belief, the researchers found that those who were more liberal with what swear words they said and how often they said them were far more consistent in keeping honest with other people and rarely lied to get out of difficult situations.

The second test analyzed people's use of swear words on Facebook compared to their actual behaviour in private. This was achieved (quite cleverly, if you ask me) by the use of a Facebook app—myPersonality—in which users voluntarily submitted to a personality test, and in turn gave researchers access to their profiles/answers to dissect. A total of 153,716 participants were recruited via the app, but only 73,789 users submitted usable results.  

In this test, the researchers found that participants who swore less had a higher percentage of statuses deemed as "dishonest." The algorithm used for this—the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) system—is a little complex, but was essentially used to analyze online linguistics for unnaturally constructed statements.

"The explanation was that dishonest people subconsciously try to (1) dissociate themselves from the lie and therefore refrain from referring to themselves; (2) prefer concrete over abstract language when referring to others (using someone's name instead of "he" or "she"); (3) are likely to feel discomfort by lying and therefore express more negative feelings; and (4) require more mental resources to obscure the lie and therefore end up using less cognitively demanding language, which is characterized by a lower frequency of exclusive words and a higher frequency of motion verbs," the report reads.

What does that mean? Well, research suggests that dishonest people refrain from the use of "I", "Me," "He," or "She," and more frequently used people's full names when talking about issues or events. This is, according to 15 years of science, an effort to depersonalize the liar's emotions from the statement itself. An honest person, on the other hand, might just let the words fly as they make a status—oftentimes swearing in the process.

The final test looked at data from US states that compared integrity to profanity usage. Across the board, states with a higher level of profanity usage ranked higher on the integrity scale—with Florida (pretty sure they got this one wrong), California (ugh, Hollywood), and Iowa (do Iowans even have anything good to lie about?) topping the list of most trustworthy states.

Ultimately, the researchers were able to assess that swearing more frequently was indicative of being more honest. Still, they also note that honest meant being nice. For example, the study notes that, oftentimes, people swear out of anger. The context of the swearing is up in the air, all it means if that the person doing it is probably telling you the truth about how they feel.

Good fucking day to you.

Follow Jake Kivanc on Twitter , fucker.

Lead image by author.

My first friendship breakup happened when I was in Grade 2. I realized my best friend had been asking more of me than she ever gave back; she was also very judgmental. Even though we were only about seven years old, I knew she had to be cut. When I was that age, it seemed easy to cut people out of my life. Today, 15 years later, I'm realizing how difficult it is to break up with a good friend. Now, in my last year of university, I've broken up with another close friend. It still bothers me thinking about how close we were. A friendship breakup is a special kind of painful.

Your boyfriend might not know your real bang count—but a close friend will. Friends are special like that, and I would argue breaking up with a friend is just as traumatizing as ending a romantic relationship. The modern friendship breakup tends to consist of splitting friend groups, while also dealing with the absence of them in your life; you either block them on social media or creepily stalk them in hopes their life has gone to shit (it hasn't); now, you've also got to avoid the places they frequent. Basically, things can get messy easily. So I reached out to some relationship therapists, to figure out if there's a drama-free way of breaking up with your bestie.

Step One: Acknowledge Something's Up

You can't really ever know when's a good time to end a friendship. Maybe you don't talk as much or as deeply or find yourself seeking excuses to avoid meeting down at the pub. But the signs are pretty universal.

"I think probably the most common factor would be lack of fit, on whatever level. It might be around values or priorities or goals or interests," Jenny Glozman, a Toronto therapist, told me. But beyond that, she says that different expectations, an absence of trust and a lack of communication are reasons that she expects friendships to fail, including that feeling of giving more than you get back. (How many rounds do you owe me?)

Allan Studd, another therapist based out of the upper Ottawa Valley, has learned that individual mental health affects friendships. "Things like depression would very easily come into play," he said. "Depression, stress, anxiety, all of those things play out within a relationship and can cause a great deal of stress on a relationship."

The bigger issue underlying all of this is that when we reach our 20s, we change and learn about ourselves. Somewhere between a quarter life crisis, starting careers, and getting in serious romantic relationships (or not) we are probably going to have to kill bad friendships along the way.

Step Two: Know When It's Over

Everyone who has watched any sort of high school dramedy on the CW understands the power of the kiss off last words. In reality, most high schoolers will send an abrupt note and by the time they get to university, they have moved on to ghosting. When I've wanted to end it with friends, I've always wanted that perfect clean break—but apparently that's one of the worst ways to do it, according to the therapists.

"When you just don't talk to the other person and try to put them out of your mind it often creates this almost continual negative bond between the two of you," said Glozman. "You will hold on to all this anger and resentment and it never really fades."

"I would suggest always that you do it face to face and that you do it honestly," Studd told me. "Honesty means saying to a person 'This isn't working for me, or we don't seem to have much in common anymore.'"

Another less dramatic way that friendships end is that they drift. This is a more neutral separation for which both parties tend to be responsible: changing interests, moving away, etc.  "The closer the friend the more effort you should put in (as long as it is safe to do so)," said Ellis Nicolson over email. Nicolson is a psychotherapist and marriage and family therapist. "Being transparent likely won't hurt the other person."

So even though you'll likely be inclined to ghost, consider the fact the experts say it's healthier to do literally the opposite.

Photo via Pixabay user guard113

Step Three: Drink, Cry, Grieve

Shitty wine, unfulfilling sex, and a new haircut are generally young adult go-to's after a normal breakup. But after a friendship breakup, you think about all the real talks, embarrassing stories and pictures they own, and the inside jokes you can't use anymore. The worst is thinking of your mutual friends. You're stuck wondering, 'Are my other friends on their side and do they think this whole thing is stupid?' For understanding the post-emotional effects of a friend breakup, I was continually referred to the five stages of grief: denial, bargaining, sadness/depression, anger, and acceptance.

"I often see them as some kind of a spiral, the bounce from one to another to another to another and you basically kind of cycle through all of them at different points in time until you start experiencing the acceptance stage more and more," says Glozman.

READ MORE: Things You Learn When a Long-Term Relationship Collapses in Your Twenties

In these first stages are when we start to feel all sorts of negative emotions towards the other person. This is around the time we start to blame the other party for absolutely everything imaginable. They did this to me. I did nothing wrong, how dare they? And even though it is (admittedly, and thoroughly) satisfying to some degree to blame the other party, Glozman reminds me that it's important to think about your role in a breakup.

"That's the part that you can actually learn. That's the part that you can actually control going forward," she told me.

"It's always a two way street. I always tell my couples that it's 50-50 ... I tell [my couples] that each partner has 100 percent responsibility for their part in the relationship," said Studd. "I would go at it in terms of therapy in the same way that I would for a couple"

In other words, both you and I probably fucked up along the way, and we shouldn't just be sad all day.

Step Four: Seeing Them Again

Now comes the awkward part: you will see each other again at some point. It could be at a party, at school or at work—it could be at the grocery store, whatever, you get the point. They will seem like they are everywhere at some point.

"We need to act in a way that would honour ourselves, whatever that may be. For some, it is taking the high road, for others it may be an attempt to resolve unresolved issues, and for others, it is distance," said Nicolson.

That said, my best personal advice is to spend time planning out what to say, CW style. This is your chance to show that you're good! You almost didn't even recognize them! You haven't lost sleep thinking about them, listening to their favourite music, and crying! If they ask about that shirt they left behind say you're sorry and that you might have donated it by accident—you've become a really good person without them. The therapists would probably disagree with me on this.

"What's the purpose of the plan? What's the goal of it? Those kind of 'revenge plots,' if you will—those are certainly more detrimental than if your goal is basically to think of a safety plan," said Glozman. "I think that can be helpful to have that in the back of your mind because it makes sure that you're not as afraid of the interaction anymore because you have a plan for it."

Step Five: Moving On

Mending relationships have never really been a priority of mine, but all the therapists I spoke to think it's almost always a real possibility.

"A lot of things can be dealt with within the context of the relationship," said Glozman. "There are ways for healing, it's just a lot of work. We need to have a lot of willingness to sit with another person's feelings and… we're not always willing to do that."

"Be transparent about your needs. If the other person doesn't respond to your needs then it's time to move on," added Nicolson.  

Most importantly, the therapists said to talk with someone, or find a therapist (hmmm, $$) if you really need to vent. "People always think it has to be very severe or very extreme and culturally speaking I don't think we conceptualize friendships ending on that level. But you're absolutely right, it can be just as traumatic as any other relationship ending, it's just that we don't talk about it in that way and therefore we kind of discourage people from seeking help for it."

If things are truly unsalvageable, at least take some steps that you would take with any loss in your life—eat some ice cream, sleep in, watch some Netflix, try to exercise or do something productive. Be a little selfish and do something for yourself.

Follow Sierra Bein on Twitter.

"Some people see it as a beautiful connection—a way to see more of their partner and to be more intimate," says Dr. Chris Donaghue, the author of Sex Outside the Lines. The acclaimed sex therapist isn't opining about the sort of long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses Kevin Costner described in Bull Durham. He's talking about urophilia, otherwise known as piss play or—in the words of an unsubstantiated report that's gotten some ink recently—golden showers.

Although urophilia isn't quite as rare as you might think, we don't talk about it that much because we have a culture that is still a bit squeamish about sex. And if there's anything we're more squeamish about than sex, it's bathroom habits. Urophilia does an excellent job of straddling both lines.

"I don't tell anyone about [the fact that I do] it," confesses a European man in his forties whom I contacted when I saw his "PEE ON ME PLEASE" ad on Craigslist. "I don't want to look bad. Some people think it's nasty and disgusting."

This man—let's call him Pierre—discovered he was into piss play when he saw it in a porn a few years ago and found himself aroused. He asked a woman he occasionally had sex with if she'd be into it and she was game, but told him that she'd need to relax by having sex first. So they did and once she'd been on top of him for a while, "she said she was ready and then stood up and peed all over my stomach and penis while I masturbated," says Pierre. He came from the pee, but not from the actual intercourse. Later, in the shower, he peed on her nipples. Alas, that woman is now married and Pierre's current sexual partner isn't as game for piss play. He told me that she looked genuinely disgusted when he showed her a golden shower video, so he's never even broached the topic of actually pissing on her.

That's how Pierre found himself posting his ad—an ad that, when we spoke, hadn't attracted too many responses beyond a few women who said they'd be happy to pee all over him for a fee. This lack of action is probably why Pierre tried his damnedest to get me to give the old pee play a try. "I can't imagine," he kept saying, "why a writer would feel like she could write about a topic without experiencing it herself." I got the sense that he thought that once I fully understood urophilia, I'd insist that he come over, bladder bursting, and show me what all the fuss was about.

Why some people are turned on by urine isn't something that's fully understood. Experts can't even say if this fetish is more common among men because, as Donaghue puts it, we live in a culture "where women aren't empowered to ask for what they want sexually." All we know for sure is that nothing about our fascination with pee is new.

They used urine for everything in Ancient Rome, from invisible ink for secret messages—the alleged origin of the expression "read between the lines"—to teeth whitener. Piss was so valuable back then that those who sold it had to pay a specific tax. Pee has also been an essential part of the arts. Taschen's tome Erotica Universalis has pictures of paintings, mosaics, and wood carvings of pee-related sex acts that go all the way back to 100 AD. In literature, you find stories of erotic pee going way back as well. Most famously is Marquise de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom, the 18th century book about four libertines who liked to drink urine.

Then there was Havelock Ellis, an English physician who studied human sexuality in the early 20th century. Ellis wasn't just one of the first people to write about urophilia as a fetish, he was also one of the first to openly admit to being into it—something he traced back to the fact that as a teenager, he would sponge his mother's back while she peed. Other key moments in urine history include Lori Wagner peeing on a corpse in the Gore Vidal-written film Caligula (1979), the R. Kelly scandal in 2002 ("a real low moment in the history of it all," noted a fetish expert I consulted), and a sly confession from Ricky Martin in an interview (2006). You could almost say that by the time golden showers made that cameo in Sex and the City (2000), it had actually jumped the shark.

The Sex and the City storyline (where Carrie dated a politico played by John Slattery who liked to get peed on) is the scenario of piss play that we understand the best—namely, the idea that powerful dudes like it because they're turned on when they're dominated and defiled. But that concept only appears to be correct part of the time.

"Sometimes people like this because they find getting defiled arousing. While to others, it has nothing to do with that and instead just feels wild and uninhibited and taboo without being dangerous," says sex therapist and author Dr. Gloria Brame. One thing both Brame and Donaghue agree is bullshit is the notion that having a fetish like this means something disturbing or titillating happened to you during your formative years.

"The old Freudian thinking is that people are trying to resolve trauma and that can be true but for many people, something they fetishize is something they associate with pleasure," says Brame. Echoes Donaghue, "There's no universal meaning [to this behavior] because everyone's going to come to it with a different association. Some will find it demeaning, while others will see it as wanting more of the person."

Indeed, a former dominatrix I spoke to told me that one of her golden shower clients was a high-powered doctor and the other a sweet, nebbishy guy who carried around a small wooden fake toilet he'd had made. The nerdy one would put the toilet on his face and she'd squat above it and let her golden liquid fall into his mouth while he moaned.

It seems like just as you develop a stereotype about who's into this fetish, another person comes along who disproves it. And that, of course, doesn't take into account the many people who'd never come clean about their predilection for piss. Brame told me a sex educator she knew held a class on the topic and it was the best-attended lecture he ever gave with the fewest questions asked by the attendees. Reading between those lines, potty play may be, for many people, their best kept secret.

Follow Anna David on Twitter.

On Friday, as a sort of criminal justice swan song for Barack's Obama administration, the feds unveiled a scathing report about policing in the president's hometown of Chicago. Given the Windy City just saw its most violent year in decades—with over 750 people killed by gun violence in 2016—and was rocked by protests over police killings of people of color, the report's conclusions didn't exactly come as a shock. But it will be left to the Trump administration, and a Justice Department likely helmed by Alabama US Senator Jeff Sessions, to compel any changes in how Chicago cops treat their fellow citizens.

The feds' attention was drawn in large part from the fatal shooting of Laquan McDonald, a black teenager, by white police officer Jason Van Dyke in October 2014. Van Dyke has been charged with murder, but cases like his—where a police officer actually sees criminal indictment for killing unarmed civilians—remain the exception to a macabre national rule. And even when officers do get charged, they are extremely rarely convicted, as last month's mistrial in the North Charleston, South Carolina killing of Walter Scott made excruciatingly clear.

For some perspective on how Chicago police are responding to the litany of accusations against their department, and what officers on the beat expect in terms of federal enforcement from the next administration in Washington, we reached out to a nearly 20-year veteran of the Chicago PD's Bureau of Patrol. The officer, who asked to remain anonymous as cops are not typically allowed to speak to the press, has mainly been working the city's violent south and west sides. He deals daily with some of the grave challenges faced by police in the city, often bringing closure to families by solving homicides and other murders, and at times working his contacts on the streets to help prevent further bloodshed.

The officer spoke with VICE about the Justice Department report, general crime trends in Chicago, and what Donald Trump means for his city.

VICE: This has been an especially violent year in Chicago, leading some to speculate that officers are taking a hands-off approach to crime prevention in the wake of the release of the Laquan McDonald video and related protests in the city and across America. We've heard that a fair amount from police leaders, union officials, and even FBI Director James Comey. Is there any truth to it?
Veteran Chicago Cop: Certainly, but it's not as simple as that. Officers have found themselves under increased scrutiny for several years, with public and political expectations growing beyond reason. With every action taken by officers available for slow motion and repeated review, encounters that unfold in seconds can be be examined again and again for hours.

The overwhelming majority of officers are acting in good faith, performing their jobs to the best of their abilities and training. The rapidity of these actions—the speed at which they occur and at which officers must observe, interpret, and react—must be considered. This is why the standard of "reasonableness" exists. When the findings of these reviews [of individual acts of use of force] are not reasonable, officers are left confused and wary. Add to this the fact that the promotional process beyond lieutenant is largely a political one, and many bosses are not willing to risk their careers to defend their officer's actions if those actions are questioned. If officers feel that their own department will not defend them, especially for the sake of political expediency, they question whether it is wise to act beyond that which is minimally required at all.

Finally, this is a city and department that will nickel and dime itself to death. There are not enough cars for officers, and half of those that we do have have holes in the floorpans, missing parts, wires hanging out of the dash, non-functioning air or heat, half the car's paint missing, or are missing computers. We receive no training outside two-minute-long roll call videos. There is a distinct sentiment of: Hey, this department doesn't care about me or give me the minimum tools I need—and they expect me to use—to do my job. Why should I go out of my way to give back my all to them?

OK, but how did you and fellow officers react to the Justice Department report that accused cops of using wildly excessive force in a systematic way?
Many of the officers I've spoken with have expected this outcome, so they are not shocked or angered beyond what they already were. The city and the department do not provide us with the tools, equipment, or manpower to be effective, and cases that reach a courtroom are thrown out or are negotiated down so that even the arrests we do manage to make are dismissed time and time again. Those that do receive convictions serve ridiculous portions of their sentences, like 18 months of a seven-year bid. Who is at fault here? It's the city, the county, and the department. They have done everything in their power to weaken our ability to be effective law enforcement agents and they have systematically destroyed morale.

Besides your belief that some offenders are getting off too easy and the issues you raised about resources and morale, what else can explain this year's uptick in violence?
Vocal elements within the community have demanded a more "hands off" approach from police. Decreases in arrests and street stops is not just some angry reaction from police in light of recent criticisms—though that does certainly play a part. Within this city alone, we've seen calls for the elimination of cash bonds and the wholesale disbanding of the police—the Reader even ran disbanding the police as a cover story. The newly elected State's Attorney, in the midst of the highest murder tally in almost 20 years, has not said that decreasing violence and increasing public safety are her top priorities, but rather it's the investigation of police. What message is being sent to Chicagoans? It's that the police are the bad guys and that the criminals are poorly treated across the criminal justice system. Does anybody reasonable believe that such a posture does not serve to embolden the criminal element? It's possible to do both: to hold police and criminals accountable for their actions. It's what the citizens of Chicago—and every city and town—should be demanding of their governments.

But some of the videos released in the past year show officers engaging in what many people agree is highly questionable use of lethal force. Don't you think that makes some of the anger towards the department and its officers justified?
There's an expression in law enforcement that says "awful but lawful." It's the recognition that the use of force is never pretty. This is not an excuse for officers who engage in use of force outside department guidelines or the law, but rather the recognition that just because it's violent, that doesn't mean it violates policy or the law. The public doesn't understand, to a large degree, what the use of force policy is and why it's crafted the way it is. This is a failing of the city and the department, who should be working much harder at engaging the public on this issue. As far as "highly questionable," this is a subjective term and the reason why use of force incidents are investigated.

Gotcha. But Chicago Police consulted with the public in drafting a new use of force policy. Is that new policy any clearer than the previous one?
The previous policy was not unclear, and the use of force model was not unique to Chicago; it's a model widely used by other agencies. When officers act outside this policy, they should be disciplined—it's that simple. The type and scope of that discipline should take into account both the circumstances and the officer's intent. One of the issues, in my mind, is that we've given officers so many tools—a good thing—that we've begun to expect them to make judgement calls between exceptionally similar tools that they should not be expected to make: You used your taser, why didn't you use your [pepper] spray? You used your [pepper] spray, why didn't you use your baton? You used your baton, why didn't you use your taser? Again, we are talking about incidents that can unfold in seconds.

We are left with two options: provide a multitude of tools and allow for a spectrum of force responses that recognize equivalency between many tools, or take tools away and have far fewer options. As far as the new policy, it serves only to confuse matters. Police officers work in the profession of law enforcement. When offenders violate the law, we are mandated and trained to enforce the law by taking an offender into custody. Officers should be—and always have been—required to use the least amount of force necessary to take an offender into custody, and we are provided that wide range of tools and force spectrum to do so. A duty to retreat, however, runs absolutely counter to our mandate. If officers are expected to retreat each time an offender engages or is likely to engage in violence to our arrest attempts, what will happen?

Fair enough, but the Chicago PD's history includes sustained allegations of torture of black suspects and a strong code of silence, which it's fair to say have eroded faith in the system. Shouldn't cops in Chicago be held responsible for that chasm of trust? And shouldn't it be up to them to fix it?
Mistrust in police has been a huge issue in the national discussion about law enforcement over the past few years. When officers engage in unlawful or unethical conduct, that mistrust is earned. Law enforcement, as a profession, must do a better job of identifying officers who engage in such conduct and prosecuting or firing them. At the same time, we must guard ourselves against labeling all police officers as unworthy of public trust. Again, a more proactive approach at identifying and firing those officers demonstrably unsuited to remain police would make tremendous strides toward re-establishing trust with communities. Do mistrust of police and decreased perceptions of legitimacy affect crime clearance rates? Of course they play a role. However, claiming that these are responsible for increases in violence is inaccurate and incomplete. There is a distinct difference between a citizen's lack of trust in and failure to speak with police, and young men and women shooting each other in our streets. Those young men and women don't engage in violence because they don't trust the police—they do it because they are in rival gangs, or because of something said on social media. They do it because they don't know another way to resolve their conflicts, or properly manage their emotions. We do them—and ourselves—a disservice when we reduce violence to simply a lack of trust in police.

President-elect Donald Trump has at times been vocal about violence in Chicago, calling out Mayor Rahm Emanuel directly, and during the campaign assailing a vague policy of being "not tough." The Justice Department report seems to show the opposite—that cops are very aggressive, unlawfully so, in Chicago. So I put it to you: Can the city's gun violence really be helped simply by more heavy-handed police work?
I disagree that the report shows the opposite. "Tough" does not necessarily mean "heavy-handed." The national discussion in recent years regarding law enforcement has demanded transparency and accountability from police. I think we need to go further—we need transparency and accountability for the criminal justice system. Cook County uses the felony review process, so that most crimes that are clearly felonies are not ever even charged as such if an [assistant state's attorney] can figure out some way to avoid it. Those cases that do make it to court—felony or not—have shamefully low conviction rates. When someone commits a crime, where is the accountability for those actions the criminal chose to engage in? Why are certain cases dropped? Why are convictions so hard to secure? Why are people serving such short portions of their sentences? When those people commit violent acts again, who is held accountable?

This is not a question of more "heavy-handed" policing, it's a question of making sure that those arrested are held accountable and serve the time they should serve, and holding politicians and judges accountable when they do not.

Check out this VICE News report on how 2016 was Chicago's most violent year in decades.

Can you tell us more about what, specifically, officers are saying about Trump, and whether they think Justice Department will actually force major changes on CPD as it has in other cities under the Obama administration?
The Chicago Police Department is comprised of a multitude of individuals, each subscribing to his or her own political beliefs. It's wrong to paint with a broad brush and suggest there is an overwhelming sense of joy or relief at Trump's election. I've spoken to just as many officers who are unnerved by his win or wary of his presidency, and for a multitude of reasons—national defense, possible economic policies—not just criminal justice policy.

Among those who are pleased with the election's outcome, there seems to be a hope that, as far as criminal justice policy goes, there will be a return to accountability that flows both ways: that while officers are held to greater scrutiny and made accountable for their actions, those people who choose to engage in criminal activity will be held accountable for their actions. Over the past several years, there has been a concerted effort to move from that accountability to a culture of excusing. Those who engage in criminal acts are not responsible for their actions because of "X."

But what concrete changes are cops expecting after federal intervention?
I believe many of the findings in the report are accurate, but that many of the redresses will be focused in the wrong places. Officers don't write policy, they don't hire, they don't set budgets, and they don't sentence offenders or release them early. Financial priorities—or lack thereof—have cut department budgets across the city. The promotional process, despite what the DOJ report asserts, remains a clouted process; those who have the clout get most of the "merit" promotions. Those same bosses shield those officers who have done wrong from appropriate discipline. None of these decisions or actions are undertaken by the working police, who are striving each day to provide the best service that they can in the above-described environment.

If the DOJ wishes to insert itself, it can do so most effectively in two places. First, it needs to address the above: the well known, often joked about, and unacceptably accepted "Chicago political machine." Second, it needs to put one of its feet on the same side as the police and say, "The city and its police department have issues that will be addressed, but there are issues in the community that need to be addressed as well." A culture of violence that rides a wave of blame will eventually consume itself and everything around it. If we're talking about addressing policing issues, we need to also be talking about fixing those issues that surround and drive it, too.

One thing the report said that I imagine you agree with is that morale is very poor among most cops in the city. Does that square with your experience?
Morale is low, of course.

Follow Justin Glawe on Twitter.

The question that kept replaying in my mind as I investigated vigilante "pedophile hunting" in Canada is "Why would anyone do this?"

Why would a civilian spend every waking hour posing as a child on the internet, engaging with adults in sexually explicit conversations, and then meet those alleged perverts in public places, scream at them, and film the whole encounter for the world to see?

Read VICE Canada's series on vigilante pedophile hunting

• Note from the Editor 
• Part One: The Real Story Behind the Rise of Creep Catchers
  
• Part Two: Predators or Prey? Creep Catchers Accused of Targeting People with Physical and Mental Disabilities
• Part Three: A Pedophile Opens Up About Being Targeted By Vigilantes

As bizarre as it sounds, that's what the so-called Creep Catchers do. Some of them, including Ryan Laforge, president of the Surrey chapter, have quit their jobs to pursue pedophile hunting full-time. Their rabid audiences eat it up. Each video, posted on Facebook and YouTube, receives thousands (and sometimes hundreds of thousands) of views, likes, and shares.

Most of these vigilantes will tell you they're doing this to protect children and raise awareness about the perverts that live amongst us. But research into the phenomenon of public shaming suggests there could be something more sinister at play.

Erin Buckels, a PhD student at the University of British Columbia, studies the "dark tetrad" of personality traits: sadism, psychopathy, narcissism, and machiavellianism.

She believes the popularity of pedophile hunting could be linked to sadism and psychopathy.

"There's direct sadism where people enjoy hurting others and vicarious sadism where people enjoy watching others get hurt," Buckels told VICE.

"It's similar to the thrill people get from watching violent sports, mixed martial arts, there's like this bloodlust almost."

While everyone has a little bit of these traits, Buckels said vigilantes exhibit higher levels of them, making them manipulative and lacking in empathy.

She said psychopathy is linked to a recklessness in behaviour—Justin Payne, a Brampton, Ontario pedophile hunter has swung off the side of a moving car while attempting to catch an alleged predator. He told VICE it's easy to judge what he does as reckless, but that the risks he takes are calculated. 

"Given the things I've heard and seen in the chats or on the phone or on a webcam, I'd say I'm more in control rather than reckless. I don't escalate anything further than a conversation and maybe a little bit of verbal assaulting." 

Buckels also noted that psychopathy can  lead to people being more deceptive, which would "really come in handy with luring pedophiles, pretending to be a child." 

"It's almost as if they're using their psychopathic tendencies for good but at the same time, it's coming from a dark place."

She said the positive reinforcement from outsiders reinforces the behaviour.

Surrey's Laforge has offered to live stream busts in exchange for 500 or 1,000 likes on Facebook, and his followers have obliged, posting comments like "popcorn is ready." Payne is regularly called a hero; one of his fans even got his name tattooed on her left shoulder.

"Without such followers, they probably wouldn't be doing this," said Buckels.

Public shaming is nothing new, but instead of a public stoning, the modern incarnation typically takes place online. Though many Creep Catchers and other vigilantes don't get along with each other, they generally have certain things in common: they tend to be white men in their 30s, with blue collar jobs in construction, if they have jobs at at all. Laforge has a criminal history, and has admitted to spending years as a drug dealer.

"I think if you're unemployed and… the perception is there publicly that you're helping capture people who are preying on children, it's something to be applauded. That you're doing society a service,"  Brandon University sociology professor Christopher Schneider told VICE.

Nicole Legate, an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the Illinois Institute of Technology, researches the impact of "excluding others" online, similar to shaming or trolling, on the person doing the excluding.

She's found that the people who are doing the bullying tend to feel just as distressed, shameful, and guilty, as those who are targeted by it. But that doesn't stop their behaviour, it just fuels a cycle.

Legate works with the "self-determination theory" which looks at how autonomy, relatedness, and competency motivates people's behaviour.

"Someone that may not have a lot of great relationships, who may not have a job that they really care about… those are circumstances that are going to thwart someone's needs. And people engage in all sorts of behaviours, sometimes really misguided, as a way to fulfill those needs."

Payne told VICE pedophile hunting is a job he's committed to keep doing.

"I lose my shit based on what I've read and heard and seen. In the beginning there was a small rush, now it's just work to me."

Follow Manisha Krishnan on Twitter.

Now that I've played The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild—on the new Nintendo Switch, no less—my anticipation for it has as good as reached its peak. How can I possibly say no to a new Zelda adventure set within a sprawling and gorgeous open world, a new Zelda that pops from the screen—sorry, the screens—like no Zelda before it? I can't, at all. Whether on the forthcoming Switch or Nintendo's outgoing Wii U console, I will be playing this game when it comes out in early March. I should probably get some blankets in, ready for the long evenings.

In advance of the game's release, I spoke to long-term Zelda series producer and director Eiji Aonuma. He's been a part of what is probably Nintendo's second-most-famous franchise since 1998's critically acclaimed Ocarina of Time, and is the perfect person to discuss the series' evolution to this point, and also where it could potentially go in the future.

Read more on Waypoint

President Obama is set to address the media one final time as POTUS on Wednesday before he leaves the White House at the end of the week.

The outgoing president, who is currently riding high on a wave of elevated approval ratings, will likely address his decision to commute a large part of Chelsea Manning's 35-year prison sentence. On Tuesday, the White House announced via a press release that the former soldier detained at Fort Leavenworth military prison for leaking classified military documents to WikiLeaks will now be released on May 17, 2017—rather than 2045.

This could be the last civil White House press conference we'll get see for a few years, considering President-elect Trump's ongoing feud with news organizations he doesn't agree with. Incoming White House chief of staff Reince Priebus even hinted that the new administration would be making some "changes" to the press briefings going forward, and Trump told Fox and Friends this week that he might pick and choose which journalists are allowed in.

On the bright side, maybe at the next one we'll all finally find out what was actually inside all of those folders Trump wheeled out as a prop at his presser last week. Only time will tell.

In any case, watch Obama's press conference via livestream at 2:15 PM EST below.

"So you've had three marriages. Do you still believe in the institution of marriage?" Yes, this is my opening gambit. Lars Ulrich pauses, looks taken aback and after one beat too long replies: "Um…yes, yes I do. I've lived a lot. A third marriage… you save the best for last."

"My dad's been married three times too," I offer.

"Right in line with our demographic, I guess," responds Lars, wryly.

As first dates go I'm really knocking this out of the park early. Sitting at an outdoor table at Robert DeNiro's swank Tribeca eatery with the Danish drummer—arguably Metallica's most recognizable and outspoken member—I can feel the red start to rise in my cheeks. Nothing left to do but blunder on: "Do you consider yourself a romantic?"

"Um… this isn't stuff that I think about a lot," he says. "I guess I would consider myself a romantic. If hard pressed, yes. Yeah! I haven't had a lot of these conversations… I guess I would consider myself a romantic."

"Is this freaking you out?" I ask. "Am I being too direct?"

"Oh no… it's just because I'm in new album mode," he says.

Read more on Noisey

I grew up in a musical vacuum, mostly limited to traditional piano lessons and whatever albums my parents listened to. Some other bits of music trickled in over the radio or from movies and TV—Christmas music, children's songs—but the selection was pretty small by any standard.

I didn't have older siblings to help act as gateways into larger musical realms, and my parents wouldn't allow cable television, which meant no MTV. I was happy enough with my piano lessons and what little else made its way onto my radar that I never felt the need to go actively search for music.

It wasn't until high school that my wider musical and cultural education really began. My ears, my eyes, and my mind were opened to a soul expanding menagerie of sounds, sights, and ideas. I had a friend, Brian, who was considered a trouble maker and class clown. I thought he was very funny, a bit scary, and definitely provocative. One day he came bounding into class with a glint in his eye, and a wide, wicked grin.

He was clutching a wrinkled and greasy medium-sized brown paper bag, stained from his trembling palms. The way he was holding it (like a closely guarded secret) made me guess its contents were something illicit—pornography or fireworks, I figured. After class, he crept up to me, carefully scanning the area to make sure we weren't being surveilled. He unfurled the top of the bag.

"Look," he said, under his breath, delicately pulling out five CDs. "It's called death metal..."

He held a stack of jewel cases, and stared at them in reverie, like they were (un)holy, like a priest holding the eucharist.

The plastic cases looked extremely used, almost as though they'd been circulating around the whole school and had only gotten to me after a long odyssey, frosted over with scratches. Somehow it seemed like this special genre of music had intentionally escaped us, and now, almost mystically, was reaching over from the other side to initiate us.

The five albums in that bag, I still remember very clearly: Mental Funeral by the band Autopsy; Butchered at Birth by Cannibal Corpse; World Demise and Cause of Death by Obituary, and Harmony Corruption by Napalm Death (not as gory, but still intriguing). These CDs, I still have them. Though I've listened to them so much they're barely playable now. I've since bought many duplicate copies.

I remember racing home after school. I didn't know what to expect, but I had carefully studied the sticky booklets of each album and began to get delightfully nervous. I wasn't sure I was ready for this experience. This was definitely out of my age range—I was 15. What the hell was this stuff? Before I'd even had a chance to press play it had already made a deep impression on me.

Once home, I put World Demise in my humble stereo and turned it up. From the second the first drum fill and vocals kicked in to start the album, I was floored. It was one of those rare experiences where you realize you've been looking for this unquantifiable and unknowable thing, and weren't even aware it was missing from your life until you're suddenly face to face with it—like meeting your soulmate or having an orgasm for the first time. I was immediately and completely enthralled. I realized I had crossed a line and that I would never be able to return to life as it was before.

Obituary in particular blew my mind. The drumming style and especially the vocals were totally unlike anything I'd ever heard. The singer, John Tardy, had a voice I didn't think was possible. It was as though he was crying or being tortured, but in a beautiful way. His vocal cords sounded like they connected all the way to the pit of his stomach, where he was able to unearth a deep, emotional anguish. It was as though he had absorbed all the world's pain, suffering, and misery, and had run them like an electrical current through his own body and into my soul. All of humanity's despair seemed to be contained within his lungs and released through his mouth. But rather than make me feel sad or depressed, it made me feel good. It made me feel amazing.

It feels like it was designed specifically to summon up an explosive physical and emotional electricity that overtakes me in a gleeful way.

This was something I'd heard in other music, but only in small spurts—the screeching wail of James Brown, the frantic drum solo before a song's big finale. Usually, with other bands or artists, they would build up to a moment of intensity, like the crest of a wave, and it would hit hard, but be short-lived, fleeting. But it became clear to me as I listened to these death metal CDs, that this entire genre was based on extending that explosive feeling for an entire song, an entire album, an entire career—not just a quick crescendo or a peak that served to counter the bulk of more subdued music. In death metal, that high mark was starting point. It used the furthest extreme of other rock music genres as its base line, its foundation, and pushed forward from there. It's specifically designed to exceed excess. I was spinning in ecstasy.

Much to my amazement, I've not become tired of death metal at all. Its hold over me has only grown stronger over the years. This music is now in my DNA. I've listened to some the albums I discovered in that paper bag so often that now I can sing every note and air drum every part by heart. This isn't a boast about my musical acuity, this is a testament to the music's compelling and memorable power.

Death metal gives me a source of reliable raw energy. It feels like it was designed specifically to summon up an explosive physical and emotional electricity that overtakes me in a gleeful way. It has this strange sublimating effect.

If I'm in a horrible mood and I put on this angry music, it makes me happy. It's like two negatives cancel each other out or giving Ritalin to someone with ADD. Engaging with this explosive violent music makes me feel peaceful and focused.

I don't play death metal. How could I ever dream of competing with the existing masters of metallic malevolence? Instead, I just bow down and thank these unique individuals for devoting such care to their craft and for bringing so much unhinged joy into existence. This death gives me life.

Follow Andrew W.K. on Twitter.

According to two separate government agencies, 2016 was the hottest year since scientists started keeping records of this stuff back in 1880. Earth's temperature broke the previous record set in 2015, which, in turn, set the record the year before.

Both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) released their independent reports Wednesday, saying that 2016 was hotter than any previous year—though, because of differing methodologies, they disagreed on how much.

NOAA found that average surface temperature of the land and oceans was 58.69 degrees Fahrenheit, .07 degrees warmer than 2015 and 1.69 degrees warmer than the 20th century average. NASA, on the other hand, said 2016 was .22 degrees warmer, and noted that 16 of the 17 warmest years on earth have occurred since 2001. The agencies use different methods to calculate the rapid warming of the Arctic, which explains the deviation, but the general takeaway is the same: the future is going to be warmer, wetter, and more dangerous.

Coincidentally, the reports come on the same day that President-elect Trump's nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, climate change denier Scott Pruitt, had his Senate confirmation hearing. After Friday's inauguration, Trump, who has called global warming a "hoax" that he believes is perpetuated by the Chinese, will not only oversee the EPA, but also the NOAA and NASA. Both agencies are scheduled to explain the findings to the new administration after January 20.

Those who do not believe in the established science of climate change will likely point to El Niño—a cyclical warming pattern in the Pacific Ocean that occurred in 2016—as the cause for the record temperatures. The scientists responsible point out that El Niño is a factor, but in addition to man-made global warming. Today's temperatures far surpass those of 1998, another El Niño year that was, at the time, the hottest on record.

In the United States, it was only the second hottest year on record everywhere except Alaska, which had its hottest year ever. This underscores that the Arctic is heating up faster than the rest of the Earth, which is a particular danger, especially for the people who are living there.

From VICE Documentary Films and executive producer Michael K. Williams comes the feature-length documentary film SHELTER, which follows the lives of homeless youth in New Orleans over the course of a year as they navigate financial struggles, health, and mental illness. Brothers Brent and Craig Renaud tell the raw and emotional stories of the kids who seek shelter at the Covenant House on the outskirts of New Orlean's French Quarter, many of whom have already been labeled as drug addicts, schizophrenics, criminals, and outcasts.

Check out Ida Eva Neverdahl's Tumblr, blog, and Instagram.

This past Sunday, a band of protesters staged a "cough-in" at Trump International Hotel and Tower in New York City. Not a sit-in, but yes, a riotous round of vigorous coughing. Here's why.

The protest—which could have been mistaken for an overly enthusiastic amateur improv group, were it not for the accompanying signage and chants—was aimed squarely at President-elect Donald Trump, who is at the helm of the pending repeal of the Affordable Care Act, but those most immediately affected by the cough-in were the staff and patrons of Jean-Georges, the flagship restaurant of Michelin-starred French chef Jean-Georges Vongerichten, and its sister restaurant.

Mark Milano, who helped organize the event on Facebook, said that the protest was meant to bring attention to health care reform, and so about 20 members of "anti-Trump" activist group Rise & Resist made brunch reservations at the swanky restaurant on Sunday before unleashing a torrent of coughing in the dining room.

"Join Rise & Resist at 1 Central Park West on the park side of the hotel for a protest to tell Trump, Ryan and Price to not destroy our healthcare!" the event page "Bring your healthcare-related signs and your passion! Bring a friend!"

Group members certainly heeded this call to action, as protest signs and passionate coughs were ample, as was the turnout, according to those who were present.

This past Sunday, a band of protesters gathered at Jean-Georges in Trump International Hotel and Tower and coughed like crazy. Here's why. Read more on MUNCHIES

On January 4, Congress swung open its doors and the fools rushed in to deal 2017's first critical blows to the Affordable Care Act. Those who stand to lose the most from repealing the law include old people, poor people, and the usual unluckiest 50 percent of the population: women. Getting rid of penalties for those without insurance and cutting funds for the expanded coverage through Medicaid (which currently helps folks living near the poverty line get health care) would be a death blow for Obamacare, which means over 20 million people are at risk for losing health insurance. Many more than that would be saddled with higher prices for prescriptions and preventative care screenings—including mammograms. And of course, there's birth control.

Women now have a few options. They can stock up on contraception and hope they've snagged enough of the morning-after pill to outlast the Trumpocalypse. In previous years (and for now, still), they could turn to Planned Parenthood, a trusted partner for women in need of birth control or consultations about their health. Sadly, the organization is once again the target of Paul Ryan's deepest, darkest fantasies, which is why the Speaker of the House has vowed to cut its federal funding as one of the first steps to dismantling Obamacare.

Read more on Tonic

While apples and bananas are commonly used as smoking apparatuses, many of us forget that certain vegetables can serve the same purpose just as well. On this episode of 'Smokeables,' our resident weed expert Abdullah Saeed grabs a knife and a few bamboo skewers and explains how to make a reusable bowl piece out of a garden-variety carrot.

British Columbia's opioid crisis took 914 lives in 2016, according to new statistics released by the BC Coroner. The province's chief medical officer Perry Kendall called the revelation "surprising and disheartening."

December proved to be the deadliest month of the year, with 142 overdose deaths recorded. Fifty-one of those deaths were in Vancouver, averaging more than one per day. The new numbers make 2016 one of the deadliest years on record, stemming from a spike that began in November.

The year began with a rash of fatal overdoses, setting a record of 82 overdoses in January. At the time, officials speculated that as many as 800 could die last year. Though the pace of deaths slowed in the spring, due in part to efforts to equip firefighters with the opioid-blocking drug naloxone, the proportion of deaths where fentanyl was detected rose to 60 percent, up from 31 percent the previous year.

Read more on VICE News.

It doesn't look like the president-elect's Russia problem is going away anytime soon. On Wednesday, McClatchy DC reported that six law enforcement and intelligence agencies—including the FBI, CIA, and NSA—have been conducting an investigation into how Russia may have secretly paid hackers in the US to influence the election. Perhaps more explosively, investigators are questioning whether or not anyone close to Trump's campaign knew about such efforts.

The inter-agency group—which also includes members of the DOJ, the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence—was put together back in the spring in an effort to investigate Trump's possible ties to Russia. (That timeline indicates that the investigation has nothing to do with more recent news reports centered on unconfirmed and wild claims of Russian operatives possessing compromising information on Trump.)

In recent months, the group's goal has shifted to finding out who financed the DNC hacks and how the money got to the US, according to two sources close to the matter. Investigators are looking into allegations that the Russian government may have gotten money to hackers in the US via a program used to pay Russian American pensioners. The group is also looking into the possibility that money was passed between intermediaries, and then ultimately to the hackers.

Additionally, investigators are looking into a few people close to Trump's campaign and businesses, as well as Russians who might have had connections to the president-elect. Trump has repeatedly denied having anything to do with Russia, though he praised Putin during the campaign.

Earlier this month, the US intelligence community released a declassified report officially determining that Russian president Vladimir Putin was behind the hacking of Democratic Party emails and did so in an effort to "undermine faith in the US democratic process."

Ky Peterson has been waiting to hear back about his parole request for nearly three months. Peterson—a black transgender man who is serving a 20-year sentence in a women's prison for involuntary manslaughter after killing his rapist, which he alleges he did in self-defense—submitted his request in October, along with a post-incarceration plan. According to Pinky Shear, an Atlanta-based community advocate and Ky's partner of three years, it was "extensive." It included medical and financial planning, letters from supporters, proof of housing, a job offer, a plan for continuing education, and a letter from Ky himself detailing all that he accomplished while incarcerated. Despite its thorough nature, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles has yet to render a decision—one that his supporters expected to be delivered by early December at the latest.

In the meantime, Peterson is pushing forward with a different kind of request: top surgery, a procedure involving breast reduction and chest reconstruction that more than one third of all trans men pursue, according to a 2015 survey from the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), one of the nation's leading trans rights advocacy groups. If successful, Ky would become the second trans inmate in the country to receive state-funded gender confirmation surgery while incarcerated, following Shiloh Quine in California earlier this month, and he would set a statewide precedent in Georgia for those who follow. "He's determined to continue to push forward and keep fighting for trans rights in this facility," said Shear.

One could argue that Peterson's case highlights just how much incarcerated trans people's access to gender-affirming medical care has improved over the past few years. At the same time, it underscores how limited that access remains.

Trans people are subject to disproportionate levels of violence and discrimination while they are incarcerated, just as they are in the outside world. The experience of Chelsea Manning provides a notable (if not wholly representative) example—the military whistleblower, whose 35-year prison sentence was commuted by President Obama on Tuesday, has frequently been held in solitary confinement throughout her sentence. While she was allowed to wear gender-affirming clothing and cosmetics and seek speech and hormone therapy, prison officials forced her to adhere to keep her hair short as a security measure. Despite being diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2010 and coming out as a transgender woman in 2013, Manning has had to take extreme measures—lawsuits, hunger strikes—in order to have her medical needs recognized.

More than a third of incarcerated trans adults report being sexually victimized by staff and other inmates, according to the US Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, and 85 percent of queer and trans inmates surveyed in 2015 by the LGBTQ prisoner support network Black and Pink said they have been held in solitary confinement. Trans women—particularly Black, Latinx, multiracial, and Indigenous trans women—were one of the most at-risk groups for "protective" solitary confinement, a measure that has been linked to increases in suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among prisoners.

Attempts to access gender-affirming medical care while incarcerated often leads to difficulties for trans people. And trans inmates are far from the only incarcerated people who are systematically denied access to adequate medical care. Health care access is "abysmal" for all American prisoners, said Jason Lydon, the National Director of Black and Pink. That said, "transgender and gender-nonconforming folks experience greater inequities in all aspects of incarceration," he noted, "and that is true with respect to health care."

The 2015 NCTE survey found that nearly one in four trans people undergoing HRT prior to incarceration were denied access to hormones while in prison. While the survey did not ask respondents to specify whether hormones were withheld as punishment, Lydon said that such measures are not unheard of.

Gender-affirming care is often denied as a result of inexperience with caring for trans patients on the part of prison medical staff; for example, an incarcerated trans person who wishes to receive gender-affirming health care might first need to obtain a psychological evaluation in order to get diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The request process is often "really long" and "unnecessarily bureaucratic," according to Pooja Gehi, the Executive Director of progressive legal advocacy group the National Lawyers Guild, and it inherently privileges the will of the prison staff over the needs of the incarcerated.

Even with an evaluation, it can be hard for trans-identified patients to receive proper medical care. Sometimes, they fail to meet the exact criteria for a gender dysphoria diagnosis as laid out by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which excludes many gender-nonconforming and nonbinary people from its parameters, and some prisons will deny care on this basis. Even with an evaluation, trans patients are routinely denied HRT if they weren't on hormones before they were incarcerated.Requests for evaluation don't always lead to one, and they certainly do not always lead to a diagnosis necessary for inmates to receive gender-affirming care.

Such care is often cost-prohibitive, as well. Prisons are required to provide medical care to those they house, but, as Black and Pink's 2015 survey noted, that care "does not need to be free." Respondents reported doctor fees as high as $100 per year, a daunting amount for the incarcerated; forty-three percent of those surveyed said that those costs prevented them from receiving the care they needed.

Advocates for incarcerated trans people say that medical staff and those who field psychological evaluations in prisons need to be competent enough in trans issues to handle all patients in their care. And Lydon and Gehi agreed that moving away from a strictly diagnostic model of medical care would better serve incarcerated trans people.

The ability to access gender-affirming clothing and other goods at commissary can go a long way toward improving the mental health of incarcerated trans people. Trans men are often housed in facilities for women, and trans women are often housed in facilities for men. When they're living in an environment that triggers gender dysphoria by its very design, having access to masculine-scented deodorant or bras and women's underwear—as found in Pennsylvania prisons, for example—can "have a huge impact on people's mental health," said Lydon.

Ky Peterson is one of countless incarcerated trans people housed in a facility that does not correspond with their gender identity."He has a really great sense of humor [about being a man housed in a women's prison]," according to Shear. "He tries to make the most of it the best he can." His upbeat attitude is no doubt helped by the gender-affirming medical care, including hormones, he has successfully petitioned for, not to mention the binders (chest-flattening undergarments) and boxer-style underwear (as opposed to more feminine panties) that he is now permitted to wear. But not every incarcerated person, trans or otherwise, is as optimistic as Peterson, nor do they all have such an extensive network of support fighting for them on the outside. Their medical well-being, much less their survival, shouldn't hinge on either.

(Top photo: the author)

President Barack Obama has wiped out the rest of Chelsea Manning's sentence, meaning she'll be released on the 17th of May this year. That was a nice thing to do. So I asked my Tinder matches what they thought of the decision, and about the nicest thing they've ever done.

MATCH ONE

MATCH TWO

MATCH THREE

MATCH FOUR

@nelliefaitheden