BT Is Mugging Its Customers

I've only got a basic broadband and TV deal with BT. My TV box does not play nicely with Amazon Prime.  They charged me for years for a mobile service I had not knowingly signed up for (which took two attempts to close down) and they have the gall to charge me for a full month for a service I won't be using because "them's da roolz." And the cost for what they bill as effectively the Rolls Royce of broadband service (but is definitely not)? £71-odd a month. Hell, no.

Okay, so it's my own fault for not really paying attention. I signed up for broadband with BT over 20 years ago because it was a trusted brand and I wanted TV and a phone service with it. 

Every once in a while, when I noticed my bills creeping up, I'd threaten to move to another provider, which resulted in much grovelling and some improvements. 

I signed up to Amazon Prime a few years ago for cheap TV streaming and immediately noticed issues with streaming via the box. To my great annoyance, BT would replace the box but the problem persisted. The annoying part? It works perfectly well on my mobile devices. It's the BT box that's the problem. So they're charging top dollar (well, pound, as I'm in the UK) for a substandard service with kit that doesn't work well with streaming channels such as ITVX and Amazon Prime. The you-know-what hit the proverbial fan when I started watching Prime more, and was constantly turning the everything off and on again to get a stuttering service, then discovered the size of my bills. I'd expected them to be somewhere around the £45 mark and was astonished to find them so high for what I was getting. 

The clingy customer service really doesn't help. It felt more like getting divorced than merely cancelling a service as they alternated between "t'other lot are rubbish, you will rue the day you left our bosom. They'll let you down, you'll see!" and "please stay, we can offer you a better deal with our amazing technicolor dreamcoat service and kit."

I've booked new provider Hyperoptic to install their new system on 6th September, which is why I'm writing this; BT want me to pay for a full month. Is anyone surprised that I'm annoyed?

Meanwhile, my new Fire Stick Lite has arrived, which will provide the TV service, and even with the cancellation charge of £33-odd, it's much cheaper than those clowns at BT can provide. 

I'll let you know how I get on.

I'll let you know how I get on.

Tickle V Giggle: Australia Is Officially Nuts

The media outlets that claim to counter misinformation are busily spreading it, presenting a man called Roxanne Tickle as a woman scorned who rightfully won justice against an evil bigot.

Just look at the state of them! I'm furious. According to that eejit Judge Robert Bromwich, any man who puts on a skirt and claims a feminine gender identity (which, let me remind you, is merely a personal belief or feelings about oneself) is an actual woman like me. No. That's not how it works. 

Women are human beings in our own right and men have no right to arrogate to themselves the right to define us in their own terms. Let us define ourselves.

I've been lectured over and over again by the vilest of men about how Ts have feelings, etc., but basically, if we express fear or discomfort around male people in our spaces, we are somehow defective. So only they have feelings of fear or discomfort. Only they are vulnerable. Only they are worthy of consideration. 

This is my contention: any man who denies us the right to exclusivity on the basis of our biological sex discriminates against us on the basis of sex. Moreover, he paternalistically arrogates to himself the right to define us and to make choices on our behalf, even when they are against our interests. He basically relegates us to slave status, demanding complete subservience at all times without question in every area of our lives. No. Hell, no.

Sall Grover needs your help to appeal this case. Give what you can, however meagre the amount. Every penny put towards this case asserts that women are a discrete sex class with demands, needs, and rights of our own. To let that man Tickle win lets every woman and girl down. It tells every man that we are nothing, that we're nobody and that only men have the right to make choices for us. 

Sall Grover must prevail!

EDI: We Need To Talk About Retail Fashion

 

What's wrong with this picture? At first glance it looks fine but a peek underneath shows a vast disparity between the idea of a suit for women and for men.

JK Rowling And The Irresponsible Media

 

She was right. They all know she's right but will they admit it? Hell, no. In fact, the left-leaning press is a) doubling down, and b) complaining about how toxic and divisive the subject of trans rights is. But whose fault is that?

Vice News Layoffs -- Get Woke, Go Broke

Vice News, that paragon of woke news blogging, has taken a little tumble off the cliff. But why? I think I know.

Gender Identity Is A Religious Cult: Discuss

 

It's been ten months since I wrote my last post. Since then, more cracks have appeared in the Stonewall dam as more subscribers jump ship and they prove to be a legal liability for those who are daft enough to take its advice. So why are so many people still clinging like grim death to the notion of gender identity?

It's not just Stonewall here in the UK—it's everywhere around the world, even India is getting in on the act. In the age of the internet it defies belief that whole countries are falling for this nonsense even as it wobbles in the West. How can they not know about France, Sweden, and Finland, pulling out of WPATH? Even the Dutch are re-thinking their Protocol and urging caution.

I think they're ignoring all of that because they're in the grip of a religious cult. It's the only rational explanation for the moral panic over "Evil TERFs who want to rob trans people of all of their rights" as exemplified by transgender poster child Katy Montgomerie, and the insistence that any contradiction of the trans creed narrative is an act of stochastic terrorism by disgusting bigots.

What exactly is a cult?

The best definition I've seen so far is,

A cult is a group or movement held together by a shared commitment to a charismatic leader or ideology. It has a belief system that has the answers to all of life's questions and offers a special solution to be gained only by following the leader's rules. - The Tennesseean

The dictionaries tend to describe them as "a system of religious veneration or devotion directed towards a particular figure or object" or "a small religious group... that has beliefs regarded by many as extreme..." 

Whether you're willing go accept this or not, gender identity ideology has a range of cultish aspects that people are increasingly becoming aware of.

Let's take a closer look at them.

1. Veneration or devotion. 

This tends to manifest in a rabidly aggressive response to criticism of any aspect of gender identity ideology or any person who claims a trans identity. While Yaniv is universally despised as a nasty paedophile creep, at least on the surface, woe beside anyone who dares to misgender him.

2. Mangled language/jargon

In her book "Cultish," Amanda Montell explains how cult leaders seek to "establish, through language, a clear way of demarcating between believers and non-believers." They also like to impress upon their members the notion that their tenets are rooted in science, tradition, or something just as authoritative. The difference is, of course that their science, tradition, or whatever, is special and exclusive, known and understood only by them. They're an in-crowd that only the obedient can ever be part of. So they talk about "cis" men and women, or when they really dig in, "cishet" men and women.

3. A creed to repeat

I used to be a member of the Pirate Party but fell out with them over gender identity ideology. I had noticed a tendency in one particular person (who was otherwise decent) to latch on to an opinion and cling to it like grim death no matter what. While his mantra-chanting shouldn't have surprised me as much as it did, the spectacle of others joining him in calling me a Nazi because I can't accept that Phil from Accounts is a woman because he says he is really freaked me out.

The creed: 

• Trans women are women. 
• Trans men are men.
• Non-binary identities are valid.

I know this because he chanted it at me before he blocked me. You don't question gender identity ideology. Ever. Other people have done this to me since then and I still think it's weird. Web designer (and person I used to respect) Ethan Marcotte linked a one line blog post on Twitter at least once: "Trans women are women." He blocked me for pointing out that this is a shibboleth to divide believers from infidels like me. I'm still an infidel, Ethan.

4. A system of religious beliefs 

The Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of religion has done nothing to dissuade me from calling gender identity ideology a religious cult. Read it. I really can't see a difference. Think about it: religions such as Christianity have a set of beliefs that members are expected to accept and live by no matter what; adherence to the faith that their beliefs are true facts is what marks out the faithful from the unbeliever. Well gender identity ideology is no different. I'm amused by people saying there is no such thing. Oh yeah? 

The OED describes ideology as "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy." Add some metaphysical considerations and you don't get to tell me I'm wrong about it being religious. 

The similarities with Scientology are to do with levels of exposure to the more extreme aspects of the belief system. That there's a fair amount of contradiction within the system is due to the hierarchy; those lower down the chain tend to have a rather Santa Claus-y, rose-tinted fairytale viewpoint while the more committed tend to express outlandish ideas that those lower down the chain disavow when confronted with them. For reasons I don't understand they don't get reprimanded for this as long as they stick to the creed.

The beliefs:

• Trans-substantiation - the idea that a man who has declared a feminine identity, even on a part-time basis, is actually a woman and should be treated as such at all times. 
• People are born transgender (despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary).
• There is "no difference" between "cis" women and transwomen. 
• "Cis" women should never have anything of their own as a group as this is exclusionary in and of itself. However, this should never be said out loud. If anyone asks the question, pull the race card and compare it to Jim Crow segregation. That'll show them!
• Transwomen have been using women's spaces since forever, unnoticed because they "pass." When they don't, play the terrified victim card. 
• At no point do perverted men ever fake being trans to gain access to women and girls. That's a transphobic myth spread by evil TERFs.
• Kids who display behaviour outside of gender norms are trans.
• Kids identified as trans should be put on puberty blockers ASAP to prevent them from committing suicide.
• Puberty blockers are harmless and reversible, a pause button on puberty to give kids time to work out who they are - despite the evidence to the contrary. 
• There is an ongoing conspiracy of hate against trans people; TERFs want to see all trans people robbed of healthcare and/or dead.
• Any attempt to establish a separate status for "cis" women and transwomen is, in and of itself, transphobic. So when "cis" women advocate for their rights on the basis of their needs as a sex class, it's transphobic because it excludes transwomen. 
• Any criticism of men or discussion of male violence is a transphobic dog whistle. 
• There is no such thing as autogynephilia (despite all the evidence to the contrary).
• There is no such thing as gender identity ideology (despite all the evidence to the contrary).
• TERFery/gender critical positions is an ideology. 
• All unbelievers and critics must be punished and/or excommunicated from society and rendered pariahs.

If it walks like a duck and goes quack, it's a duck. Make no mistake, this is an insidious cult whose tentacles reach deep into the corridors of power.

What can we do?

Thankfully the resistance is growing. As our institutions sever ties with Stonewall and its ilk and the excesses of trans ideology are revealed to the public (why sport and not prisons?), it's becoming more acceptable to speak out against gender identity nonsense and to call it out for what it is.

Every court case we win knocks another chip out of the wall. Every voice raised makes people ask questions about how this nonsense even got started and how it got so deeply embedded in our institutions. 

The Cass Report will be out soon enough; surely prosecutions for the reckless experiments on kids will follow.

And we can't legally get sacked for holding or expressing gender critical views as long as we're not abusive when we do.

So speak out. Ask questions. Don't worry if people turn against you, there are thousands more who'll join you. If you're afraid, ask for help. Join women's advocacy groups like Sex Matters and Fair Play For Women. Take part in public consultations and write to your MP. If someone abuses you, don't abuse back; show yourself to be the better person by graciously but firmly disagreeing. The tyranny is coming to an end. Let's speed its demise.

Misogyny Is Wallpaper. Discuss

 The 'moral panic' the left wibble on about does not exist; the real one is about the systematic erasure of women as a sex class in social and political discourse, and I believe we are damn right to panic. This is why.

There are five strands to this horrible trend are rooted in misogyny, that is, the hatred of women and the idea that we are, by our very nature as a sex class, inferior and therefore subordinate to men in every case and in every way:

• presenting women as a mixed sex class to accommodate male people who want in
• presenting the sexual and economic exploitation of women as empowering
• presenting women as a collection of body parts and bodily functions rather than as whole persons
• denying us the use of the word "women" to describe ourselves as a sex class, and
• presenting those women who object to this as monstrous bigots

 Okay, let's take a closer look at this.

"A woman with a penis!"

I first encountered this phenomenon in 2016, and at that time I had some questions, which basically boiled down to, "What the hell? No. Why should I accept this without question?" I later learned that Shaed had repurposed the "Womyn's Centre" and effectively got it shut down. After that, I learned that this is a trend whenever a male person with a trans identity gets into a women's centre of any kind: they make it all about them and effectively shut it down. We can have nothing to ourselves; if a man wants to identify his way in, he must be welcomed and that is that. Breastfeeding, periods, menopause, even rape services—anything that men want to fetishise must be immmediately turned over to them without a murmur of complaint.

"Sex work is work"

Did you know that "sex work" encompasses a range of activity from pornography to stripping to cam work to streetwalking? You do now. And apparently this is empowering and stuff. Well despite the long record of violent abuse against women who work in each of these trades, it's still considered by the woke and the wonderful to be all empowering and stuff. If you clicked the last link, notice that Bell pretends that the abuses that Elly Arrow speaks of do not happen. They totally do. The only way to give the "sex work is work" brigade any credibility is to ignore the abuses as much as they do. Needless to say, they only promote this to women and girls.

"Individuals with a cervix"

The use of phrases like the one above is being presented as inclusive to accommodate trans men. If that were true, why do we seldom see it done to accommodate male people who identify as women? Take a look at the Prostate Cancer UK website. The language is precise but at no point does it ever describe men as "individuals with a prostate." Would not the same arguments as the ones made by the New Statesman in the link before apply here? Why not? In all the websites I surveyed in a search on "individuals with a prostate" I saw male people referred to as men. Few even referenced males with a gender identity that differs from their sex even though such people are also at risk. Don't their lives matter? Don't they resent being reminded of their sex due to their feelings about their gender identity? WHY does this only go one way?

Now we are "cis"

It's infuriating to see women being erased in law, policy, and social discourse as a discrete sex class with demands and needs of our own. Like women in totalitarian religious dictatorships, we must be accompanied by males at every turn. So now we are "cis" women, as opposed to the assorted trans identities, which are really just personalities. And it is erasure. "Woman" is the word that cannot be spoken unless it is specifically describing males who identify as us. It's as if they're daring us to challenge them. Game on. I am not a subset of my sex class and honestly, were it not for the decent trans people I'm friendly with, I'd despise the lot of them as usurpers and invaders. So, as my act of rebellion against the whole rotten system I'm now refusing to use the word "woman" to refer to any of them. Wi Spa did that, blame the woke folk. The upshot of this is that we can't complain about sex discrimination if the concept of discrete sex classes no longer exists in law or in social discourse, which is, of course, the object of the exercise. Hell, I've even seen Jennifer Pritzker listed as one of the richest women in the world to shut me up about sexism. Pritzker amassed that fortune as a male.

The boys who cried 'Transphobe!'

And that will bring us back to "D'oh!" Because of course it does. People I have known for years have written me off as a damn nazi while cheering on and excusing all of the above as if it doesn't apply to their own mothers and daughters, etc. Of course it does. So when the gender identity wolf finally comes for a female family member, will they turn on her as they did me or will they finally wake up to what they're doing to us? No group should ever be beyond criticism, especially for its excesses. Let's look again at the first link on this post and ask yourself why it seems wrong to you (if it does) to replace "trans" and "trans people" with women. Read it out loud with that substitution, replacing "transphobia" with "misogyny." There are places where it won't work, for example in the paragraph on counselling and therapy, since we are concerned about the lack thereof in those cases; affirmation-only does not meet a person's need to explore why they feel the way they do and consider less harmful ways of dealing with their situation—cross-sex hormones are basically poison and have negative consequences to the body. Desisters and detransitioners quickly find that the damage is permanent. But speaking of therapy and counselling, why can't women have same-sex therapists and counsellors?

Will the real moral panickers please stand up?

The real moral panic is on the trans side against women. Even though straight men are the ones who physically attack and abuse them, it is women who are obliged to bear the burden of dealing with this by letting strange men into our spaces. I am not going to ask how a naked man with a hard-on identifies if he's in a room in which I'm getting changed, damn it. I will order him out and if I'm kicked out myself, I will complain to the press. Try me. The issue here is not and never was about the existence of trans people, it's about perverted men taking advantage of Self-Id and the backlash against women who refuse to play ball(s). The sooner the rest of the world wakes up to this, the sooner we can all move on. And then I can get back to wibbling on about internet trends instead of having to cope with each new atrocity. As of today, we're not even people any more. The Lancet has demoted us. NOW do you believe me?