Earlier, JL reported that The BBC’s list of 100 ‘women of the year’ once again featured several feminine-presenting men taking the places of…y’know, actual women. Well, it gets worse. It turns out that one of the men profiled is the subject of this Reduxx piece from June, ‘Erika’ Hilton.
I nominate the filmmaker, Vaishnavi Sundar, auteur of the 4 part series, "Dysphoria" and the upcoming feature length documentary, Behind the Looking Glass, with interviews of 30 trans widows. It's up on Lime Soda Films YouTube channel. Sundar was uninvited to several significant film festivals with her entry of Dysphoria, which is partly autobiographical.
Thank you, Kay! In the trailer, its my voice saying, "I'm 65." As I turn 66 next week, I appreciate my younger self frozen in time. Vaishnavi has said there's so much material that she's not sure whether she'll also release it as a 4 part series or a feature length documentary. I am proud to say I helped her to categorize the parts of the experience; did he tell you or leave it for you to discover, how many times did he detransition before you ended it, did he accuse you of assault or other crimes to distract from his egregious behavior? The answers for me are: 1. I discovered the diaries and believe he had a secret life for at least a year, mostly likely more. 2. He detransitioned once, then secretly began again 8 months later, deceiving me for over a year before my second and last discovery. 3. Yes, he accused me of assault and bigotry, in court.
I went to sign but it didn't let me, initially I thought it must be an older petition that I’d previously signed but I just searched my emails and it isn’t. Has anyone else had the same problem?
I'm sure the petition had more signatures when I signed it a week or so ago! Is this the right link?
Thanks, Kay. I was able to sign it. I don't know if there's a problem with the petition platform. With all of the twitter truth coming out about shadowbanning &etc, I wouldn't be surprised if they are fiddling. While Rome burns.
If you work in the BBC (or in most UK media outlets), not pretending to believe in gender ideology is bad for your career. Forcing people to pay for an organisation which slavishly and fearfully obeys an ideology - and threatening imprisonment if they don't - is not a feature of democracy.
Yesterday we had a story about a 9 year-old girl who was sexually assaulted in a communal changing room in Staffordshire. That was reported in two local outlets in Staffordshire. If the BBC had reported that story nationally and then invited a gender ideology follower to justify communal changing rooms (and the Scottish Gender Bill), then we might move forward but they won't touch it. The BBC is destroying the case for its own existence.
Exactly this. The BBC is still trusted by many and it does not deserve this trust. Many years ago they changed their modus operandi from reporting the news to *making* the news, which means they are selective on what they report and the lines they take. Right now, (as you state), they are choosing gender ideology.
Or you can do as I do (I don't bother with PBS or the BBC, just the other mainstream propagandists), and simply reverse whatever they're saying. Continual talk here about RESPIRATORY VIRUSES -- get out the garlic and the cross! -- and never a mention of how to build immune health.
Yeah, the BBC. At one time I was all for it - but now? It it can’t retain its impartiality it is no better than any news source that cry ‘fake news’. In fact it has become fake news.
Mate, you could name any one of the 4bn or so women and girls on the planet: each and every one of them has the right - and deserves - to be on that 'list' above any man.
Pah! Notice that things aren't funny these days? Every comedian is either queer or a TIM apologist, many are hooked on RPDR, they recite the "you can't say this/that" nonsense, but you CAN have your penis on show to children in a skin-tight costume, sterilise and castrate them. I haven't laughed less in my life as I have in the past few years!
Same. I'm in quite a bitter mood with most celebs actually, not just the Potter brats but actually, prominent TV scientists and celebs who are into science like Dara O. Science only matters when it's furthering careers, obviously. Who is the self-styled "anarchist"? So anarchic that he or she is not willing to rock the boat, clearly. Ridiculous...
p.s. New lows for Billy Bragg. If you believe all the trans nonsense, of COURSE "GC cultists" seem inhumane and bigoted. But we know that the suicide stats are misleading nonsense as trans people are just vulnerable people who are struggling due to mental health issues / body dysmorphia as a result of homosexuality, autism, sexual assault etc, NOT due to a verifiable issue with being born in the wrong body or non-adherence to gender stereotypes...
Some are raging narcissists and fetishists but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt and thinking about the kind of trans-identified people I care about, i.e. autistic/LGB/traumatised youth...
They have conveniently forgotten that free speech is a left wing value. And us GCers? I see US as the grassroots activists, people-oriented and against a corporate machine, not the other way around! I said to my friend the other day that believing in the gender industry is like believing in the sanctity of McDonald's. P.s. GBNews platforms left wingers who aren't allowed on the MSM. Comedy Unleashed is decent!
Look, I am not British, I cannot parachute in with a solution, but I am 100 percent sure that any viable threat to the license fee will make the Beeb sit up and take notice.
They will of course howl, scream, and exert every last puppet-mouth available to mimic a great popular noise for preserving the license fee.
Let them.
Make this your new Brexit, over there. Except whereas that affair has been a disappointment, because economic ties are so complex, this issue is stark and simple. License fee everyone hates: yay or nay? I bet there is polling data for you out there, Graham.
A disappointment? Please no; this is a very poor comparison. No one knows what 'Brexit' meant as it was sold as several things, whatever anyone wanted to hear and isn't any of them. It's made most of us very much poorer and set many people against each other. It's not just economic ties, it's wrecked diplomatic agreements, trade, education, future prospects and choices, our workforce, businesses and relationships. It may have hastened the break up of the UK. The fact that there are rather sensitive borders in these islands seemed to be completely overlooked by some ignorant people and it's all a mess. It also hugely affected trust as the unicorns some were promised clearly aren't materialising and never will.
It's still utter chaos in many areas people seem oddly unaware of, then the impact on how our legislation is affected. Many regulations we were involved in creating and agreeing such as environmental and safety legislation and the current government scrabbling around saying 'dunno' to whether they will be in force or not, or when.
Tad biased? WTAF? You can't quite give up trying to win your point can you and edited it to drive that point home. It was an utterly stupid and incendiary comparison to make which showed real ignorance and that is what irritates me. This affects our lives. Let's not smoothe over why people disagree, let's realise what and why.
Sure, I am biased against people making ridiculous statements. So sue me. Then you jumping in to patronise me with some utterly pointless statement when I was suggesting someone didn't make spurious comments on something they clearly admit to knowing little about, in a country they don't live in? There is division, then there is division being stoked, just substitute the word 'gender' or 'trans' in what I wrote. This is dangerous.
Yes agreed - it's an unhelpful comparison. Can we just get back to the subject we agree on?
If you hadnt put out your views against Brexit I wouldn't have said 'a tad biased' ... can see it mightve come across as patronising - I was trying to avoid any further discussion on that subject, so for that I'm sorry. But it was disingenuous to claim Brexit was divisive and yet put out one-sided views - which maybe I should have said instead. I don't want an argument on Brexit which is the point which we can agree upon. Peace.
I am always very sceptical about that. Maybe I am biassed here as I worked for Austria's public broadcaster for ten years and now work in the union sector.
That's not saying that the problem with the current BBC shouldn't be fixed. It must be, urgently. I just don't think taking away license fees are a solution.
If I look at countries without a string public broadcaster I don't quite see what's supposed to be better there. Strong public broadcasters have their advantages such as covering regional affairs nationally to a greater extent, give a lot of aitrime to emerging artists, and usually enable a lot of local TV or radio productions, news features, documentaries and the like. I. e., overall their programs usually mirror a greater diversity of opinion than private broadcasters tend to do.
Mind, no public broadcaster is entirely independent, and every government tends to control it some extent. Depending on a number of factors this can be as successful as the owners of private broadcasters exerting control over their programs, but usually is a bit less so.
On the other hand, public broadcasters not supported y license fees tend to be entirely dominated by and dependent on whatever government is in power. France is a bit of an exception there, but look at any Eastern European country and you get the idea.
PBS is a bit of a hybrid: No license fees and almost no other government backed funding. While overall it is still relatively independent, transideology shows us it can still be captured by ideologies and lobby groups. Which I think shows us that we have a problem that runs much, much deeper than the question of ownership or financing alone.
I see your point about the licence fee - but Brexit is still a v divisive subject here as you can tell from the comments. And anyway this is more about attempted 'gender globalism' ... or is that 'globality'? Let's have a heated debate haha
I am not coming down on either side of the Brexit issue, it is merely the most recent popular cause or campaign I have for comparison. Do you think a license fee challenge would be as divisive as Brexit, or as difficult to execute?
Do you know about the Poll Tax, the riots and why it was ended? That is a context to how recent taxes are seen and used as political footballs here. Vote winners or losers, then sometimes things are suggested that repel voters and there's a backlash. There have been more laws introduced or proposed to limit any possible backlashes on a number of issues. It's an interesting time at the moment as strikes are hitting most sectors of the UK. These come in cycles. The current government are spoiling for a fight but have been in power for 12 years, so blaming anyone else (as they are doing now by accusing striking nurses of being on the side of Putin is stretching it a bit and the patience of the electorate). It's two years til the next general election after they changed when elections could be called, unless something happens to call a vote of no confidence or too many MPs vote against the government (unlikely as they have a big majority). So it may be a slow further decline and nothing much decided for the next few years or a series of pops and a bang. Tories and Labour are trying to outflank each other or letting each other make mistakes. The licence fee sits in the middle of that.
Thank you for the response. Like I said, I cannot parachute in with a solution because I only know about these things in general. For example, I recall the Poll Tax being incredibly unpopular but not the details, nor am I in touch with how that issue has played out since then. Having looked at the data a bit since I posted the above comment, it is my impression that the British public will divide on the license fee, while a solid majority will support decriminalization. Does that sound about right to you?
*Interestingly the BBC have since announced everything will 'be online' and that's TV and radio, starting in the next five years. So that's the end to radio transmissions where you can make or buy a radio and listen.
It's comparing apples and oranges. The licence fee is challenged constantly and has been for decades. It's been a political tussle and on who funds what which ebbs and flows. This is a complex issue as is the fact that people are sent to prison for not paying the fines for non-payment. With more viewing, entertainment, platform and streaming options its premise has been questioned more. Look at whether it's 'establishment figures' who are senior figures at the Beeb and the arguments depending on who is in government. See if they are overtly 'right' or 'left'. Look at the political weight given to pensioners and if they have to pay for their licences, and what 'demographic' vote, don't vote or are thought to vote or for which parties. Look at how many people voted for our current PM and the one before that. Look what the recent debates over Channel 4 and dumbing down and 'lite entertainment' and 'changes to the offering' have been. Look at viewing figures. Look at where we get our news from if at all. Look at who is trusted. Look at who owns media outlets here (and worldwide). This doesn't cover what's happening with BBC radio services and issues with the purpose, soft power and universal service aspect of those.
Well yes - I agree that we need hard evidence before inflicting harm on healthy bodies and all the rest of it. It's not a question of idealogy but facts and evidence we all need when the stakes are so high imho. We can debate all the other stuff elsewhere?
K yang, Amy e sousa aimee itchkawga, Helen Staniland, the famous artist birdie Rose, Vicki phelan, isla mac, kellie jay keen, EXULANSIC, sinead Watson, keira Bell, maya forstater, Helen Joyce, lesley Farrington, genevieve gluck, abigail shrier, jk rowling, women's place UK, rex landy, sal grover, Christina ellingsen, Rosie Duffield, baroness Nicholson, Sarah phillimore, Elaine Miller, and many more should be in those 100 women list, not 2 men larping as women a sex they can never be. Why call it 100 women when you mean 98 and two wannabes SHAME ON THE BBC
I wonder if it’s possible to find out how these decisions are made and who, specifically is making them, so that an explanation and some accountability can be sought.
And I wonder if, from a legal standpoint, it is discriminatory to hand a womens accolade to men.
In theory yes it is as its discriminatory by the EA2010 but as we know, BBC and so many like it are interpreting the law as they see fit which is as they *want* it to be.
There have been recent attempts to pull them back but until there is a very big stick behind it (as in if a 100 best women list has even ONE man in it, the group that has created it gets fined a large large fine or something), it is being ignored in favour of de facto "self ID".
The loophole is pretending (lying) that "Woman" is not a sex but an identity to put on and take off with one's shoes!
The EA2010 needs to be amended to refer to *sex* and inextricably linked "sex class" for each sex (adult and juvenile versions) and that no one can take on the opposite sex term or sex class or age as an "identity".
And any official body, charity or business that does do so would be automatically guilty of sex discrimination and be fined a lot of money for it. Maybe that would concentrate the minds better to remember reality.
It is terrifying that men will be (and are in some jurisdictions are) taking women to court, with the threat of prison, to be housed with male sex offenders, using those very recent laws created to protect us as women. Using equality and sex discrimination, stating they are women, and it's women discriminating against them as women. Then piling on 'hate crime' and 'social racism' for when we have the nerve to state men are not women, women are not men and the term woman has a very specific and protected meaning.
This is the thinking of that beardy mechanic in his spare time in a swishy skirt and eyeliner declaring he can broaden the 'bandwidth' of what it means to be a woman and he can do one. And the one wanting us to 'reframe our trauma' can join him.
I tend to support the "adult human female (produces ova)" based on the standard biological definitions for the sexes. Though that has limited usefulness as many feminists tend to reject those biological definitions because it apparently offends their vanity.
Although that definition is still substantially better than as a gender, i.e., anyone who has any passing resemblance to those who are actually "adult human females (producers of ova)".
A workable compromise may be a brand new definition for "woman", i.e., "adult human vagina-haver". Thoughts? ... 😉
Great post, thank you! Much of this intellectual manipulation of the vulnerable is made possible by how our brains acquire and process information. It's not that difficult to co-opt the process. Once established, these unusual worldviews — irrespective of how irrational they are — become progressively more entrenched in our brains...
I tweet about the BBC News and their bias on a regular basis backed up by an email. I have been refused a refund of part of my license because I can't "make the case". Since I started telling them its a breach of my human rights to have to pay for biased reporting, they have stopped coming back to me. Methinks, I am on to something!
Women really need to start using much harder tactics. Make a fetish of boycotting shops that refuse to recognise our sex, especially where we are the majority of their customer base; make another of bombarding the BBC because, again, it is often females who pay the TV licence; make yet another of besieging the police and justice services to point out, complete with video footage and voice recordings of any skirmishes at meetings, etc., and insist that they are in breach of their duty of care to females in the UK. Openly political engagement by the police and the justice services, two public bodies supported by public taxation, into which working women pour their earnings, needs to be called out for what it is: a Stonewall takeover. Bundle up all our fetishes into one as these fetishy men do, and make them work for us. Our fetishes will not be driven by porn or the danglies between legs, but by genuine injustice, the same kind of injustice our sisters, the Suffragettes and Suffragists, suffered for daring to ask for more than being a cut-price, second-rate human being, inferior men who didn't make the cut. We are fully human in our own right, in our unique female ways and no man is going to push us backwards into a renewed form of indentured servitude, no matter how much of a 'laydee' he feels..
Oh HELP! My friend just said to me that she'd love to see me debate the gender stuff with a 12 year old male in her family, who believes all this (not his fault, he's in a UK school after all).
I can't hammer it home much more than this.... (my response)
"This has got to be the biggest grooming scandal of all time and no one realises this! How!? Schools are required by law to teach facts. I don't know how they're getting away with it! Someone can only believe this stuff if they believe in regressive, conservative stereotypes of what it means to be male and female. It's not about human rights, it's a capitalist industry. A brand. And people are buying it. It's like believing in the sanctity of McDonalds (but worse). There's nothing left wing about it! It's going to be a stain on our history, the mass grooming and sterilisation of children."
Seriously, a 30-something year old debates made-up nonsense with a 12 year old who has half the facts (and those facts are lies). This really is where we're at!
Thank you! I watched too. I don't have kids, no young kids living nearby in my family either. But always love to watch KJK. Wish my friend would talk to her family member but she won't go up against him. Such a topsy turvy world right now, isn't it!?
I nominate the filmmaker, Vaishnavi Sundar, auteur of the 4 part series, "Dysphoria" and the upcoming feature length documentary, Behind the Looking Glass, with interviews of 30 trans widows. It's up on Lime Soda Films YouTube channel. Sundar was uninvited to several significant film festivals with her entry of Dysphoria, which is partly autobiographical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhAlvw_kAHs
I highly recommend "Dysphoria"... professional, informative, heartbreaking... Thank you, Ute
Thank you, Kay! In the trailer, its my voice saying, "I'm 65." As I turn 66 next week, I appreciate my younger self frozen in time. Vaishnavi has said there's so much material that she's not sure whether she'll also release it as a 4 part series or a feature length documentary. I am proud to say I helped her to categorize the parts of the experience; did he tell you or leave it for you to discover, how many times did he detransition before you ended it, did he accuse you of assault or other crimes to distract from his egregious behavior? The answers for me are: 1. I discovered the diaries and believe he had a secret life for at least a year, mostly likely more. 2. He detransitioned once, then secretly began again 8 months later, deceiving me for over a year before my second and last discovery. 3. Yes, he accused me of assault and bigotry, in court.
https://wordpress.com/post/uteheggengrasswidow.wordpress.com/4829
Hi Ute,
The women at Mumsnet in the UK have added a post asking people to circulate and sign the petition for Dysphoric.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4693905-get-dysphoric-shown-at-the-tate
One woman wrote this on the forum:
I went to sign but it didn't let me, initially I thought it must be an older petition that I’d previously signed but I just searched my emails and it isn’t. Has anyone else had the same problem?
I'm sure the petition had more signatures when I signed it a week or so ago! Is this the right link?
https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-ask-the-tate-to-show-vaishnavi-sundar-s-film-dysphoric
Thanks, Kay. I was able to sign it. I don't know if there's a problem with the petition platform. With all of the twitter truth coming out about shadowbanning &etc, I wouldn't be surprised if they are fiddling. While Rome burns.
Thanks Ute. I was more wondering about the number of signatures, I thought it had more. I'll keep sharing! Hope you're well!
Signed and shared!
Thank you. Signed!
Thank you for this - I've just signed it!!!!!!
Signed and shared 👍🙏
Signed and shared with a like-minded friend!
If you work in the BBC (or in most UK media outlets), not pretending to believe in gender ideology is bad for your career. Forcing people to pay for an organisation which slavishly and fearfully obeys an ideology - and threatening imprisonment if they don't - is not a feature of democracy.
Yesterday we had a story about a 9 year-old girl who was sexually assaulted in a communal changing room in Staffordshire. That was reported in two local outlets in Staffordshire. If the BBC had reported that story nationally and then invited a gender ideology follower to justify communal changing rooms (and the Scottish Gender Bill), then we might move forward but they won't touch it. The BBC is destroying the case for its own existence.
Exactly this. The BBC is still trusted by many and it does not deserve this trust. Many years ago they changed their modus operandi from reporting the news to *making* the news, which means they are selective on what they report and the lines they take. Right now, (as you state), they are choosing gender ideology.
I sopped paying the licence in 2019, don't miss TV at all. Life is better than being subjected to continual lies
Or you can do as I do (I don't bother with PBS or the BBC, just the other mainstream propagandists), and simply reverse whatever they're saying. Continual talk here about RESPIRATORY VIRUSES -- get out the garlic and the cross! -- and never a mention of how to build immune health.
I agree, I barely watch it now, if I want up to date news I look to other sites.
Yeah, the BBC. At one time I was all for it - but now? It it can’t retain its impartiality it is no better than any news source that cry ‘fake news’. In fact it has become fake news.
"There are hundreds more I could name..."
Mate, you could name any one of the 4bn or so women and girls on the planet: each and every one of them has the right - and deserves - to be on that 'list' above any man.
👎
On so many fronts, I’ve had it with the BBC. The generally benign public service broadcaster I grew up watching has long gone.
yup and where's the laugh-out-loud comedy when you really need it??????
Pah! Notice that things aren't funny these days? Every comedian is either queer or a TIM apologist, many are hooked on RPDR, they recite the "you can't say this/that" nonsense, but you CAN have your penis on show to children in a skin-tight costume, sterilise and castrate them. I haven't laughed less in my life as I have in the past few years!
Same. I'm in quite a bitter mood with most celebs actually, not just the Potter brats but actually, prominent TV scientists and celebs who are into science like Dara O. Science only matters when it's furthering careers, obviously. Who is the self-styled "anarchist"? So anarchic that he or she is not willing to rock the boat, clearly. Ridiculous...
p.s. New lows for Billy Bragg. If you believe all the trans nonsense, of COURSE "GC cultists" seem inhumane and bigoted. But we know that the suicide stats are misleading nonsense as trans people are just vulnerable people who are struggling due to mental health issues / body dysmorphia as a result of homosexuality, autism, sexual assault etc, NOT due to a verifiable issue with being born in the wrong body or non-adherence to gender stereotypes...
Some are raging narcissists and fetishists but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt and thinking about the kind of trans-identified people I care about, i.e. autistic/LGB/traumatised youth...
https://twitter.com/billybragg/status/1600872858946789376
Does he genuinely not understand!?
They have conveniently forgotten that free speech is a left wing value. And us GCers? I see US as the grassroots activists, people-oriented and against a corporate machine, not the other way around! I said to my friend the other day that believing in the gender industry is like believing in the sanctity of McDonald's. P.s. GBNews platforms left wingers who aren't allowed on the MSM. Comedy Unleashed is decent!
Either he's shamelessly virtue-signalling or he really believes that trans people are a special kind of person, with verifiably different neurology...
I suppose this is the modern-day hard left stance and he just can't resist getting involved!? Who knows...
Billy "Bragg" indeed!
See my edited comment 😁
Make it about the license fee.
Look, I am not British, I cannot parachute in with a solution, but I am 100 percent sure that any viable threat to the license fee will make the Beeb sit up and take notice.
They will of course howl, scream, and exert every last puppet-mouth available to mimic a great popular noise for preserving the license fee.
Let them.
Make this your new Brexit, over there. Except whereas that affair has been a disappointment, because economic ties are so complex, this issue is stark and simple. License fee everyone hates: yay or nay? I bet there is polling data for you out there, Graham.
A disappointment? Please no; this is a very poor comparison. No one knows what 'Brexit' meant as it was sold as several things, whatever anyone wanted to hear and isn't any of them. It's made most of us very much poorer and set many people against each other. It's not just economic ties, it's wrecked diplomatic agreements, trade, education, future prospects and choices, our workforce, businesses and relationships. It may have hastened the break up of the UK. The fact that there are rather sensitive borders in these islands seemed to be completely overlooked by some ignorant people and it's all a mess. It also hugely affected trust as the unicorns some were promised clearly aren't materialising and never will.
It's still utter chaos in many areas people seem oddly unaware of, then the impact on how our legislation is affected. Many regulations we were involved in creating and agreeing such as environmental and safety legislation and the current government scrabbling around saying 'dunno' to whether they will be in force or not, or when.
Can we stick to the topic pls - whatever you think about Brexit pls let it not divide us.
That was my point if you cared to read what I wrote. These silly comparisons are not helping.
oh ok ... good - agreed. Altho you did seem a tad biased on the subject. So am I ... but not for here.
Tad biased? WTAF? You can't quite give up trying to win your point can you and edited it to drive that point home. It was an utterly stupid and incendiary comparison to make which showed real ignorance and that is what irritates me. This affects our lives. Let's not smoothe over why people disagree, let's realise what and why.
Sure, I am biased against people making ridiculous statements. So sue me. Then you jumping in to patronise me with some utterly pointless statement when I was suggesting someone didn't make spurious comments on something they clearly admit to knowing little about, in a country they don't live in? There is division, then there is division being stoked, just substitute the word 'gender' or 'trans' in what I wrote. This is dangerous.
Yes agreed - it's an unhelpful comparison. Can we just get back to the subject we agree on?
If you hadnt put out your views against Brexit I wouldn't have said 'a tad biased' ... can see it mightve come across as patronising - I was trying to avoid any further discussion on that subject, so for that I'm sorry. But it was disingenuous to claim Brexit was divisive and yet put out one-sided views - which maybe I should have said instead. I don't want an argument on Brexit which is the point which we can agree upon. Peace.
I am always very sceptical about that. Maybe I am biassed here as I worked for Austria's public broadcaster for ten years and now work in the union sector.
That's not saying that the problem with the current BBC shouldn't be fixed. It must be, urgently. I just don't think taking away license fees are a solution.
If I look at countries without a string public broadcaster I don't quite see what's supposed to be better there. Strong public broadcasters have their advantages such as covering regional affairs nationally to a greater extent, give a lot of aitrime to emerging artists, and usually enable a lot of local TV or radio productions, news features, documentaries and the like. I. e., overall their programs usually mirror a greater diversity of opinion than private broadcasters tend to do.
Mind, no public broadcaster is entirely independent, and every government tends to control it some extent. Depending on a number of factors this can be as successful as the owners of private broadcasters exerting control over their programs, but usually is a bit less so.
On the other hand, public broadcasters not supported y license fees tend to be entirely dominated by and dependent on whatever government is in power. France is a bit of an exception there, but look at any Eastern European country and you get the idea.
PBS is a bit of a hybrid: No license fees and almost no other government backed funding. While overall it is still relatively independent, transideology shows us it can still be captured by ideologies and lobby groups. Which I think shows us that we have a problem that runs much, much deeper than the question of ownership or financing alone.
I did not say that the BBC should lose their license fee, I said that a threat to the license fee will get their attention.
I see your point about the licence fee - but Brexit is still a v divisive subject here as you can tell from the comments. And anyway this is more about attempted 'gender globalism' ... or is that 'globality'? Let's have a heated debate haha
I am not coming down on either side of the Brexit issue, it is merely the most recent popular cause or campaign I have for comparison. Do you think a license fee challenge would be as divisive as Brexit, or as difficult to execute?
Do you know about the Poll Tax, the riots and why it was ended? That is a context to how recent taxes are seen and used as political footballs here. Vote winners or losers, then sometimes things are suggested that repel voters and there's a backlash. There have been more laws introduced or proposed to limit any possible backlashes on a number of issues. It's an interesting time at the moment as strikes are hitting most sectors of the UK. These come in cycles. The current government are spoiling for a fight but have been in power for 12 years, so blaming anyone else (as they are doing now by accusing striking nurses of being on the side of Putin is stretching it a bit and the patience of the electorate). It's two years til the next general election after they changed when elections could be called, unless something happens to call a vote of no confidence or too many MPs vote against the government (unlikely as they have a big majority). So it may be a slow further decline and nothing much decided for the next few years or a series of pops and a bang. Tories and Labour are trying to outflank each other or letting each other make mistakes. The licence fee sits in the middle of that.
Thank you for the response. Like I said, I cannot parachute in with a solution because I only know about these things in general. For example, I recall the Poll Tax being incredibly unpopular but not the details, nor am I in touch with how that issue has played out since then. Having looked at the data a bit since I posted the above comment, it is my impression that the British public will divide on the license fee, while a solid majority will support decriminalization. Does that sound about right to you?
And yours! It does sound about right to me :-)
*Interestingly the BBC have since announced everything will 'be online' and that's TV and radio, starting in the next five years. So that's the end to radio transmissions where you can make or buy a radio and listen.
It's comparing apples and oranges. The licence fee is challenged constantly and has been for decades. It's been a political tussle and on who funds what which ebbs and flows. This is a complex issue as is the fact that people are sent to prison for not paying the fines for non-payment. With more viewing, entertainment, platform and streaming options its premise has been questioned more. Look at whether it's 'establishment figures' who are senior figures at the Beeb and the arguments depending on who is in government. See if they are overtly 'right' or 'left'. Look at the political weight given to pensioners and if they have to pay for their licences, and what 'demographic' vote, don't vote or are thought to vote or for which parties. Look at how many people voted for our current PM and the one before that. Look what the recent debates over Channel 4 and dumbing down and 'lite entertainment' and 'changes to the offering' have been. Look at viewing figures. Look at where we get our news from if at all. Look at who is trusted. Look at who owns media outlets here (and worldwide). This doesn't cover what's happening with BBC radio services and issues with the purpose, soft power and universal service aspect of those.
Well yes - I agree that we need hard evidence before inflicting harm on healthy bodies and all the rest of it. It's not a question of idealogy but facts and evidence we all need when the stakes are so high imho. We can debate all the other stuff elsewhere?
Nope course not!
K yang, Amy e sousa aimee itchkawga, Helen Staniland, the famous artist birdie Rose, Vicki phelan, isla mac, kellie jay keen, EXULANSIC, sinead Watson, keira Bell, maya forstater, Helen Joyce, lesley Farrington, genevieve gluck, abigail shrier, jk rowling, women's place UK, rex landy, sal grover, Christina ellingsen, Rosie Duffield, baroness Nicholson, Sarah phillimore, Elaine Miller, and many more should be in those 100 women list, not 2 men larping as women a sex they can never be. Why call it 100 women when you mean 98 and two wannabes SHAME ON THE BBC
BBC ignoring this ideology and instead actively promoting and supporting it, is the BBC making the same egregious errors it did over Saville.
It has not learned its lesson.
To Complain: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint/#/Complaint
@Glinner - could you add that link into your article so people can complain easily?
thanks for that link - yep agree Felicity - Graham, wot dyou think?
I wonder if it’s possible to find out how these decisions are made and who, specifically is making them, so that an explanation and some accountability can be sought.
And I wonder if, from a legal standpoint, it is discriminatory to hand a womens accolade to men.
In theory yes it is as its discriminatory by the EA2010 but as we know, BBC and so many like it are interpreting the law as they see fit which is as they *want* it to be.
There have been recent attempts to pull them back but until there is a very big stick behind it (as in if a 100 best women list has even ONE man in it, the group that has created it gets fined a large large fine or something), it is being ignored in favour of de facto "self ID".
The loophole is pretending (lying) that "Woman" is not a sex but an identity to put on and take off with one's shoes!
The EA2010 needs to be amended to refer to *sex* and inextricably linked "sex class" for each sex (adult and juvenile versions) and that no one can take on the opposite sex term or sex class or age as an "identity".
And any official body, charity or business that does do so would be automatically guilty of sex discrimination and be fined a lot of money for it. Maybe that would concentrate the minds better to remember reality.
It is terrifying that men will be (and are in some jurisdictions are) taking women to court, with the threat of prison, to be housed with male sex offenders, using those very recent laws created to protect us as women. Using equality and sex discrimination, stating they are women, and it's women discriminating against them as women. Then piling on 'hate crime' and 'social racism' for when we have the nerve to state men are not women, women are not men and the term woman has a very specific and protected meaning.
This is the thinking of that beardy mechanic in his spare time in a swishy skirt and eyeliner declaring he can broaden the 'bandwidth' of what it means to be a woman and he can do one. And the one wanting us to 'reframe our trauma' can join him.
Define "woman" ... and show your work.
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-bbcs-yearly-insult-to-women-gets/comment/10971070
after you Mr S.
🙂 Think I already did Ms. Moody... 😉
I tend to support the "adult human female (produces ova)" based on the standard biological definitions for the sexes. Though that has limited usefulness as many feminists tend to reject those biological definitions because it apparently offends their vanity.
Although that definition is still substantially better than as a gender, i.e., anyone who has any passing resemblance to those who are actually "adult human females (producers of ova)".
A workable compromise may be a brand new definition for "woman", i.e., "adult human vagina-haver". Thoughts? ... 😉
none printable sry.
Great post, thank you! Much of this intellectual manipulation of the vulnerable is made possible by how our brains acquire and process information. It's not that difficult to co-opt the process. Once established, these unusual worldviews — irrespective of how irrational they are — become progressively more entrenched in our brains...
https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/hallucinating-your-inner-trans-reptile
At some point, society needs to put the hard brakes on those doing manipulation.
I tweet about the BBC News and their bias on a regular basis backed up by an email. I have been refused a refund of part of my license because I can't "make the case". Since I started telling them its a breach of my human rights to have to pay for biased reporting, they have stopped coming back to me. Methinks, I am on to something!
hehe im coming on board!
Women really need to start using much harder tactics. Make a fetish of boycotting shops that refuse to recognise our sex, especially where we are the majority of their customer base; make another of bombarding the BBC because, again, it is often females who pay the TV licence; make yet another of besieging the police and justice services to point out, complete with video footage and voice recordings of any skirmishes at meetings, etc., and insist that they are in breach of their duty of care to females in the UK. Openly political engagement by the police and the justice services, two public bodies supported by public taxation, into which working women pour their earnings, needs to be called out for what it is: a Stonewall takeover. Bundle up all our fetishes into one as these fetishy men do, and make them work for us. Our fetishes will not be driven by porn or the danglies between legs, but by genuine injustice, the same kind of injustice our sisters, the Suffragettes and Suffragists, suffered for daring to ask for more than being a cut-price, second-rate human being, inferior men who didn't make the cut. We are fully human in our own right, in our unique female ways and no man is going to push us backwards into a renewed form of indentured servitude, no matter how much of a 'laydee' he feels..
Good one.
Just excellent, actually.
Thanks.
Oh HELP! My friend just said to me that she'd love to see me debate the gender stuff with a 12 year old male in her family, who believes all this (not his fault, he's in a UK school after all).
I can't hammer it home much more than this.... (my response)
"This has got to be the biggest grooming scandal of all time and no one realises this! How!? Schools are required by law to teach facts. I don't know how they're getting away with it! Someone can only believe this stuff if they believe in regressive, conservative stereotypes of what it means to be male and female. It's not about human rights, it's a capitalist industry. A brand. And people are buying it. It's like believing in the sanctity of McDonalds (but worse). There's nothing left wing about it! It's going to be a stain on our history, the mass grooming and sterilisation of children."
Seriously, a 30-something year old debates made-up nonsense with a 12 year old who has half the facts (and those facts are lies). This really is where we're at!
blimey oreilly debating a 12 y/old?
He's a nice kid, smart kid but I'm sure he'll believe all the hyperbolic, activist nonsense....
Well at least he might hear the other side and see if the evidence stacks up or he just wants to be popular?
I didn't take her up on it. The hint of criticism is bigoted / transphobic, sadly...
watching K-J on how to talk to your children on this issue - hope it helps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N57ngm3pMHY
Thank you! I watched too. I don't have kids, no young kids living nearby in my family either. But always love to watch KJK. Wish my friend would talk to her family member but she won't go up against him. Such a topsy turvy world right now, isn't it!?
"I really wonder whether we need to start making this a fight about the licence fee." I already have. No regrets.
Tip jar