Some Simple Questions

The topic of JK Rowlings transphobia trundles on mainly because she continues to be bigoted and hateful towards trans people.  For anyone that does support her views, or is at least defending her in holding and speaking about them, here are two simple questions:

1) Do you accept that lesbian, gay, bi, etc people have an innate, durable, biological, cause for their sexuality?  Equally this is true for anyone heterosexual as well obviously

2) Do you also accept that these biological mechanisms are, as yet, not fully identified nor understood?  That study is on going and this is, at least, some evidence supporting possibilities in this area?

I would hope, and expect, that pretty much everyone should be saying yes to the above.  In fact if you’re not then your problems include homophobia as well as transphobia.

And now the follow-up question 

If the cause/explanation of sexuality is still unknown and being actively investigated, and *you don’t know what it is*, why on earth are you asserting sufficient knowledge/expertise on the possibilities for gender identity being explained in a similar way, i.e. that it has a durable, biological, component?

I think I can answer that question for JK Rowling and others of her ilk: the reason for their beliefs is ignorance, arrogance, and ultimately bigotry.  

Biology, genetics, neuroscience, etc are ALL vastly complex and I don’t believe any of the bigots have a sufficient grasp of any of them to speak with authority over on the topic of gender identity.  That’s why they simply dismiss it.  

The arrogance is in assuming they are in anyway sufficiently knowledgeable or justified.  They aren’t on either count,

In short, it is, as often remarked, bigotry on the park of JK Rowling, nothing more, nothing less.  We, sadly, see this constantly in human history being deployed against any number of groups.  It’s almost even “human nature” unfortunately.

The Problem with Twitter ...

I had this post sat waiting as a draft since September 2021

Quite simply, lies, misinformation, ignorance, and bigotry take less characters and time to spread than the truth.

While Twitter can have some positive impact as well as being a tool for being sociable, entertaining, and even informative, it also makes it easy for bigots to spread propaganda, for minorities to be attacked and targeted, all while making refutation of such garbage quite difficult.

A big problem with humans (ALL humans) is they like simple ideas and models which they can easily imagine.  I suppose, in fairness, if we all went around constantly considering the sheer complexity of every single facet of the world around us we'd at the very least likely have permanent headaches or be driven to distraction.  There are, aside from being super-humanly smart, only two main options

1) Simple, possibly incorrect, models that you cling to no matter what 

2) Admit that "don't know" is a perfectly good answer and pick the things you try and "know"

Option 2 is really the only rational approach.  Really, there is so much we don't know it's quite staggering so approaching things with "don't know" it more likely to work than not.

The problem is that people go for option 1) and sometimes end up with opinions and beliefs that a) they really should admit they "don't know" enough about, b) they hold in direct contradiction to available evidence.

And that is the BIG BIG BIG BIG (etc) problem: opinions/beliefs are meant, for these people, to be something that are worthy of respect.  I've had that conversation (on Twitter) and it seems to be used as an excuse to allow bigotry.

Opinions are absolutely NOT worthy of respect.  There is nothing at all special about "opinion" or "belief" that should in any way grant protection of either.

Obvious side note: someone holding an opinion is certainly entitled to a right to have that belief and not to suffer any loss of their human rights because of it (more about this in a few sentences).  In short, even if a belief it ridiculous or bigoted it doesn't justify abuse or sanction against the person holding it.  There is no excuse for immoral acts, e.g. physical violence or threats of same, just because someone is a bigot/ignorant/both.

However, and this is where the above paragraph gets complicated, if you hold a demonstrably bigoted opinion your freedom to do so also comes with consequences.  You should absolutely expect to be called out on your opinion, you can be characterised as a bigot, you should not expect a platform to propagate your views either.  You also face a dilemma: if you act on your bigoted opinion in any way you may also fall foul of of the law or, at the very least, of offensive, upsetting, and hateful behaviour.  If you see your actions have serious hurt another human being and you either do nothing or actively revel in their pain and suffering then your opinion no longer deserves any protection.

This is all "cancel culture" is: it's the consequences of people's ignorance/bigotry/actions.  Bigots complain about "free speech" (they really mean "I get to say and do anything I like with impunity") but the truth is they should rightly be called out, sanctioned, lose their job, or even liberty (due to criminal prosecution and punishment).  

Summary: act like an asshole to others, society is then right to condemn you for being such an asshole.

I originally wrote this post (well the bulk of it), way before Musk took over Twitter.  He, and many others like him, are unconcerned about lies, misinformation, or some minorities getting upset, hurt, abused, murdered, eradicated.  He only seems to care about profit, wealth, power, control, and his one, apparently fragile, ego.

We need a decent and inclusive society based on understanding, acceptance, compassion, and scientific evidence and inquiry.  Musk et al are significantly far from this and heading in the opposite direction.

Which is why I'm now leaving Twitter and am on Mastodon :D  You can find me as @fionasboots@tech.lgbt - I also have a few other accounts but I'm being selective of who I add given the above problems! 

Take no action, Pray!

I remember as a child having those extremely silly arguments about which character in a movie or TV show was 'better' than another.  Children seem to go through an intensely annoying (from an adults point of view) phase where 'better' is important but the subjects of discussion are largely irrelevant in a real-world context.  Such playground debates are often subject to much hyperbole and exaggeration and can lead to raised voices, hurtful comments and even physical violence.

Ultimately the 'debate' (if it can even be called that) is futile even in the context of the abstract world that is being discussed because the attributes and pros/cons of a given character can be changed at the whim of the movie or TV producers to suit their real-world concerns, e.g. actors leave, TV channels want more advertising, etc.

I would suggest that the real world conflicts of religion and faiths bear many similarities to these playground arguments.  By this I am not actually casting aspersions on the existence of a god or gods or even on the validity of a faith but on the way it's proponents can get worked up into ridiculous debates over who/what is 'better'.  It's the same behaviour; extremes of exaggeration, argument, and in this case, bloody violence and murder can result.  My view is right, you are wrong.  My interpretation is right, you are wrong.

However, in the context of these discussions each side is talking about a god/gods that they supposedly believe, with all of their hearts and minds, exists in reality and is omnipresent, all powerful, created the entire universe and is the ultimate judge over everyone.

Just stop and think about that for a moment.

An entity so powerful it can command the forces in the universe, rip black holes apart, create and destroy matter with a word.

To quote the genie from Aladdin: "phenomenal cosmic power!"

If such an entity wanted the world to be a certain way they are more than capable of making it so without any help or hindrance from any creature on this planet.

Which leads to the title of this post, something I hope every believer in the world will do when faced with a problem that usually results in argument, debate, anger, violence or worse.

Take no action, pray.

Your god needs no help from you.  If you believe that the world is not how it should be then surely simply professing your heart-felt belief in prayer and asking for help in resolving the situation should be enough.

To take some recent examples: you don't believe in gay marriage; don't lobby, don't vote against this, simply pray that god will prevent it from happening.  Baking a cake for a gay wedding: just do the best you can throw yourself into baking the best cake ever and then pray that god can resolve this matter.

Not got that caliphate you wanted: again pray that god simply creates it.  Throw down your guns and bombs and wait for god to grant what you believe he has predestined your people to have.  You have all these Palestinians in your 'promised land', don't bother with the walls, guns and intimidation, just pray for them to be removed.

Gay son, you want him to be "normal"?  Don't bother with gay 'cure' therapy, just tell your son you love him no matter what and then pray for him to be straight.  The same obviously applies for a gay daughter.  Even a child who identifies as trans, see what the medical establishment can do for them and then pray.

Take no action, pray.

I know this sounds like a glib idea and I am being facetious.  Yes it is, and I am.  However, really think about this: if you put your faith in a god that can create the universe (which is pretty big and complicated) then your assistance and help isn't required.  A god that really cares and really wants to change matters can make his/her feelings and wishes known without your interpretation of these nor your efforts.

If you don't agree with the above consider this: how do we tell the difference between a god that isn't directly acting to change things and the non-existence of same?  If it's humans actually trying to change things and putting in all the effort, how can you discern whether they are doing this because it's simply their belief rather than what they say their god wants.

I'd suggest that, without the direct, obvious, and completely clear involvement of a god/gods it is most likely that what people carry out in his/her/it's name is simply what they themselves believe.

Risk to human rights after Brexit?

This recent article from the Guardian gave me some cause for thought

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/13/post-brexit-trade-partners-ask-uk-to-lower-human-rights-standards

I'm not entirely sure I believe the excuses from Liam Fox as they seem somewhat to play into the fears from many in the remain camp.  It is possible that there may be a grain of truth in the claims but the reality might be that they weren't entirely significant details in negotiations and those areas may not have been or primary concern.  Blowing the issues out of all proportion might be a good tactic to divert attention away from what seems to be an overall poor performance in terms of negotiating trade deals for a post-Brexit utopia that we seem to have been promised.

Whether human or workers rights are under threat might be a wider issue though.  Consider that some countries, e.g. the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_labor_law, have somewhat less generous terms of employment that we currently enjoy under the EU and UK rules.  I'm not sure whether a US company may want to have the same employment rules for staff they employ in the UK, certainly benefits such as maternity leave cost companies money, possibly the US approach would be cheaper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity_leave_in_the_United_States 

Or would it be that UK companies themselves would be calling on a relaxation of employment law such that their costs and obligations would be lessened allowing them to be more competitive in the market place.

In the past I have worked for several companies as a consultant and in most if not all of these I specifically signed away the 48hour working time directive limit as part of agreeing to my contract.  I didn't have to do that but in each case it was a simple practical consideration since work for clients may stretch beyond that time limit.

In fact on one assignment in the US a manager actually planned my work such that I was doing almost 7 days straight (and at the very least had to work the weekend) to meet a deadline.  I didn't complain because the company treated employees very well and I certainly had plenty of perks that made up for that, and I was personally happy to help the client concerned.  However, not everyone is so lucky to have a good company and client to work for, sometimes things aren't as happy and cheery and having employment law which means you can stick to the 48hour/week limit or at least have your employer held to some reasonable obligation of duty of care is a nice safety net to fall back on.

Ultimately business is business, it's about making money, and often for larger companies it's focussed on maximising shareholder profits.  There are numerous examples of companies that have prioritised money above other considerations so no matter how much you want to hope that everyone will play nice and fair the only way to ensure that employees, customers, competitors, the environment, are all protected is to have a good strong legal protections and principles in place and certain rights that we stick to.

How much of the above would our current government be prepared to sacrifice to get trade deals, bearing in mind that we are potentially going to be on our own trying to negotiate with very little leverage.  

EE screwed up our phone numbers

Well I haven't posted for ages since nothing really to write about but now it's time for a bit of a rant so what better way to vent spleen.

First some background, we have 3 phones:

• One for my partner, K
• One for my son
• One for me

All of these phones are on EE.  K has had her contract for many years (originally as orange then EE).  She has had the same number for all of that time.

I transferred my number to EE and started a 12month contract (SIM only).  At the same time I got a contract for my son for his new phone, also SIM only.  Both of these ended up (when the SIMs were activated) coming out of a single bank account.  I wanted my son's phone to be charged to a separate account.

So, I used the online chat with EE to ask for my son's contract to be billed to the correct, separate, bank account.  They moved both across!  There is no obvious way to fix this situation with the online account management options and since EE themselves didn't seem to be able to get this right we came up with our own solution.

Our plan was to move my billing over to K as her phone was already being billed to the correct account (a joint one in fact).  This seemed perfectly possible as I currently had two phones (my son's and mine) on one EE 'account'.

So K phoned up on 30th December to get things moved over.  We explained what we needed and we both had to provide security details.

This is where things got awkward and a little upsetting.  The idea of a female gay couple didn't seem to register.  Even worse, the EE customer services person kept asking if I was female because she said I sounded like a man.  She mentioned this several times and even asked if this had happened to me before, I said it had but that I was definitely female, or at least I was the "last time I checked".  I asked if she needed to ask any more questions for me to get through the security check and she said no but I still sounded like a man.

I do have a deeper voice.  Some women do.  Some men have higher voices.  While this can be confusing on a phone (which does have limited frequency response so isn't a perfect audio signal at the best of times) the point is not to make a big deal out of it. 

Anyway, K proceeded with sorting things out and we were told it would be completed soon.

After 3hrs, my phone suddenly lost coverage.

K got texts saying "welcome to EE".

When we checked the number on K's phone it was mine!  My phone had no number.

When we checked online to see the status of our accounts - mine had one device, my son's, and K had one, her phone but with my number.

Given that this was NOT what we had asked for AND that it would, in fact, be a breach of contract (my SIM only deal was for 12months, only 3 had elapsed) we were shocked it had even happened without any notice whatsoever.  I certainly haven't had any emails saying "your contract was terminated early".

K phoned up immediately and explained the situation and we were told that it would take 72hrs to resolve!

So, it's possible to break things in 3hrs but fixing takes longer?

So the situation we found ourselves in was as follows

• I had no number.  No calls, texts, or 3G/4G data on the move
• K had my number 
• Since her friends/family had her original number they can't contact her
• I can't contact anyone* 

(* Since we have iPhones some contact was still possible through iMessage - thanks Apple!)

So, from a 'safety' usefulness point of view, K was still technically able to call if she needed assistance but I can't.  Obviously this is one of the reasons people have mobile phones - if you are late, breakdown, or need to contact people.

All in all not ideal.

Fast forward 48hrs and K phoned up to check progress as we'd heard nothing.  She was told that it would be 72hrs to fix.  When she said "we were told that 48hrs ago" EE responded "24hrs from now".

Given this is a rant you can guess things aren't fixed yet.

K just phoned again and apparently it's 72 "working hours".  This is a little confusing, what is counted as "working" time.  Does that mean any week day?  OR does it mean actual 9-5 hours.  So, 8 of those per day so 9 week days? 

To be clear, K did check when we were given the initial estimate of 72hrs and the second one of 24 that these were just elapsed time.  They said they were.

So, we were given incorrect information when we phoned on the first two occasions.  We were misled and given false hope that things would be fixed.

We have no been told that the issues will be completely resolved by midnight on Wednesday.  So we will have been without our correct phone service for over a week.  K is still being charged for her phone.  I'm not sure if I am for mine as no contract/device appears to exist.

Apparently K's number as gone into a 'hibernation' pool for 6months.  This is where all numbers go once they are discarded.  Presumably this is to allow time for any calls to old numbers to be 'bounced' and then for them to be recycled.  Retrieving a number from this pool is apparently the time-consuming part.

K asked if I could just be given a temporary number and/or if she could and my number restored.  Apparently that is not possible.

The best the manager on the other end of the line could offer is to pay £10 onto our bill to cover a PAYG SIM that we could go and pick up from the EE shop!

This is all very confusing; normally activating a phone is done within a matter of hours, maximum 24hrs for even transferring an existing number between networks.  Why couldn't EE just make up for their mistake and assign K or I a temporary number?  Surely that is what happens to SIMs all the time and it's automated/quick.  No, apparently they couldn't do that.

At this point, to add insult to injury the manager on the phone was referring to K's partner as 'male' again.  K had already explained to the first call handler that we had an upsetting experience on the previous call.  You'd think a manager could get this right.  K corrected him.

Now, I appreciate that mobile phone call centres are probably manic places, and we certainly don't hold the individuals we have talked to responsible for the mistakes.  Things do go wrong, mistakes do happen and those at fault need to put them right (or more often than not, someone else in another department needs to sort out the mess).

EE has failed to do this in a timely fashion.  They have misled us about the timescale to resolve the issue, they have failed to adequately make-up or apologise for their error.  They have also compounded matters by having issues with the way they deal with their customers regarding gender and sexuality to the point that their call handlers make comments that are upsetting and show a distinct lack of education and awareness.

In short, this is absolutely terrible customer service.  We will be making a formal complaint in writing to EE.  I would not in any way recommend their service given this utter mess (in part caused by their woeful online account management).

K's contract comes to an end in March, mine around September.  We'll both we seriously considering other options.  I'd already looked at Three and found the features of their plans (unlimited data, minutes, texts, inclusive roaming etc) to be far better than EE.  Coverage isn't as good but we might just be able to live with that.

Okay, it's maybe no big deal for EE to lose a few contracts.  In fact, we pretty much feel that this comes across in their customer service.