Earl Aelfheah

Yes, thanks for requesting this.

There is a difference between gender identity and expression. There is definitely debate around gender specific facilities. But the gender recognition act has nothing to do with changing rooms and there are a lot of different things being conflated here and some ridiculous connections being made between unrelated issues. That podcast that was linked to above is worth a listen if like most of us, you?re not that familiar with trans issues.

Great work!

There seems to be activity in what was Bonnie's. Anyone know what it's going to be?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://cheerful.libsyn.com/episode-9-transgender-r > ights-are-human-rights > > Interesting podcast. Listened to this in the way to work this morning. It?s a good episode and pretty enlightening.

That isn?t to do with gender recognition laws though. It?s about a leisure centre?s changing policy.

Let?s force someone living as a man to use the women?s changing room, because that?s their ?birth gender?. That?ll delight people.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- -------------- > The reason the proposed gender identification laws > are worrying is that anyone could simply change > their gender - and change it back again - as they > pleased, simply by ticking a form, without any > evidence of genuine transgender leanings If someone wants to access a female changing room, do you really think that applying to change their legal status, their passport, there driver?s licence, bank accounts etc etc, is the easiest way to do it? The stunt suggest it?s a total red herring and has nothing o do with legal status or changes to the GRA.

That?s very patronising. I thought you were campaigning against possible changes to the gender recognition act which could make it easier for trans people to change their legal status. The suggestion seems to be that such a change will somehow make it easier for predatory men to enter changing rooms. Yet, you?ve shown that the two things aren?t actually linked at all. Or is it the policy of Dulwich Leisure centre that you?re actually protesting against? If I haven?t ?kept up?, maybe your arguments need to be more coherent?

Legal gender recognition has got nothing to do with access to gendered changing facilities, as evidenced by this stunt.

As I understand it a LGBT survey was launched, covering a wider range of issues. There will (at some point) be a full, public consultation when / if any firm proposals emerge regarding gender recognition specifically. As I?ve said already, the idea that lots of men will legally change their sex and chose to live as women in order to access female only spaces for nefarious purposes seems to me, far fetched.

My understanding is that a consultation is to take place at some point in the future. Why do you believe that women will be excluded from any public consultation out of interest?

The effect of service providers implementing self ID policies without applying any common sense is a quite different one.

The petition calls "for women to be consulted", in response to a proposed consultation exercise. Is the intention that the consultation should be limited to just women, as opposed to the broad consultation (which includes women), as is currently proposed?

As I understand it there is going to be a consultation on any proposed changes. No one is being frozen out of the discussions or having their voices silenced - they are being invited to contribute to a debate. Also, whilst the detail is as yet undecided - no one is talking about individuals saying "I'm a woman" and then being able to enter women only spaces. What is being proposed is that the process of applying to legally change one's sex on official documents, will be less invasive than it currently is. It will still be a big decision to live as a different sex than the one you were born to. I do not believe that many people will go to the lengths of legally changing their sex - choosing to live as a woman, just to gain access to female spaces for malign purposes. I am sure there are easier ways to do this, if you are a determined predator. That's not to say that it's impossible of course, but unlikely. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-action-to-promote-lgbt-equality

@sb - how does a change in gender recognition laws increase the likelihood of a predatory man disguising himself as a woman in order to gain entry to a female changing room? This could happen now, although it is an incredibly unlikely scenario of course. Anyone causing a nuisance in a changing room will be chucked out and I don't see what it's got to do with gender recognition laws. Or is the problem trans women (or just 'women') being able to use a female changing room?

Genuine question - if a man wanted to dress as a woman just to gain access to a woman's changing room - what's to stop them doing it now? I mean it seems to me, that this is an extremely unlikely scenario and that someone with such malign motivations, isn't going to be helped or hindered by a change to gender recognition laws. If someone is causing a nuisance in a changing room, they'll be chucked out regardless of the law around gender recognition, no?

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bad driving is not to be endorsed but being a > less-than-clued-up pedestrian is also a problem. > It is really hard to see people when it is dark > and when you add text-walking or just being stupid > - like walking across a road without any checking > - then driving is made less easy. (I am a > pedestrian with no car.) It's not a problem which of remotely of the same magnitude though. A pedestrian who is not paying attention is primarily a risk to themselves. Someone driving an average sized care at 20 mph and not paying attention, can very easily kill someone else.

There are a few big problems when it comes to discouraging dangerous driving: 1. too many 'passive measures' which don't encourage individual responsibility and can increase frustration and aggressive driving in some 2. little to no policing of speed limits 3. very, very lenient sentencing on the rare occasions that people are charged

I had someone right on my bumper this morning on Sydenham Hill, driving really aggressively. They overtook me at speed after tailgating for some time. The 20mph on that particular stretch is counterproductive imo (at least whilst it remains unpoliced as it currently is). It leads to even more dangerous driving.

There are plenty of people who travel a lot faster than 30 on the side streets of ED. The real problem is that there is no enforcement officers - Just speed bumps and the odd camera in fixed and visible locations.

I have experienced a few instances of people shooting out of side roads, or careering round corners recently. I nearly got taken out a few weeks back by someone doing just this as I was crossing the road. I do think it's possible that the extended yellow lines at corners might encourage more risk taking. When you can't really see round the corner, you're forced to stop. When you can, some people will glance without slowing down. It would be interesting to know if there is any assessment of the real life impact of these changes taking place?

Boris loves playing Churchill. Pathetic.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jenny1 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > HI RH. Clearly Gavin Williamson is MORE mad. But > I > > still think the tone of Corbyn's comments was > > ill-judged. There would have been a way of > > sounding statesmanlike about this. And he > didn't > > manage it. > > I agree he could have sounded better - his best > mates wouldn't call him a great speaker - though I > would add the caveat that it's rather difficult to > get a reasonable point across with the entire Tory > party shrieking "traitor" over you. His article > in the Guardian is perhaps a better vehicle by > which to judge him: > https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar > /15/salisbury-attack-conflict-britain-cold-war It's actually pretty difficult to argue with much in that article.

The road closure signs for Carlton Avenue are really inadequate. Traffic from the Village backing up as people have to do three point turns in the road, whilst others continue to drive up behind them.