City of London Corporation 'gender survey' results

[NotZenEnough]

Edward Lord tweeted yesterday about headline results from the Corporation of London 'gender survey'. Sounds like terrible news.
I wonder if there are grounds to object on the basis of how directive the survey was and also I didn't realise it was called the 'gender survey'.

Yeah but what does "trans inclusion" mean. What does Lord think it means, versus what the people who completed the consultation meant?

He makes my skin crawl too.

How is Edward Lord allowed to get away with this? Are fellow members of the Corporation stying quiet until they get the opportunity to vote it down?

Why is the world saying quiet, Charlie? There’s so much cowardice in all levels of government and society.

When it's released, if the results look odd then one of the fact checking organisations might be willing to request the survey turns and analysis and methodology.

The document says that: The survey was designed as an engagement vehicle to seek views, rather than as a research tool.

Which doesn’t suggest they’re going to go their own way at all does it?

The results are bound to look odd as the survey was self selecting and could be filled in by anyone, regardless of their connection to the city.

It surveyed the responses of people on twitter who have views on self ID. As a data gathering exercise on behalf of the City of London it was completely pointless.

I would be asking how much it cost and which budget was used.

How does the CoLC work?

Rather like approaching our MPs should we be approaching people so that they understand what is being talked about? I imagine they have a lot on their plate and that not many of them have thought about this issue yet, other than as a fringe issue

So he's binned all the responses that said people should not have the right to be affirmed in their gender?

That's what his tweet above said.

The survey was designed as an engagement vehicle to seek views

Apparently they wanted to engage with random people on social media, which you would think would be outside the remitbif a local authority. Misuse of funds?

Remit!

The only way this can be even slightly credible is to having a number of independent analyses and by publishing the raw data.

They quote 18,589 people having made free text comments when responding to a question about safeguards related to preserving the dignity of all users. This is hugely significant.

I didn't vote to exclude trans people from anything other than the single sex spaces that do not match their natal biology.

I would have thought that most trans allies would have voted by checking the boxes seeing as the questions were framed in their favour and so these are reflected in the votes, but it is interesting that even there there is not 100% support by that method.

There is no way this came out the way Lord wanted it to, but he is dong his best to spin it. He has to he has a lot to lose. If (when) this trans ideology collapses he is going to be one of the little emperors looking like a naked perv.

Recognising trans people in their gender sounds very nice. And no one is going to force women to wear dresses and stop men from wearing make up if they wish.

But supporting someone in their gender and believing that some women have penises are two very different things.

The Appendix is linked here:
democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=78601
It is just the demographics, not all the results.

Even if the results are exactly how EL interprets them, that’s still 4000 people who responded who will be excluded from the city as they won’t have single sex facilities to use.

What is the demographic of these people (ie are they majority female?)

Therefore the proposed policy is at risk of sex discrimination.

What provision can be made for these people?

A massively more significant chunk than the 1%?? of trans people this policy aims to help.

According to the appendix, 64% of respondents neither live nor work in the city of London.

67% don’t use services affected by the consultation (and about a quarter of respondents skipped this question completely).

It’s really not clear what useful conclusions can be drawn from the survey or why the City of London commissioned it in the first place.

So 64% of respondents neither live nor work in the City but their views are to be used to reduce my access to services as someone who DOES work in the City on a daily basis? Marvellous.

I made it clear that I am a regular open water swimmer with a membership at Tooting, but also using Brockwell and The Serpentine. All have communal changing rooms. Hampstead would form an unwelcome prescedent.

However happy to be disregarded - if the other 64% are.

Does anyone know how the Councillors / Aldermen system works at the City of London Corporation? Are they organised into political parties and if so, which party does EL belong to? The website doesn't seem to show representatives by party but maybe the info is just not loading. EL has the air of being one of these unrecognisable, a-far-cry-from-David-Steel Lib Dems - the type who throw women under a bus but welcome Aimee Challoner into the party with open arms

Just looked him up on his extensive (self-penned no doubt) wiki entry. He's a Tory turned Lib Dem. Tory boy at University, joining when the party was at the peak of its Section 28 frenzy. Love how these male "equality" campaigners didn't give a shit about Section 28 back in the day and only later realised it was not a good thing

It’s really not clear what useful conclusions can be drawn from the survey or why the City of London commissioned it in the first place.

It was intended to be a document in which they could prove the support for the idea they had. It was supposed to be a stitch up where data could be used to show they were right.

It didn't quite work out like that. It didn't give the information they wanted.

Statistics can be used against people by authority figures. Few people check them (the current media are particularly bad at this) and few people know how to challenge people using misleading statistics. People value and trust statistics when they don't understand them - which is a really bad state of affairs.

Medicine is riddled with examples.

Anyone saying they will 'cherry pick' stuff, is a political shithead. (Thats me being very polite btw).

The problem with rights is they need broad public consensus to work. The law supports the consensus. It is not supposed to go against public opinion. This then protects the consensus. Or thats the idea.

If you start to bring in things which either infringe other rights or don't have the proper public consensus they need, you get problems. You end up with a law you have to very heavily police which involves a huge amount of police time and effort or you have to enforce it through a culture of fear and intimidation and 'show trials' in a deeply authoritarian manner which is hugely resented. This also leads to it not properly protecting the people it was intended because resentment leads to a higher number of crimes in the first place.

People only respect the law, if they feel the law is fair and just. If you have law which is unfair or is perceived as unfair, you are storing up a world of trouble.

As a point of reference, its interesting to see how Trump has spun things like his inauguration to try and suggest bigger numbers than reality, to inflate his legitimacy. Looking bigger than you are, is a trick of authoritarianism - which creates this culture of fear.

This man wants to destroy rights and has no respect for democracy.

Isn't it very unwoke of him (zim/zoo/ etc) to be a mason? Didn't he (snee/tree) get the masons to allow transwomen? In a stunning blow for equality ?

That's one connected activist.

I'm sick of this shit

Does anyone know what's happened to this consultation? Things seem to have gone a bit quiet despite Edward Lord claiming he had the "strong backing" of the CEO etc.