u/alexmlb3598

Hey everyone, it's me again, the person who asked about what seat areas people liked and disliked 👋 thanks for all the comments, I really appreciated everyone's opinions! ❤️

Now we've got the schedule, I'm quite concerned about when the tickets go on sale (September 14th) and how close it is to the start of the season. I was planning on going in early-mid October next year (2027) but having tickets go on sale so close will make getting time off work and travel/accommodation arrangements much harder (for context, I'm coming from the UK and making the trip solely for a game and to explore the city).

Bc of that, I have some questions:

- How quickly do games sell out? I imagine weekend games against good teams sell out quicker, but for me midweek games are probably preferable, and I don't really care who they play so I'm quite flexible on that. I have signed up to this year's pre-sale so I can see how things develop, more as prep for next year than anything.

- If I made travel and accommodation arrangements when the schedule was released and get a game ticket much nearer the time, how likely would it be that I could still get one? I strongly prefer having a plan laid out in advance rather than having to go on the fly, but if I had to get one say a few days before game day, would that be possible? And are there going to be any areas that almost instantly sell-out?

- Do any of you guys have any tips on getting tickets ASAP and get a high success chance? Obviously the pre-sale, which I assume is a couple days earlier (such as the 12th this year?), but is there anything else I could do?

I'm probably stressing out way too much over something that's still a year away, but I'd much rather go in with a plan than have to guess my way there 😅

With the 2026-27 schedule about to be released, I thought now would be a good time to ask this since many people will have similar questions.

What are the 'better' and 'worse' seats at the Bell Centre?

I'm planning a trip to MTL for the first time (October 2027) and wanted to know which seats have which pro's and con's. My main focus is to have a fantastic time and on first look, somewhere high up in the 100 level around centre ice could be good to see what's happening, but I'd like to hear what the seasoned veterans have to say. Any other tips and tricks would be welcomed too :)

Thanks in advance to everyone who contributes, it is very appreciated!

Hey everyone, I'm currently planning a sim racing rig (for myself, planning on triple-screen) and settled on the rough specs I'm looking for, but I'm getting confused on what to go for so thought I'd ask for some help in here.

I know this might be a lot to ask for, but this is the rough specs I'm looking for:

- 32in

- 1440p at 144Hz

- Curved or Flat are both options

- HDR isn't required

- I was looking at IPS but if there are other good panel types for triples around then I'm open to direction

My PC has a 9800X3D and 9070XT, so 4K triples aren't an option but 1440p looks like a good spot. I did find the Samsung Odyssey G50D and thought that was the answer, but it looks like it's discontinued now :(

Thanks in advance to everyone :)

Some of you may remember I got a response from my MP about the Draft Code of Practice which can be seen here, and that it was rather unsavoury. So I decided to push back (but I won't be entertaining this muppet further, I think I made my points clear enough). Format is 'their paragraphs are in "", my response to such is directly below'. Response down below. For the record, my MP is a new male Liberal Democrat.

>Dear [MP's name],

>As you mentioned, I am very much disappointed in your opinion regarding this matter, but to put it bluntly I am stunned by the way in which you described your opinions. Given this, I have no choice but to pick apart what you said and call out how utterly ridiculous it is.

 

>“For some time, there has been uncertainty between the 2004 Gender Recognition Act and the 2010 Equality Act around the legal definition of sex and the rights of trans people to access single-sex spaces. The Supreme Court’s ruling last year provided this clarity, particularly on the use of single-sex spaces – although it is regrettable and unfair that this lack of clarity persisted for so long.”

>If there was such uncertainty about it, why did it only become a problem in 2023 during the FWS v Scottish Ministers (further mentioned as just FWS) case? There were 13 years between the Equality Act 2010 (EA2010) and this litigation, so clearly it wasn’t a major problem. There has been a common theme among those who have described the FWS ruling as “this ruling has provided clarity”, and yet have been unable to say what that clarity is, and neglected how it affects everyone – Since the FWS ruling, transphobic hate crimes have reportedly increased (including unfounded claims made against cisgender people, especially cisgender gender-non-conforming/GNC women), as well as a drop in reporting rates due to distrust and a lack of confidence by those affected that their report will actually be handled. The ruling also ignored the fact that intersex people even exist, who are believed to outnumber trans people by 3 to 1 in the UK – If this ruling provided such clarity, which single-sex space should an intersex person use if they don’t fit into either natal sex ‘category’? And not only do you gaslight trans people saying there was “uncertainty” when there wasn’t (those who wrote it have said it was their intention for it to be trans-inclusive, but the Supreme Court only cared about people who were anti-trans, and yes there is evidence to support that), but you have the bravery to say ‘I wish it was done sooner?’. And quite frankly, your arrogance in saying “that this lack of clarity persisted for so long” is “regrettable and unfair” is astounding – In what way is saying ‘you’re not allowed to exist in society anymore’ ‘fair and reasonable’? Is it because you think the safety of cisgender people is more important than that of trans, intersex, and GNC people?

 

>“The rights of trans people to feel safe and comfortable in public settings is important. I strongly believe that every individual has the right to identify with whatever gender best reflects who they are, and every reasonable effort should be made to uphold the dignity and inclusion of trans people in society.”

>This paragraph combined with the one above are at complete odds with each other. You can’t say ‘trans people deserve to feel safe, so I want to segregate them away from cis people’, because that forcibly outs them. It has the equivalent of turning them into a target for abuse because their identity is publicly known, and given how seemingly intolerant the British public is of people that are ‘different to me and that’s okay’, that is a hotbed for society becoming unsafe. A good example is Muslims – The media has painted them as religious extremists, various political parties have framed them as ‘illegal immigrants who want to destabilise Britain’, and what a surprise, hate against Muslims has skyrocketed, even if the threatened individuals haven’t got anything to do with it. This is what’s happening to trans people, the media and leading politicians have labelled trans people ‘a threat to the safety of women and girls’, so is it any surprise that trans people are considered as sexual predators even though trans people are one of the least likely demographics to actually commit a crime, let alone a violent one? And your point describing that trans people deserve “dignity” and should be included in society… Is the ‘dignity and respect’ in the room with us? Because given you openly said in the paragraph above that they should be segregated away and forced into spaces they both feel uncomfortable and are unsafe in, forgive me for saying I don’t believe that.

 

>“However, as a liberal, I also believe that it’s also very important that by allowing trans people to assert these rights, we ensure that the rights of others are not undermined, especially when it comes to the privacy and safety of women. Because of this, it is my belief that single-sex spaces should be protected based on biological sex and I am supportive of the measures laid out in the EHRC guidance on single-sex spaces.”

>Before FWS, we operated in a way where trans women used women’s spaces, trans men used men’s spaces, and intersex people used whichever spaces they felt comfortable with. Everyone lived in relative harmony, until a bunch of vocal individuals decided ‘I don’t like this anymore’. If trans people using single-sex spaces that they felt comfortable with was such a problem for cisgender women safety, why did it not happen before? Why are there a distinct lack of legal cases against trans women for sexual abuse in a women’s bathroom? The answer: Because it doesn’t happen, or at least it is on a far lower rate than people think. When people talk about this and why they want single-sex spaces to be restricted to ‘natal sex’, they say things like ‘We need to be protected in case a trans person tries to come in and assault us?’, and ‘What if someone who shouldn’t be here comes in?’ – Note that everything they say is underpinned by a ‘What if?’. If people had been assaulted by a trans person in a single-sex space and it was a chronic problem, we would know about this by now. As for your use of “biological sex”, please define what ‘biological sex’ is without calling it “birth/natal sex'. The British Medical Association described the term as “scientifically illiterate” – Someone’s ‘biological sex’ is made up of a bunch of different factors, including (but not limited to) someone’s chromosomal make-up, their primary and secondary sex characteristics, and their endocrinological system. A trans person alters their endocrinological system to better meet their identity, and this alters their secondary sex characteristics, so does that mean trans people’s ‘biological sex’ is that of their acquired sex? And what about intersex people, who’s chromosomal make-up doesn’t meet the ‘XX or XY’ binary, so what is their ‘biological sex’? And as a follow-up to that, if an intersex person doesn’t meet the ‘XX or XY’ binary and thus cannot be described as ‘male’ or ‘female’, which bathroom do they use? As a final point on this paragraph, “As a liberal”. I suggest you have a word with your fellow ‘liberal’ MP’s since over two-thirds of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party have signed the Early Day Motion requesting the Draft Code of Practice be put to a Parliamentary vote and be rejected, because it might be rather eye-opening to you that your current party is not where you fit best (ah the irony…it would be funny if not so sad).

 

>“At heart, this is a question of how we balance rights, and my view is guided by my liberal principles. I recognise that this is an issue that deeply affects people’s lives, dignity, and sense of belonging, particularly for trans individuals who already face significant challenges and uncertainty. For me, the rights of the many to privacy and safety in single-sex spaces should take precedence. However, I do not reach that conclusion lightly. I am acutely aware that this creates real difficulty and distress for members of the trans community, and I believe they deserve greater clarity, compassion, and support.”

>In what way is this a “balancing rights” problem? The rights of women and girls and the rights of trans people can co-exist if people are actually tolerant about it. Example: Gender-neutral bathrooms. They exist, people don’t have a problem with them, people use them, and we move on with our lives. If this was all about “balancing rights”, they wouldn’t exist to start with, and I’m not sure if you’ve realised this yet, but if someone had an ulterior motive to go into a bathroom or other single-sex space to assault a woman, a sign saying ‘women only’ is not going to stop them. But your gall in going from “trans people already face significant challenges and uncertainty” to “the rights of the many should take precedent” is so unbelievably shocking. You’ve literally said ‘a minority needs to be respected, but the majority make the rules and we matter more so there’. And then you flip-flop back to “I’m aware this created difficulty and distress for trans people, and they deserve compassion and support” even though you’ve just said ‘they don’t matter because the majority do’. How dare you consider yourself to be even vaguely interested in equality with an opinion like that, thinking ‘minorities should be respected but the majority matters more’. The Government’s own Equality Impact Assessment for the Draft Code said, “there are potentially negative impacts for those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from the updates to the Code as a result of how service providers implement FWS.”, and yet they are going on with it anyway. This proves how uninteresting ‘Equality’ is to the Government, and quite frankly I’m fed up of people who don’t know how much distress this puts through the people who are directly affected (even more so when they’re not even consulted on what might happen) saying ‘this is what you do deserve, and this is what you don’t’ as if we’re some kind of ‘inferior’ demographic. This is the equivalent of men writing policies about what women are and aren’t allowed to do, or white people writing policies for racial segregation. The “rights of the majority take precedent” is one of the core reasons the Council of Europe was established, because it is inhumane to see one demographic as superior to all others. The whole idea of ‘human rights’ existing is so the rights of a minority are not subject to the whims of the majority, and to protect those minorities from the majority who seek oppression. So when I asked “Is it because you think the safety of cisgender people is more important than that of trans, intersex, and GNC people?”, if your email is any indication of your true opinion, your answer is most definitely ‘yes’. In short, this rhetoric and idea that the majority is superior to every and all minority and needs to be codified in law needs to STOP. NOW.

 

>“I recognise that the measures do not provide a perfect solution, particularly for trans people who may, in some cases, have to rely on disabled facilities where alternatives are unavailable. In my view, individual unisex toilets and changing spaces, with floor-to-ceiling privacy, offer the best way to respect everyone’s rights and should be provided wherever possible. However, this will not always be feasible, which creates difficulty for trans individuals. I am very sympathetic to that.”

>Finally, something we (somewhat) agree on. Individual unisex bathrooms and changing rooms with floor-to-ceiling walls are indeed the answer, if it is the only option. If you have male, female, and unisex spaces where trans people are forced into unisex ones, that is illegal. If you force trans people to use disabled spaces, that is illegal. The Government is in charge of the rules, and if they pull the rug out from under service provider’s/businesses feet at a moment’s notice, they are responsible for what happens. So if a bunch of businesses go bust because they’re being sued for not enforcing what is widely known as unenforceable guidance, we know who is responsible. The Government can change the laws, they can change the rules, so this guidance is not unworkable, and people of all kinds can be treated as equals, but their animus against trans people takes precedent. So, if we end up in a state where [identifyting towns], and other various villages and towns in this constituency are devoid of restaurants, gyms/leisure centres, and other facilities that have single-sex spaces because they’ve been sued into bankruptcy by not conforming to the guidance, I hope you will be able to look at yourself and say ‘It was worth it because we owned the trans people’. Because that is just one part of what the future looks like, should this Draft Code become statutory law. Finally, “[it] creates difficulty for trans individuals. I am very sympathetic to that.”. If you had sympathy, you’d be pushing for something that maintains trans people’s comfort despite this, not leaving it as an afterthought for someone else to deal with.

 

>“I am also concerned about the limited opportunity for MPs to debate this guidance in Parliament. Given the sensitivity and complexity of the issue, as well as its significant impact on certain communities, it is essential that the updated guidance is subject to proper democratic scrutiny. This should happen via a free vote and I recently put this to the government in the chamber, which you can see by clicking here. In any such debate, my position would be to support the measures laid out in the EHRC guidance.”

>Good. I agree on that as well. It should be debated and voted on in Parliament. Because at least that way, we can all openly see those who support its revocation who can comfortably say ‘At least I didn’t vote for people to have the right to be stared at when entering a bathroom’, and those who voted to support the Draft Code will have an opportunity to live and, when the time comes, die by the sword. With regards to your tone in this email, I will happily say ‘be careful what you wish for’.

 

>“Please know that I have spent a long time reflecting on this and I remain deeply sympathetic to the trans community, who have too often been placed in an impossibly difficult position by years of ambiguity and successive governments skirting around this extremely difficult issue.”

>So, you can see the impossible state that trans people will be put in if this Draft Code becomes law, right? Right? No? Well, if it becomes law, trans people won’t be able to use the bathroom of their acquired sex, if they look like their acquired sex then they can’t use the bathroom of their natal sex, and if they ask to access an accessible bathroom they can legally be told ‘no’, leaving them with no option to maintain the ‘dignity and respect’ you claim to have and want for trans people. You say you want to provide clarity to trans people, and yet you want to put them in the very impossible and ambiguous position you claim you want to avoid, whilst also wanting to paint a target for abuse on their backs by forcibly outing them. And people wonder why trans people have problems with anxiety and depression… We all know exercise is good for your mental health, and now they no longer feel safe in leisure centres. Trans people aren’t trans because they’re depressed, they’re depressed because they’re trans and people, politicians, and society hate them for it.

>The UK was ranked 1^(st) in the ILGA’s Rainbow Map of Europe in 2015. Sure it wasn’t as good as it could’ve been, but after legalising gay marriage and moving towards a form of ‘Self-ID’ for trans people (it was a policy of the May Administration), things looked bright for British LGBTQ+ people. But now, we’ve fallen all the way to 22^(nd). The only western-Europe nation we are ahead of is Italy, but that’s looking at the whole sphere. Look at ‘Legal Gender Recognition’, and we fall all the way to 41^(st) out of 49. The only countries that do worse are (in descending order): Georgia, Slovakia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Monaco, Bulgaria, Hungary and Russia. The fact that I would feel safer and have more rights in Turkey or Belarus than I do in the UK when the public opinion of trans people in those three countries could not be more different is utterly shameful. The political and media classes of this country are so out-of-touch with what British people actually are. The public are not hateful, they are not divisive, and they embrace diversity, knowing that people are different and there’s nothing wrong with that. But the politicians and media empires want us to believe otherwise, that white, straight, cisgender Brits are superior to everything and everyone else. They’re relics of an Empire desperate to stage a comeback in a world that has left them behind.

>I hope this email gives you the opportunity for some strong self-reflection, and whilst the detailed approach to your email was welcomed, one that said “Thanks, but no, tough luck” would’ve got the message across. And I hope that when major businesses are sued and/or close down because they either:

>1.      Allowed a trans person to use a space conforming to their identity.

>2.      Stopped a cis person from using a space they are entitled to use.

>3.      Prevented a trans person from using any space.

>4.      Forced trans people to out themselves.

>5.      Any other scenario that doesn’t involve ‘unisex bathrooms only for everyone’

>…I hope you can say ‘ruining high streets was worth it to protect women’, even though it is a myth construed by a vocal minority who have a lot of influence and want you to be scared. But quite frankly, when people’s political opinions and voting intentions are linked to one singular policy that takes precedent over all others, it can make life very difficult for a politician and political party. And unfortunately for you, I am that kind of person, and thankfully I have people around me that support me. So thanks for showing your true colours.

I wrote to my MP (Lib Dem) about my opinions on the Draft Code - I used only my own writing as it was sent before any templates came out about it, so it might not have caught some things but it got to the core of the issue.

This is the response I got. Note that I've removed personally-identifying information, including who said MP is since I would rather not dox myself via general location, but I have to say I was disappointed in the response. It's basically 'I agree with it, but I have an issue with it not being put to a vote in Parliament'.

EDIT: Idk whats going on with the formatting :(

>Dear Alexa

>Thank you for your email.

>This is a sensitive and complex issue that I have given considerable thought to and I have a lot of sympathy for everyone directly affected by the issue. 

>For some time, there has been uncertainty between the 2004 Gender Recognition Act and the 2010 Equality Act around the legal definition of sex and the rights of trans people to access single-sex spaces. The Supreme Court’s ruling last year provided this clarity, particularly on the use of single-sex spaces – although it is regrettable and unfair that this lack of clarity persisted for so long.

>The rights of trans people to feel safe and comfortable in public settings is important. I strongly believe that every individual has the right to identify with whatever gender best reflects who they are, and every reasonable effort should be made to uphold the dignity and inclusion of trans people in society. 

>However, as a liberal, I also believe that it’s also very important that by allowing trans people to assert these rights, we ensure that the rights of others are not undermined, especially when it comes to the privacy and safety of women. Because of this, it is my belief that single-sex spaces should be protected based on biological sex and I am supportive of the measures laid out in the EHRC guidance on single-sex spaces.

>At heart, this is a question of how we balance rights, and my view is guided by my liberal principles. I recognise that this is an issue that deeply affects people’s lives, dignity, and sense of belonging, particularly for trans individuals who already face significant challenges and uncertainty.

>For me, the rights of the many to privacy and safety in single-sex spaces should take precedence. However, I do not reach that conclusion lightly. I am acutely aware that this creates real difficulty and distress for members of the trans community, and I believe they deserve greater clarity, compassion, and support.

>I recognise that the measures do not provide a perfect solution, particularly for trans people who may, in some cases, have to rely on disabled facilities where alternatives are unavailable. In my view, individual unisex toilets and changing spaces, with floor-to-ceiling privacy, offer the best way to respect everyone’s rights and should be provided wherever possible. However, this will not always be feasible, which creates difficulty for trans individuals. I am very sympathetic to that.

>I am also concerned about the limited opportunity for MPs to debate this guidance in Parliament. Given the sensitivity and complexity of the issue, as well as its significant impact on certain communities, it is essential that the updated guidance is subject to proper democratic scrutiny. This should happen via a free vote and I recently put this to the government in the chamber, which you can see by clicking here. In any such debate, my position would be to support the measures laid out in the EHRC guidance. 

>Please know that I have spent a long time reflecting on this and I remain deeply sympathetic to the trans community, who have too often been placed in an impossibly difficult position by years of ambiguity and successive governments skirting around this extremely difficult issue. 

>Whilst we may not agree on this particular issue, it is vital that I engage with the concerns of my constituents, particularly on sensitive matter such as this, so thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with me.  

>Thank you for raising this important issue with me. I welcome you to sign up to my newsletter if you'd like to stay up to date with local news, events and all I'm doing for residents in [location] and our villages.

>Best wishes