Waitrose delivery driver

Not really the case. Listen to the video. The delivery driver says she is not a man and KJK retorts “No, you’re a man…”. It was not accidental misgendering. It was on purpose and said as if KJK were correcting the delivery driver by denying the existence of transwomen as separate from men. And this was before the mention of womens spaces and before KJK mentioned her daughter.

Oh, House of Lords, referred to upthread I think, paraphrased: No individual going about their every day business is going to be arrested for not recognising the gender of a transwoman. Referring to them as he is not an illegal act.

And obviously taking time out of your day to approach them and hassle them is harrassment, just as it would be if you did the same.to anyone else with the same intent to annoy, bother, perturb.

Nobody is saying that some people are not transphobic. But knowing transwomen are male is not.

It is very plain that kJK misgenders her, calls her a man

Yes. After explaining that she didn't think anything of it, the delivery drive was a man with long hair, didn't see the name badge with a female name until a bit later.

Because men look like men, move like men, are male bodied. Nothing hides that. So the vast majority of transwomen are always going to be 'misgendered', especially when in motion. There is nothing that can be done about that as restructuring the pelvic girdle isn't an available surgery.

All transwomen are male. That is factual.

This hair thing is an interesting one. Seems biological men in the news in relation to being trans love having long hair. Almost like they have a thing with it. That would be Lia Thomas, Emily Bridges, Caitlin Jenner. Same as the delivery driver. So before you go on about mumsneters noticing it, is it not done to be noticed. Oddly I would have thought short hair was an advantage in top class cycling and swimming.

I have occasional deliveries from keynsham branch and believe I have probably met the same delivery person. I recognised Kellie-Jay's description of a not obviously trans person until I read their name badge with a typically female name (standard uniform and longish hair). We had a perfectly pleasant doorstep exchange but i was a little guarded as I didn't want to assume they were trans or wanted to be addressed as she/her if that was an assumption on my part. It didn't crop up in a first person conversation.

I suppose with Kellie-Jay, the WAHF thing is her trade mark. She wears it on t shirts, puts it on a billboard etc. It does invite the kind of conversations which most people tiptoe around trying to avoid but she is willing to have in the public sphere, and doesn't mince her words. However, when someone is receiving a service in their own home, they don't expect to have their political values questioned or analysed.

I presume the driver knew the associations with the dictionary definition of woman and therefore was picking an argument by saying "so that includes transwomen then" or whatever the exact words were. I would have sympathy with the driver if the customer had spontaneously told them to stay out of womens spaces or whatever, but the driver overstepped at the point of opening the conversation and then didn't like the response.

I would never dream of doing anything like this in my line of work which involves visiting people in their homes.

What's the length of somebody's hair got to do with anything?

Because the driver looked like a man with long hair, with no other signifiers that the driver was not a man, to KJK, obviously.

My interpretation of the Forstater Tribunal is that is has made reasonably clear that you can't harrass work colleagues. Deliberately and consistently misgendering them for example. I'm also sure that you can't go around abusing random trans people in the street. No-one has any reason to go up to random people and deliberately misgender them.
But it didn't say that you have to affirm trans people, nor are you compelled to lie if a man with long hair wants to chat trans issues with you, especially on your own property
Oh see, I was with you until you started on about "man with long hair" and I started to tune out.
Where to start?
You were there, were you?
What's the length of somebody's hair got to do with anything?
.

My interpretation of the Forstater Tribunal is that is has made reasonably clear that you can't harrass work colleagues. Deliberately and consistently misgendering them for example. I'm also sure that you can't go around abusing random trans people in the street. No-one has any reason to go up to random people and deliberately misgender them.

But it didn't say that you have to affirm trans people, nor are you compelled to lie if a man with long hair wants to chat trans issues with you, especially on your own property. I fully intend to never again acknowledge someone's gender identity, because I think it is harmful to them and society to do so. I believe this can be done politely. The law is on my side IMO.

What a fatuous statement, but you do you. Shame you don't seem able to acknowledge that sex is immutable, so your male born delivery driver is still a male. He can think himself a woman, a crab or a cabbage, his chromosomes, even a 100 years after his death will still identify him as a male of the human species. I like to imagine myself as a gorgeous, toned bodied, slim, unwrinkled beauty...... the mirror has the unfortunate habit of disillusioning me.....but in your world my fantasy is truth?

I am confident, however, that should you discover a primary source of evidence, you will link us into it in a timely manner.
Yes, I will, as I said I find it important to know both sides and always have

@Greencoatblue

That's your view.

I think I know myself and what I’m thinking or not thinking better than you do!

I'm very fact based too

Glad to hear it.

I’m very facts based You’re reading too much into it. That's your view. I'd feel far more threatened by a male person (even if that person 'identified' as a woman) inside my home than one who was outside my front door who could be effectively barred by slamming the door shut. I'm very fact based too, I understand that sex is binary and immutable. No person on this earth has ever changed their sex. Any 'declaration' that somebody has changed from a man to a woman or vice versa is pure fantasy. My niece insisted she was a horse........ nobody suggested a stable and nosebag........she was 4 at the time .....

I’m very facts based. Her video is vague, other posters before me said the driver was on the doorstep, my Waitrose deliveries have all been doorstep since covid…so I honestly thought the posts saying the delivery driver was in KJKs house were factually incorrect and so I chimed in on the side of the other posters saying doorstep. I now admit that’s not a 100% certain fact like I thought it was. But that’s it. You’re reading too much into it.

@Discovereads I did not even think about the relevancy of where she was when she said I’ll take my time. sorry that doesn't make sense. Why would you refer to the driver being on the doorstep if it had no relevance, why would you even dispute the driver was in her house, which you did more than once? If you can't see that anybody not immediately complying with an instruction to exit from somebody's house is even worse than not leaving their doorstep, then we obviously have very different safeguards.

I know she said that later on in the video, but that’s one of the places where she changes her story. If you listen to her first account, where she goes through a blow by blow retelling of the delivery driver said x, I said y. It is very plain that kJK misgenders her, calls her a man and tells her to stay out of womens spaces before there is any mention of her daughter.

It is well accepted that it is rude to misgender a trans person. The tribunal judgement I posted concluded that GC believers cannot misgender transpeople “with impunity” and that “calling a transwoman a man may be unlawful harrassment” So KJK calling her man was rude and disrespectful at the least. In addition, launching into demanding a transwomen not use womens spaces was starting a political argument.

Oh that’s why I’m confused. I cut and past that but because I’d answered no to the amend my response bit but after posting realised the “and if not why” then applied so I still owed you an answer.

I did not even think about the relevancy of where she was when she said I’ll take my time.

@Discovereads no. You are wrong. KJK said she was polite until he said he liked sharing changing rooms and toilets with teenage girls like her daughter. Then she was rude and likely swore, ordering him off her property.

@GCRich
I think this is the most balanced and reasonable post I’ve seen from you on this thread. I agree with most of what you said.

My only issue is that the three things you mentioned that the delivery driver did to lose “all right to be treated with respect” did not happen before KJK treated her disrespectfully. They happened as reactions to being treated disrespectfully; starting with the deliberate misgendering of calling her a man and telling her to stay out of womens spaces.

So I think we need to keep in mind that the delivery driver was provoked into what they said which in turn provoked KJK.

Absolutely nailed it!

You've cut down the quote and twisted it so the meaning is changed, that doesn't answer the question I asked. I'd be interested in whether or not you'd amend your response, and if not why did you repeatedly say the driver was not inside her property but outside on the step as if that made a difference? Surely the fact you kept asserting no he wasn't in her house but outside on the step means you acknowledged where he was when he declared he'd take his time was relevant. If he was on her doorstep she could simply shut the door in his face, if he was inside her home she couldn't.

Great post 👏

She should have complained about him immediately if her account is true
How might he be with other customers

I kind of agree, then I think of all the things that happened to me and I never bothered reporting because
Will I be believed?
It will take up a lot of time to not be believed.
Is it worth it, will anything change by my complaint?
Dont want people to lose jobs.
And some other reasons I'm too drunk and menopausal to remember.

@Discovereads

No. Not Intimidation. No, because you can be assertive without verbally abusing someone.

Arguably asking about the sign was inappropriate behaviour. It certainly was if he was planning on challenging her on her political beliefs in her own home. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Arguing about politics on her property. A massive no, and Waitrose should discipline him and re-train him. Talking like he did about her daughter. Refusing to leave immediately. Worse again.

We don't know whether this was doorstep, but I expect it was inside. It doesn't really matter but KJK is even more justified if it happened in her house.

Either way he had done at least three things that lost him all right to be treated with respect. Customers are not obliged to be professional, that's the employee's job. Customers are obliged to treat staff with respect, but not after the employee has behaved deeply inappropriately.

We also only know one side, other than it is certain KJK expressed her views and used swear words to ask him to leave. There is no point debating the story unless we trust KJKs account. Obviously if the truth turns out to be different then we'll have to re-appraise, but I have no reason to doubt her.

She should have complained about him immediately if her account is true. How might he be with other customers?

The tweet isn’t wrong.

why did you repeatedly say the driver was not inside her property but outside on the step as if that made a difference?

Because her video is vague on that point, because other posters said the driver was on the doorstep and because I get Waitrose deliveries weekly and since Covid to two days ago they’ve been outside/wearing gloves and not coming in.