Misinformation correction: M&S Staff

That is interesting.

I mean, I am running a low grade fever and am coming down with a virus, but you see, as far as I could see, you were referring to JK Rowling. I surmised this because, here are the quoted posts from that thread.

PlanetJanette · Yesterday 23:11
There have been no lies?
So JK Rowling repeatedly claiming that the employee was offering to do a bra fitting wasn’t a lie?

PrettyDamnCosmic · Today 10:10
Repeatedly claiming that JK Rowling claimed that the employee was offering to do a bra fitting is the lie. She did nothing of the sort.

PlanetJanette · Today 13:41
Sure. She [surely refers to JK Rowling, unless you introduced a whole new woman into the discussion] was just referring to some mythical ‘cross-dresser’ who was offering bra fittings to teenagers who doesn’t actually exist.
I mean I get that you folk think JKR can do no wrong but pretending that her statements weren’t very clearly signally that this particular employee’s impugned actions included offering a bra fitting is nonsense.

murasaki · Today 13:56
You may have inferred that, but she [JK Rowling is assumed because no other 'she' has been introduced- although I am sure that @murasaki will confirm if this 'she' is indeed JKR] didn't actually say it with her actual words, did she.
And you keep saying she did. [referring to all the past posts referring to 'she lied' which was you referring to JK Rowling]

Again murasaki might come back and clarify.

PlanetJanette · Today 14:15 (the post I queried)
Where did I say that?
It’s irrelevant whether I think they should or should not - because the individual we are discussing had nothing to do with bra fittings contrary to what so many transphobes want people to believe.

With this as an answer:

15:14 post from me.

Where did you say what? This is what you were answering.
“You may have inferred that, but she didn't actually say it with her actual words, did she.”
“And you keep saying she did.”
Are you saying you didn’t say directly that JK Rowling said that the male employee offered to fit a bra for this teenaged girl?
Because there is a list of posts a couple of pages back where you did use clear words to say that she said this.

Your reply

Sorry but if you’re having trouble tracking what my posts are responding to that’s your problem.
The post you’re quoting was not related to JKR, it was responding to another poster who thought one had a gotcha my inferring views about trans bra fitters which is entirely irrelevant to this situation.

Because if you meant the 'she' to refer to PrettyDamnCosmic, you must be quite lost. Because PrettyDamnCosmic absolutely stated that you have been mistaken and been blunt about it. So, you saying it referenced PrettyDamnCosmic (assuming PDC is female even) doesn't make sense.

Hence... the need for clarification.

In fact.. I could only find two posts from PrettyDamnCosmic on this thread. First one was this as in the quote thread:

PrettyDamnCosmic · Today 10:10
Repeatedly claiming that JK Rowling claimed that the employee was offering to do a bra fitting is the lie. She did nothing of the sort.

The second is :

PrettyDamnCosmic · Today 10:16
She didn't. You are the one who has repeatedly lied.
JKR wrote "Cross-dressing men who offer to fit bras on teenage girls belong in a police interview room." a statement that anyone who knows anything about safeguarding would support.

Both about JK Rowling and 'actually say[ing] it with her actual words'. I don't think that PDC could be clearer 'in her actual words'. Making Murasaki's post quite baffling if it was referring to PDC. And if it was referring to JK Rowling, as I expect to find that it is, that makes your post the one that has changed who was being referenced.

I am thinking that perhaps it is you that has misunderstood Murasaki's post. But hey, I could be wrong.

Thanks for clarifying though that you were referring to PrettyDamnCosmic. I find your reply to Murasaki rather surprising though in that case.

Sorry but if you’re having trouble tracking what my posts are responding to that’s your problem.

The post you’re quoting was not related to JKR, it was responding to another poster who thought one had a gotcha my inferring views about trans bra fitters which is entirely irrelevant to this situation.

If I've learnt one thing from arguing with the TRAs it's that they never miss an opportunity to bring JKR into it.

Hellofabore

What really strikes me is how FWR MNetters have almost been trained to see this bullshit by this point and just aren't having it.

The ins and outs of the story are largely irrelevant because it's a matter of public trust in m&s in terms of safeguarding which m&s pr haven't successfully managed to deal with. Indeed all these emails to agitating tra only by m&s are only serving to demonstrate the problem and show they don't understand the problem or concerns.

M&S could have dealt with this easily and said something like 'We are committed to excellent customer service for which we believe we are known for. This includes a commitment to understanding the sensitivities of both vulnerable shoppers and staff alike and taking steps to protect both through adequate training where appropriate. In light of concerns raised recently where we may have failed to maintain this high standard of expectation we will be reviewing our policy and will ensure that all staff have sufficient up to date training to reflect this. We remain an employer who is committed to supporting diversity amongst our staff and understanding the specific needs of our more vulnerable customers in a sensitive manner which reflects the best interests of all parties fairly'.

But no.

Arguments about who said what when are spectacularly poor. They are exercises in trying to control the narrative.

M&S as the company involved has to play a line of referee to a degree. It's like a teacher who has to deal with a he said she said incident. They didn't witness the event themselves but they know
a) there's some problem or the incident wouldn't have occurred
b) their priority is a damage limitation exercise
c) they have a responsibility to take their responsibilities to all parties seriously and to act like a bloody grown up
d) they should reflect the law and act to protect all parties from similar potential future incidents.
e) be seen to be doing all of the above.

They have attempted b succeeding in a Streisand effect because despite acknowledging a, they haven't done c, d and e.

As a result it's turned into an opportunity to challenge and undermine public concerns at safeguarding and rather than emphasising that safeguarding is something for everyone by everyone and creating an environment where it's encouraged to ask questions and challenge behaviours which give red flags.

People who are doing this are either useful idiots (as per Hanlon's Razor) or deliberately opportunistic and deliberately seeking to destroy safeguarding. Unfortunately it is very clear that a number of prominent transactivists fall into this latter category based on their own words and personal history which is demonstrable and can be evidenced. This may not be reflective of all transpeople - the issue here is how much influence these few people have which is disproportionate.

One of the problems here is that key principles underpinning safeguarding is transparency and accountability. Transactivism has a large contingent to whom this is a massive problem because the whole point is that they, to use the words of another poster, want to stealth. That's simply not possible in certain scenarios - it falls under legitimate interest of the exemptions for article 8.

The sooner we get to a point where transactivism is challenged over this legally and it's explicitly laid out that yes, sex is often a matter of public safety and accountability and no you can't just pretend this doesn't apply in certain scenarios especially when it's fucking obvious because we have eyes, the better for everyone.

On FWR we are particularly finely atuned to this - maybe because this is a parenting forum mainly used by women. These principles and knowledge of how to handle a problem of this nature is something many of us have to do professionally or as part of a position of responsibility. Being a parent also means you learn to a tune for similar patterns because safeguarding is particularly important when it comes to children.

What with children being the most vulnerable in society and all that, despite egotistical claims to the contrary.

It is NEVER about deciding the exact nature of events and what actually happened and then making an judgement on that as if it's a court case in these type of situations. It's playground management, where you have to manage the kids AND the parents and be seen to do it fairly.

I don’t actually know what this stream of consciousness is intended to signify.

That's probably fair enough.

She goes back decades.

They've been iffy in boundaries and consent for ages. Some of Pamela Stephenson's advice in their relationship column was red flag central.

Im convinced TRA and MRA believe that JKR is the leader of women, and if they can tear her down, they tear every women down. And suddenly men can be women, and men can chat to teenage girls about bras.

That the Guardian would publish that, confirming that it knows a proportion of Transwomen are AGP, while at the same time calling women who don't want these men in their spaces 'bigots'.

I don't have the words. What complete scum they are 🤬

Still blows my mind that the Guardian would publish that. Though it probably shouldn't.

I'm sure there are men who lament that top shelf magazines are no longer a thing, because taking your purchase to the counter when there was a woman serving was part of the thrill.

Exactly, like Mr Guardian here

I bought my first pair of knickers in January. Within a month, I was wearing knickers and tights under my clothes almost all the time. My partner of 20 years has embraced this wholeheartedly.

Sometimes we go shopping together. I let the sales ladies know I am shopping for myself. As I pay, I smile and wink, as if to say, “I am enjoying this even if you aren’t.”

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/nov/03/my-life-in-sex

I'm in favour of having dedicated lingerie services for men who want them, and also invoking a single sex exemption for women's lingerie departments.

As I've said before, if men are being honest when they say they prefer the design and feel of women's knickers, there's nothing to stop them discreetly buying some on Amazon. Or a startup company producing attractive knickers in a female style that are cut to support male genitals. This would mean they wouldn't need to hang around the lingerie department of M&S giving women the heebie jeebies.

I'm afraid I suspect that, for quite a few men, giving women the heebie jeebies is what gets them off.

You have proved yourself that she didn't say that. You clearly state here she did so who is lying?

God you are unbelievable.

What you actually mean is "na I can't find my post on this either and that's really annoying because you are probably right but I can't possibly admit that because if I don't keep the conversation on what JKR said people might start talking about safeguarding and how I want to dismantle it again".

There have been no lies?

So JK Rowling repeatedly claiming that the employee was offering to do a bra fitting wasn’t a lie?

Sorry but if you’re having trouble tracking what my posts are responding to that’s your problem.

The post you’re quoting was not related to JKR, it was responding to another poster who thought one had a gotcha my inferring views about trans bra fitters which is entirely irrelevant to this situation.

Where did you say what? This is what you were answering.

“You may have inferred that, but she didn't actually say it with her actual words, did she.”
“And you keep saying she did.”

Are you saying you didn’t say directly that JK Rowling said that the male employee offered to fit a bra for this teenaged girl?

Because there is a list of posts a couple of pages back where you did use clear words to say that she said this.