Are equality laws clear on sex and gender expression at work? Kids Toy Shop AGP

It's also not as if a female in a workplace with fake breasts wouldn't be hugely disruptive. Would it be fine to impose that in a school eg, where female and male students would be hugely pressurised for different reasons.
No, that should not be allowed either.
This is not just a trans/women's rights issue, it's also simple societal norms being taken advantage of.
That goes beyond trans and into bad actors in society feeling emboldened to take the piss. Only their comfort is what matters, any objection is not permitted.

I remember being taken in by PIE's arguments that children should be allowed to express their sexuality - it seemed friendly and cool and liberating. I was niave, I know, but it was all mixed up with gay lib and freedom from old-fashioned and sexist constraint. Looking back, we were partly mad and partly manipulated by very clever people who knew they wanted child safeguarding removed but did not say those actual words, but used esp young peoples' desire for freedom for all to push their vile agenda as liberation for kids. I shudder at my niave young self. My revelation came when I had a child - a realisation that made me much quicker to sort out what trans ideology was and how it related to removing safeguarding from children. Same message, different clothes.

That's not the case and cannot be argued to be relevant to the case in point. A man who is guising as a woman is an existential threat. A woman who wears fake breasts (maybe she has had a mastectomy and is waiting for reconstruction?) is much less of a threat - though if not the reason I just cited then one would wonder about her mental health, which is also a safeguarding issue, but not the same as the man in fake tits who is wearing his fetish in public (which is a massive red flag).

A better comparison would be a woman wearing an absolutely massive cod piece. And yes I think people would find that distracting and frankly bizarre.

Yes, we were useful idiots for perverts when we were campaigning for gay rights! Very annoying, in retrospect. Merely kicking them out wasn't really enough, but we didn't know that.

No doubt the trials and tribulations that society went in from the 70s into full equality when dealing with gays and gay rights are absolutely played on and used as a moral shield by trans ideologues.
Ie, in a kid's toy shop in the 70s, overt gayness from a shop assistant was at the very least frowned on, public humiliation, at worst led to the sack.
Our "friend" here with the fake boobs would very much see himself as equally prejudiced against with the attitude that he can't bring his "whole self" to work.

They were a menace. Their ex-members probably still are, the ones who are not presently in prison or dead.

In 2024 the BBC got hold of the PIE membership list from the 1970s and discovered by investigation of about 150 of them that seventy had been working in jobs which brought them into trusted contact with children: teachers, social workers, sports coaches, youth workers, doctors, clergy, lay preachers and military officers involved in youth activities.... And the other half had almost all been convicted, cautioned, or charged for sexual offences against children. Looks as if the ones who were not caught (or have not yet been caught: this was only two years ago) were either luckier or more cunning than the ones who were. What happened to the other 166 I don't know; still out there, just getting on with their lives, I expect.

Well, dirty old men, how could I forget them?
Gay Liberation Front, yes of course
Paedophile Action For Liberation... that's a new one on me

Sorry. I forget people don't remember this lot any longer....

Paedophile Action for Liberation.
Dirty Old Men.
Gay Liberation Front.

(And PIE is the Paedophile Information Exchange.)

I love a good acronym.
What's PAL? And DOM?
And GLF for that matter?

An end to child safeguarding was what the PIE (and PAL, but they were rumbled sooner) wanted back in the nineteen-seventies and -eighties, and those mostly-young-male members of that group haven't gone away; they've just morphed into another group under a different name and got forty or fifty years older. So they are now DOM as well as sincerely opposed to the protection of children from inappropriate sexualisation.

We in the GLF didn't think much of them back in the seventies either. Funnily enough, we were able to see a difference between what we called "kiddy-fiddlers" and homosexuals who wanted relationships among consenting adults without being persecuted about them.

The main thing PIE had going for them was that both Mary Whitehouse and the National Front detested them, which made some misguided people think they must be OK really! Affiliation with the PIE definitely wasn't the NCCL's finest hour. (That organisation changed its name to "Liberty", possibly because of unfortunate associations remembered by a few of us.) And I think the Liberal Party may still blush a bit when they are forced to think about that decade, as may some older members of the Labour party.

I've always prided myself on being forthright and non-BS.
But even I refrained from using the word "grooming".
Well, fuck that, I'm done with self censoring.
I'm talking grooming culture. The destruction of barriers, expecting women to ignore their evolved early warning systems and triggers, the increased amorphousness of child safety and safeguarding, I'm afraid it's ramped up as AGP men have imposed their demands on society, and too many have acquiesced.
I mean, big tits in a shop or on campus is one thing, but thin end of wedge leads to thick...I mean if women don't/can't object to this fetish in these circumstances, then they certainly can't where safeguarding really is an issue.
This is a bookend to male breastfeeding and drag queens reading to kids.
The grooming doesn't have to be overt as in the rape gangs or religious sects...it can also be in breaking barriers in children when they're young and hugely pliable mentally.
Big tits here, male breast feeders there, drag queens imposing in child-centered social situations that men can become women, is both the ultimate misogyny and sowing the seeds/collecting the harvest in the next generation.

Apart from anything else, that's a clear health and safety issue. Everything - including the hair - needs to be tied up out of the way.

My dad used to be a coalminer and lads with long hair had to wear hairnets to stop their hair tangling in machinery.

You just need to look at grooming gangs to see how far down the list safeguarding children sits.

What has shocked me most about the whole, sorry TRA debacle is the degree to which ALL OTHER CONCERNS are overriden by these men's demands.

Women's rights, safety, dignity is one thing - I probably should have predicated that.

But child safeguarding? Offered up on the altar of men's fetishes? I will be shocked about that til the end of my days. Depravity on another level.

I’m still puzzled by butch lesbians putting rolled up socks in their knickers. Makes a change from a wad of loo roll in an emergency I suppose…

I'm full of admiration for all the women (and some men) taking the trouble to engage with the grubby denial of safeguarding children in favour of celebrating men with a fetish.

Thankfully the more men (and mothers with 3 children 😂) promote and celebrate fetish aimed at children, the quicker the general public get to grips with what is being demanded of society and reject wholesale all the demands.

And, just to add, re: afraid that if they didn't hire him, he would encourage an activist boycott of the business

a) I am not saying that this is what all trans-identified people go around doing all the time (this for our "friends" across the Pond who will undoubtedly be rejoining the thread after Mummy has made their breakfast)

b) I am saying that I have personal experience at a previous employer where one, very determined individual was going around applying to every post available in my specific area of finance and audit (having NO financial or audit experience whatsoever), with the intention of suing every employer for racial discrimination when they did not hire him. And he did. And he won a lot of money, until the word got around in the sector. So, applying with the intent to cause trouble does happen.

It occurs to me (after re-reading Emily Whosis' posts) to wonder: If it isn't possible to be sure whether this man is a fetishist or not, how is it possible to be sure he is trans?

I am not convinced that trans people of either sex necessarily agree with the "trans umbrella" crip-crap, and I am absolutely sure that quite a lot of people included under that umbrella without being consulted find it madly annoying to be told they are not homosexual after all, but trans really. Maybe honest old-fashioned fetishists are as irritated as people who were of indeterminate sex at birth, when they are lumped in with a group in which they don't feel that they fit.

This story so reminds me of that whole scandalous period of men taking hormones and chemicals to lamely mimic women breastfeeding.
And the number of people, including doctors and others with science backgrounds, and so many Labour politicians (yes Angela Rayner and Clive Lewis, you both amongst many) who said both there were no issues re babies health, and also that any objections were anti trans bigotry.
Periods like that, and now this growing penchant for AGPs to flaunt their fetish in front of women, seem to be almost "the rage of the age".
The argument that men can become women has been lost, the law via SC reflects that, soon toilets etc as a battleground will be neutered, so new battlegrounds must be found, these including men demanding the "right" to breastfeed uncriticised, and men to wear fake tits to work.
The war to humiliate women and deliberately blur sexual boundaries, and I'm not afraid to say so, legitimize grooming, carries on.
As a male, I know very well how single minded my clan will be, to the exclusion of all else.

I instinctively and immediately agreed with you, SpecialAgentMaggieBell, but confess to having taken a few entertaining moments to carefully consider the characteristics of both before confirming that yes, I agree with you, there is definitely a bit of a difference😂

I think EmilyinEverton has gone, so we may never get answer to our questions.
I'd still like to know how she thinks you could wear a strap-on dildo under your clothes without it being visible - any hints, Emily? asking for a friend. Not.😁

Honestly, the things that get posted on here!🙄

I thought that the first two definitions of anarchy were the definitions used by traditional anarchists, but I guess you would know more about that than I would. I don't want to derail the thread, so thanks for clarifying your view.

Men and women's sexuality is different, im surprised this is news to you. Thats why you never hear stories from transmen about sneaking into their dad's room to try on their dad's underwear as a kid and getting aroused by it. Its why you dont get lesbians arranging lunchtime hook ups with strangers in a bush in Hampstead heath, its why you dont get whole streets dedicated to men selling sex out of shop windows.
To try a pretend that women having boobs is the same as a MALE purchasing a huge latex set of tits to wear under his work uniform, is the most disingenuous horseshit I've seen TRAs push in sime time. In fact, many of the places that sell this stuff, sell it as fetish gear.

This is why I'm wondering why the toy shop hired him in the first place.

Did he not wear his fake boobs to interview, and he had loads of retail experience, was personable, had great references, etc.? ( so they were not aware he was going to "bring his whole self to work")

or

He did wear them at interview, and they hired him anyway. (were they stupid, afraid that if they didn't hire him, he would encourage an activist boycott of the business, or are they perfectly happy with their choice?)

Deception, fear, or collusion?