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

AGPs do not always dress in overtly sexualised clothing. That doesn’t mean they are not wearing ‘normal’ women’s clothing for that reason.

I don't think we want severe mental health problems around kids either thanks.

God it's DARVO.

It's is not a sexual obsession to think that men dressing in a way that women typically wouldn't because they'd been dragged over hot coals for their inappropriate clothing and disciplined for being it's overly sexualised and unprofessional is somehow therefore totally ok for men. In a situation where the customer base is children and that's your target market it's absolutely a safeguarding issue.

Telling people that they are not healthy minded for recognising this is not safeguarding. It's trying to normalise creepy men who want access to children and get their rocks off upsetting women wanting to safeguard their children. It is a display of male power and dominance.

Healthy boundaries require an environment where you are able to tell someone they are inappropriate and unprofessional without being shamed and smeared.

We see you.

Usernames are always a tell.

It’s the Entertainer not Smyths which is Christian owned and doesn’t open on Sunday.

he is imposing his sexual fetish on his colleagues and customers, many of whom are children. It’s non contact sexual abuse. I would write and be very clear with them. This man is a blatant red flag.

No because she would be told to dress appropriately by management who wouldn't worry about getting sued.

I'm really depressed by this thread, the Biggus Tittus thread was bad enough (the Oxford fetish guy teaching young students), but this is much, much worse.

This is a clear safeguarding failure of the managers of this store to firmly prevent an employee living out their fetish in front of children. In a TOY SHOP.

I am utterly depressed yet unsurprised that there's someone on here trying to argue that it's perfectly fine. FFS.

It is a very male fantasy that thinks large breasts make women feel more ‘feminine’ - you know immediately they are thinking of porn shots with two tiny triangles of fabric floating over the nipples held together by thread. Women with large breasts know of the back ache and construction weight bras needed to provide adequate support and look longingly at the strappy floaty feminine summer dresses and wish they had smaller boobs.

Em is all about queering biology and is a fan of the 'sex is bimodal' theory/nonsense. The 'women' that Em mentions could all me male for all I know.

What women have you ever seen wearing massive fake tits when working in a child focused environment?

As for 'making them feel more feminine' - if you think we should be taking men seriously whose idea of womanhood is massive fake tits, well I have no words for that. I mean ffs

I was going to say this. It's The Entertainer that's owned by Christians. Not Smyths.

ETA: Sorry, I see this has already been clarified.

Massive fake tits are also sexualised behaviour and inappropriate around children. Women don’t get massive tits for ‘femininity’.

I mean if trans rights activists really want to push this issue then have at it.

Let the sunlight in.

Just like the moobs protests, and the piss protests, 'men in enormous rubber breasts' are a perfect visual illustration of the problems feminists have been trying to point out for years.

The same as women who get massive fake tits. Makes them feel more feminine which is expression of their individual personality inclinations, or just an aesthetic preference, to attract members of the opposite sex or maybe a fashion trend.

Who knew the rights of men to openly perform fetishes around children would be the next great civil rights movement?

What motivations might there be behind someone objecting to sexualised behaviour in an environment where there are small children?

Fetish accessories/outfits do not belong around children.

Claiming a man needs to indulge his fetish to 'hold it together' and that others must tolerate his fetish is absurd.

But see my post above @emilyineverton. Some signifiers have a cultural meaning and you can't just go "oh no, that isnt what I meant!". The evidence is history.

What potential motivations would be behind a man wearing massive fake tits to his job in a toyshop?

I don't defend him. I defend evidence of which you have none to prove his motivations. The only motivations proven here are your own.

A woman expressing "man face" would be what? Painting on stubble? Big fake Father Xmas beard? Or just having their own natural ungroomed eyebrows and no makeup? The truth is that "man face" doesn't historically exist, but womanface does; just like blackface, it exaggerates the characteristics of the stereotyped group that most fit with the colonised identity of that group, in a reductive way, in order to minimise and heighten difference from the straight white male norm. The things that the person of that group has been forced to assume amd/or emphasise for their own safety, historically. So they look small and non threatening to powerful groups. The things that have been used as signifiers of stupidity and difference, so people from these groups can be comfortably treated as lesser in spaces of power. Could be natural aspects of the body or aspects of makeup. The difference is the way history has treated these things.

Huge, over emphasised, sexualised, partially visible breasts, clothed in a tight "presentation" are part of the colonised identity of womanhood - not the innate experience of femaleness. We all know that breasts are secondary sexual characteristics, part of sexuality in our culture. Women aren't even allowed to show theirs in a toy shop, even when natural! Probably if you went in as a woman with huge breasts and a tiny string bikini top, dressed in a "page 3 girl" type wardrobe, you'd be disapproved of. The guy at work presumably wasn't wearing the fake boobs under a big sloppy sweatshirt so you can't see the outline?? For his inner personal experience? He didn't want people thinking "oh is that person a bit lumpy and fat", no he wanted "look, those are boobs!"

Having "inner femininity" or the female experience signified as big fake boobs is dangerous and colonising. This opinion is not the same as saying that gender conformity is essential for everyone, rather, that anyone of any gender can wear what they like - so long as it does not oppress by reductive symbolism.

Let's imagine that a white man wanted to behave like their imaginary (colonial, oppressive) stereotype of a black African American guy. And they went to work in a ludicrous "gangsta" outfit that everyone could see was supposed to be racially coded. And part of that was they stuffed into their pants a big fake dick you could see through their clothes. Because the stereotype of that group of people is hypersexual and with a big willy, right? He's just identifying with his inner black man!!

We can all see how disgraceful and horrific that would be. I am in two minds whether to even use the analogy as it feels offensive to even think it! But why don't we have a similar inner monitor stopping us in the discussion of women's body parts?

It’s tricky, because you wouldn’t think you’d ever need to point it out. It should never have got to the stage where a man felt able to wear latex boobs while working in a toy shop.

Maybe the managers are waiting for complaints? That may be a tack to take.

“Dear manager,
Why have you allowed this employee to dress so inappropriately for his work?
I can only assume you are waiting for complaints from the public to back up whatever action you intend to take.”

Perhaps some of the kids who visit the toyshop are not as blind as adults are expected to be. Certainly when I was a kid I would shouted loudly: Mummy why has that man got big busties? " 😉