To think we should all boycott John Lewis until they respect their female employees

[Lovelyview]

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/resignation-letter-from-a-john-lewis

This is a letter from a female employee of John Lewis's Cheadle branch. John Lewis told its female employees that they have to share toilets and locker rooms with trans identifying men. The employee says this is having a terrible effect especially on colleagues who have experienced trauma relating to men or who have religious reasons to not want to share a space with someone who is the opposite sex.

If JL expected trans women to be excluded from women-only spaces because of the small number of cis women who have an issue with it would be bigoted in the extreme.

The majority of women, according to polls, disagree with you. Most women want males to be excluded from women only spaces. It isn't about their trans identity, it's about their sex.

By the way, based on posts from another thread where a poster assured us that cis women are what we should be talking about when referring to two male boxers who competed in the female category of boxing in the Paris Olympics, I decided that we need as many women who read these threads to understand just what that term means.

The term 'cis' is now meaningless because it also now includes any male person who has a DSD yet has a body that is **formed around the production of small gametes, ie. a male person with a difference of sex development that have testes or testes tissue. Such as Caster Semenya.

Therefore, female people have no unique words that describe just those female people who have a body ^^formed around the production of large gametes.

None. There is no word left for female people. Because even male people are now saying they are also ‘female’.

Because 'girl' and 'woman' both now include:

1 Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **.

2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.

3 And any person who has a female body ^^.

Under the label of 'girl' and 'woman', extreme transgender activists have been telling us for years that those labels break down into two types of girls or women: Cis and Transwomen/transgirls.

These terms mean:

Cis = 1 Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **

and 3 Any person who has a female body^^

Trans = 2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.

Do people see the issue here? There is no unique word to mean female people who have a body ^^formed around the production of large gametes.

Cis is now shown to be meaningless.

Yet we still get posters telling us we need to use it out of respect? Respect for which people? Because to me that demand looks like misogyny to me.

Also, since there are plenty of transwomen who also identify as 'girls' don't forget that age and maturity of the body is also now a meaningless categorisation under those who come into the 'trans' category too. Or are we not supposed to accept ‘littles’ identities but accept a male person declaring they are female in any way?

And if we are supposed to accept these male people’s identities that declare they are 3 year old girls, why? And how does that impact on schools?

Apologies if I have missed it, but has this been verified?

Has what?

The term 'cis' is now meaningless

While taking on board your point about changing definitions, I don't think it was ever meaningful.

The letter on the blog. Was it definitely written by an ex-JL employee, and is it an accurate description of JL policy?

I don't know, but knowing how completely mad everything is now, I'm inclined to believe it. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, please do share.

If JL expected trans women to be excluded from women-only spaces because of the small number of cis women who have an issue with it would be bigoted in the extreme.

Genuinely curious, do you think this makes you sound "kind"? @FredericC

Yes. Good point. I should change this to say ‘it has now been reconfirmed to be meaningless’.

Goodness! Was this not pointing out the significant dissonance that the majority of female employee’s opinions were disregarded for the sake of pleasing supposedly a tiny number of male employees?

And that it is indeed bigoted to ignore the needs of female people
to prioritise the demands of male people?

oh dear…

You can’t be a trans woman unless you are assigned male at birth. That’s different to ‘being male to begin with’ as you put it.

There's no such thing as "assigning" a sex at birth. Sex isn't decided at birth, it develops much earlier. What you are claiming is exactly "being male to begin with" and indeed forevermore, as it isn't actually possible to change sex.

Maybe people should stop all the personal attacks on those they disagree with them there wouldn't be so many.
(Which the majority were)

Providers can exclude trans women from single sex spaces if it’s a proportionate means for a legitimate end.

All single sex spaces work on this basis, it's not about "trans". Other males are excluded based on these same single sex exceptions. There is nothing in the EA itself which gives any of these males a positive right of access. Activists have written guidelines that say they are. They can be unwritten without a change in the law. The Lady Haldane legal judgment which currently is the standing one but likely to be challenged both ways due to an upcoming court case which will test this, is that without a GRC a "trans woman" is legally a man for the purposes of the EA.

Yes, policing this has challenges, but please do stop misrepresenting the law and gaslighting women here that this group of males as a whole are "allowed" to use women's spaces and it's all fine and dandy with most women. They are not any more allowed to use them than any other male, but the law doesn't prevent any man from accessing women's facilities, it's a social contract. Many males don't care about that, or what women think.

Again, only males with certificates are considered "female" in any sense under the law, and this obviously is a legal fiction and they can also be excluded, but the bar is higher.

It does seem to have gone backwards somewhat

I just read back. It seems that we have been admonished again for not believing that there is any validity, because there is no evidence ever to support, the claim that a male can ever be a female person (which some people attempt to hide behind the word ‘woman’).

We seem to have been told repeatedly that male people are female people because they believe they are. And that we have to accept this with no evidence at all presented.

Well, those who choose to believe that a male can be a female person are very free to do so. What they are not free to do, it to attempt to shame any other person who rejects this belief as being an unfounded, unevidenced belief.

We seem to have been told repeatedly that male people are female people because they believe they are. And that we have to accept this with no evidence at all presented.

Yes. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I'll carry on pointing out how oppressive this ideology is to women and girls, as long as I can.

Just another step backwards where the progress that women have made over the last 100 years is being wiped out by 0.1% of the population. This 0.1% are mainly white males…….who believe they are disadvantaged? Soon we will have no women’s sport, illusional equal pay, etc.

why don’t we just tell our young girls to give up as really women are just here to be ruled by men and told to get back in our place. It’s so misogynistic - all of it. White men telling women what to do.

It must really be jarring for all those posters who declare that the majority of female people don’t care who is in female single sex spaces to always be saying things such as that on polls that show the exact opposite. It has been consistent on every poll outcome I have seen that the majority of female people vote to have even toilets as single sex spaces.

It really does make those saying otherwise look disconnected from
the truth. Or repeating mantras / political slogans from groups disconnected from women’s voices.

However, the answer is that the majority of people don’t want male people to be in their toilets, and the majority of people don’t believe, and refuse to be told they have to believe, that male people have become a ‘woman’ or ‘girl’. Either in theory or on a practical level.

“However, the answer is that the majority of people don’t want male people to be in their toilets”

missing the word ‘female’ there.

However, the answer is that the majority of female people don’t want male people to be in their toilets

Considering that Stonewall is now no longer seeking new relationships with schools, I wonder if they will be announcing that they will be announcing other changes. Maybe they will back down on the previous ideological stance that portrayed the EA2010 as they wished it to be and not as it was written.

Maybe Stonewall will start reverse ferreting on the purely ideological and political stance that male people with gender identities should be treated as female for every purpose, including toilets. It would mean that their Champions, such as JL, will eventually catch up to the massive pushback over the past years and start providing equitable solutions that do not harm female people. That will take time to ripple through though, stonewall just got all those organisations trained up after all.

And with that, I think we also need to stop thinking that ‘compassion’ has anything to do with the people who are demanding these changes, for example removal of female single sex spaces and demanding preferred language and pronouns.

The support groups have so successfully detached being transgender from gender dysphoria that it may only apply to a very small minority of those who are identifying as having a transgender identity.

Yet, those who seek to shame those of us who reject these changes, still attempt to use that compassion angle. Why? Because that is all they have. There never was a reason beyond ‘compassion’ to allow males into female single sex spaces, to change out language and use preferred language. The ‘have some respect’ angle is all they have, all they ever had.

They hate it when it is pointed out that that ‘respect’ only ever went one way with these changes and it was only directed towards those who claimed to have a gender identity. Like ‘woman’, ‘girl’, ‘female’, ‘tolerance’ , ‘kindness’, and so many other words that now mean the opposite to their intended meaning, ‘respect’ has also been forceably changed to only mean compliance to one group’s belief and political agenda. Hardly compassionate or respectful.

Yet, those who seek to shame those of us who reject these changes, still attempt to use that compassion angle. Why? Because that is all they have. There never was a reason beyond ‘compassion’ to allow males into female single sex spaces, to change out language and use preferred language. The ‘have some respect’ angle is all they have, all they ever had.

They hate it when it is pointed out that that ‘respect’ only ever went one way with these changes and it was only directed towards those who claimed to have a gender identity. Like ‘woman’, ‘girl’, ‘female’, ‘tolerance’ , ‘kindness’, and so many other words that now mean the opposite to their intended meaning, ‘respect’ has also been forceably changed to only mean compliance to one group’s belief and political agenda. Hardly compassionate or respectful.

This. We see through it.

Well, if it wasn't, JL has had plenty of opportunity to answer it. They were even invited to make a statement on Andrew Doyle's show about it and declined or ignored the offer.

Now that it has been televised, you would think that if this was false information it would be very easy for JL to clear up any falsehoods.

We've seen the evidence of their staff magazine a few months ago.

https://x.com/artemisrising81/status/1774441708203147292?s=12

https://x.com/yourmumss_aterf/status/1758579478379257991?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

Eye opening tweets, mild CW!

Is this thread just the usual echo chamber two talking to each other now?
All the earlier personal attacks at any dissent seem to have worked 👍