Lush (shop) supports trans activists

[crunchermuncher]

Long time lurker here but never posted in feminism before.

uk.lush.com/article/homophobia-and-transphobia-get-your-facts-straight

Hope that works I'm not very good at links and stuff!

I went to the Lush website to buy some solid shampoo (trying to reduce plastic waste) and was faced with an aggy-toned instruction to 'get your facts straight' regarding homophobia and trans phobia. Intrigued, i read the article.

I can understand why the author wants to raise some of the points. Obviously violence against anyone is a terrible thing. I'm not saying violence against trans people can't be addressed. But to ignore the many many more women that suffer (isn't it 1 in 4 are affected by DV alone?) seems to signal a hierarchy of priorities that I'm not entirely comfortable with.

Also the ranting about trans people being reduced to second class citizens as they need spousal consent to obtain a GRC. Really? Why should one partner be able to unilaterally change the conditions of the relationship and essentially force their partner into a homosexual (or heterosexual) relationship? I get that there is the bodily autonomy issue but with other major issues you would approach them together
Eg doctors recommend that both partners have pre vasectomy counselling together. Afaik you can't have IVF treatment without your partners consent. If one of you suddenly decided you wanted an open relationship and the other didn't, you'd have to agree a way forward or split up. I'm sure that if in reality one partner wanted to
transistion and the other wasn't happy with that then the relationship would naturally break down. I can't imagine there are lots of unhappily married trans people being cruelly forced to stay as their birth gender by their evil spouses!

I now don't want to shop at Lush any more as their politics clearly don't align with mine. I don't want a lecture, I want to buy some shampoo!

Sorry this is a bit of a ramble but I wondered what others think about both the spouse issue (which I noticed was a section in the Scotland consultation doc) and more generally the pro trans lecture whilst trying to purchase toiletries! I wondered if it's worth contacting them but feel like I would probably be branded a terf and told I'm not right on enough to use their shops. Sigh.

I’m really disappointed with Lish. Hey are a cosmetics store, I go to buy their hideously expensive but magical bath bombs not get a lecture on Trans politics.

Is this the future? Do we have to deny what we know is biologically correct to spare the feelings of such a minute minority?

www.nipnoos.com/solid-shampoo-recipe-for-dry-hair/

Have a look at #boycottlush on Twitter.

I was just considering going into their store...

Welp! Money will go elsewhere.

@crunchermuncher thanks. And @EmpressOfJurisfiction went on Twitter... my god!

I wondered what others think about both the spouse issue (which I noticed was a section in the Scotland consultation doc)

I agree with you and was clear about it in the Scotland consultation. Obviously anyone has the absolute right to do anything with their body and identity that they wish to. However if you choose to take significant action that affects your partner, never mind hugely changes the basis of your relationship, then you have to accept that your partner equally has every right to make their own choices, which may including leaving the relationship.

To remove that as being acceptable grounds for divorce is an appalling and illiberal suggestion.

I don't think it is acceptable to have to get spousal permission actually, it seems really odd. The spouse can divorce that person if they like (I do think it should be an acceptable grounds for divorce), but knowing how much of a pain in the ass someone can be when you're trying to divorce them I don't think a spouse shouldn't have the power to stop someone transitioning for as long as they remain married.

should not shouldn't - fat fingers

Thanks for the links I don't do Twitter but I'll have a look .

Sanderz I know what you mean. But removing this requirement in additon to removing it as grounds for divorce is quite terrifying. You could certainly argue that it constitutes unreasonable behaviour as it violates the terms of your original contract (which is what marriage is). But would it take a brave judge to accept that argument in the current climate?

I don't imagine there are a great number of people that this would actually affect. What bothers me is enshrining in law that what a trans person wants is more important than what a non trans person wants. That is not equality of opportunity.

Removing the spousal agreement requirement I meant.

Hmm, I'm deeply resistant to the idea of a spouse having any legal control at all over the other person's personal actions. The marriage contract is altered and changed by individuals all the time but the other person doesn't get to stop them doing it; I don't think that's on. Not at all actually. But then again I really really hate my ex, if that's relevant

Also in my limited divorce experience you can always divorce someone for unreasonable behavior - always. The reasons don't even have to be demonstrably unreasonable, they just have to be unreasonable to you. I don't think in reality removing it as a grounds for divorce would have any practical impact. Judges don't make unhappy couples stay together, so I'm not too worried about that.

Putting a partner in a position where they must change their ‘sexuality’ is like conversion by proxy.

The husband or the judge?

Oh yeah, I remember this - "extraordinarily unusual" apparently. I do wish the government would introduce a no-fault divorce.

But removing this requirement in additon to removing it as grounds for divorce is quite terrifying.

It's not grounds for divorce though. It could fall under unreasonable behaviour, but there is no separate ground for divorce that your spouse is intending to transition against your consent.

SusanBunch I didn't express myself very well. I understood (and could well have got it wrong because it's so bloody confusing!) from the Scotland consultation that transistioning without your spouse's agreement was intended to be excluded as a fact to prove the grounds for divorce of breakdown of the marriage. So I don't know if it even could come under unreasonable behaviour any more in that case? Happy to be corrected if I've understood incorrectly though.

It just seemed like another example of how unclear, complicated and ill thought through these proposals seem to be.

The sooner the UK introduces no fault divorce, the better. Having to use unreasonable behaviour makes everything unnecessarily adversarial (speaking from experience).

I've never been comfortable with Lush's politics. Their animal rights activism has come down to labeling a naked young woman as if she were a cow waiting to be carved up, or that stunt where they put a woman in a shop window and tortured her as if she were a lab animal. Always young attractive women getting naked or having pain/humiliation inflicted on them.

Their advertising campaign for less packaging also featured naked women writhing around in packing peanuts, and there was the stunt in shops where the employees went to work just in aprons. Some wore underwear, but the press coverage was predictably most interested in the naked female bums. Lush tends to hit the wrong political note consistently for me.

I emaild lush last week for this very reason telling them I would not be shopping there any longer.
I've not had a reply yet.

Sorry crunch, that is my mistake. It is a ground for divorce in Scotland, but not in England and Wales.

I know Lush HQ well but am not currently involved.

As to this, I would encourage the sending of feedback. It will be taken seriously I think.

Jesus Christ if you really didn’t know that Lush has always supported a variety of causes then you are blind or haven’t ever bothered going in there much! Are you aware they also support animal rights, Domestic violence charities, that the honey that is used in their products are supporting women in Africa to school their children. If you are going to boycott lush for supporting one cause that you don’t agree with and ignore the fact that they support thousands of charities and causes that benefit women around the world you truly are blinkered by you transphobia!!!!

Is there a list of companies that follow this route, like Lush? I don't want a single penny of mine going towards companies that clearly does not give 2 fucks about actual women.

I would suggest writing to hq.