Waitrose delivery driver

[MsMoorhead]

Kellie Jay-Keen reported by her Waitrose delivery driver!

This is all just interpretations. Nobody knows but the 2 people involved. It's like watching fantasy fiction being written here...

At the end of the day, the driver seemingly made a female customer (you know, the very person who paid some of his wages that day) very uncomfortable in her own home, and instigated a conversation that should just have been avoided. Full responsibility for that lies with the driver, and only the driver. If he hadn't asked, he wouldn't have got an answer he didn't like.

Had the driver not complained to their employer, none of this would be being discussed publicly. It would just be an awkward conversation that the driver had with a customer that they forgot to be professional with. If I were Waitrose, I'd be reminding my employee of the professional standards I expect them to work to. I'd say this one fell short on this occasion.

You know, I discovered that YouTube has a tool that generates a transcript of videos. Which is handy as I can read a transcript quicker than listening to the video. The reason KJ goes off topic is because she was live streaming, and responding in realtime to people posting comments and questions. She was also obviously talking without a script. The video hasn't been edited subsequently. But I still found it easy to follow what she was saying.

At no point does she say she wants the driver sacked, or even disciplined. She in fact states she understands that Waitrose may not want to deliver to her any more and she accepts that and they will lose her custom. That's at 9:39 on the video btw.

I reckon 50-90% of male people that that offensive TRAs would call cishet or some other obnoxious term would be quite happy to say "trans women are women". They would say this to be kind and because they assume that the person asking the question is asking it metaphorically. If you asked the follow up question "would you ever sleep with a TW, a person who is by definition biologically male" they would say "of course not, I am straight not gay, lol! How outrageous that you should seek to deny sexual orientation."

Take note. The poster that chairs tribunals has acknowledged that the delivery driver has an arguable case for harrassment against KJK.

Please don’t misrepresent what I’ve said.

Totally agree.

I am a bit torn about this to be honest, I read the thread yesterday but didn’t post as I wanted to have a think about it first.
While I agree that the delivery driver behaved badly and should have left the property immediately when asked Posie was probably spoiling for a fight as soon as she realised that this person was a Transwoman . This person did not need to be told about women’s spaces, I am sure they knew and were also looking for a reaction as soon as they realised what Posies stickers etc mean.
I do not want male bodied people using women’s spaces and am horrified at the aggressive way some Transwomen (who I believe to be biologically Male still) are demanding access. However, Posie inflamed a situation unnecessarily. A simple “I don’t agree with you and I would like you to drop the food off and leave as soon as possible “ would have been adequate
Still, it gave her material for her podcast didn’t it?

I have emailed Waitrose
[email protected]
with my concerns.

We have been quiet too long.
Time to make our voices heard.

However, Posie inflamed a situation unnecessarily. A simple “I don’t agree with you and I would like you to drop the food off and leave as soon as possible “ would have been adequate
Still, it gave her material for her podcast didn’t it?

Did she? A woman asserting her boundaries is, de facto, inflaming a situation?

I admire the level of equanimity that would be required to frame it that way after the exchange and am confident that you must model that at all times in comparable situations in life.

At some point after the incident when she'd received a letter from Waitrose? If I understand you correctly, KJK ought to have continued her silence about this sequence of events about a cascade of happenings that are in line with her wider stance on standing for women? That's certainly the perspective favoured by those who promote the Rules of Misogyny.

4w.pub/the-rules-of-misogyny/

@Hoppinggreen Sorry, but you are saying that a woman in her own home, being massively offended by a man who has completely inappropriately started a chat about politics and has disregard for KJK's underaged daughter's boundaries, should ensure that she is 100% polite? That might be incredibly good advice in order to minimies the chances of KJK being a victim of assault, but as far as a moral position it is appalling!

No you don’t understand me correctly and I really don’t need any more information on misogyny thank you.
My opinion (and please let’s not be the ones saying women aren’t entitled to one) is that there seems to have been 2 people spoiling for a fight here. Calmly and firmly asserting your boundaries is good, we should all do it and encourage our daughters to as well. Delivering a GC lecture followed by swearing was over the top in my opinion and probably done to create drama where none was needed.

There was a post on here earlier this week asking whether we had to be completely sure about everything and most people assured the poster that it was ok to question and consider. Your attempt to belittle me and my opinion shows that in fact it’s not just TRAs who only want people commenting when they toe the party line.

Perhaps this is one for a new thread, but I honestly think that calling out TRA misogynists and homophobes and bullies and trying to get them sacked for their overt bigotry is the morally correct thing to do. Even more so given that the other side have been doing the reverse for years. Maybe I am wrong. And I know I am in a fortunate position (not afraid of being sacked by a Stonewalled boss). But I do think that it needs to be made clear to normal society that campaigning to destroy womens rights - or claiming that they already have been lost - is no better than going round using the n-word to describe your black customers. TRAs behaviour is utterly outrageous and not compatible with civilised companies who welcome women as customers.

Was there any need for "I am a woman" at all, though?

That was both inflammatory and unnecessary. They were there to deliver shopping, it wasn't a social get together.

Hoppinggreen · Today 11:57

My opinion is that there seems to have been 2 people spoiling for a fight here. Calmly and firmly asserting your boundaries is good, we should all do it and encourage our daughters to as well. Delivering a GC lecture followed by swearing was over the top in my opinion and probably done to create drama where none was needed.

There was a post on here earlier this week asking whether we had to be completely sure about everything and most people assured the poster that it was ok to question and consider. Your attempt to belittle me and my opinion shows that in fact it’s not just TRAs who only want people commenting when they toe the party line.

(1) I am absolutely certain that if KJK was "spoiling for a fight" it was not as she walked to the door to see who had rung the bell, it was only after she had been provoked by an entirely inappropriate delivery driver.

(2) If he (a worker) starts a conversation (with a customer) she is well within her rights to give her opinion in return. I do not think women should never swear and think that this is an example of where swearing is proportionate.

(3) Why is it KJKs job to avoid the drama that the driver wanted?

You are welcome to your opinion, just like I am welcome to my opinion that KJK was not spoiling for a fight and did nothing wrong.

Most importantly there is a fudnemental difference between my opinion and yours. I have a problem with you stating that KJK needs to be more polite to her opponents in her own home even though they started it. That is you telling other women what they should do and not do. I don't think you should be telling women to be polite and not give their opinion. I object to your opinion when your opinion stops being about what you think and starts being about telling KJK to be kinder to people who want to destroy women's rights.

Ah, but we also read the surveys that came later, with the terminology clearly explained. The Pink News survey was quite opaque with regards to what meant who. Can you guess what the results were?

Similar happened in Scotland. And again in a major tabloid.

But no trans ally has ever heard of those, it seems.

At no point have I suggested that KJK should have been either kind or polite.

Typical transactivism playing out here.

Discovereads said "KJK is pushing Waitrose to have the delivery driver sacked over the incident"

Another Poster said "Seriously... do you have access to the inner thoughts of KJ?? How the heck do you know that she wants the driver sacked??"

Discovereads: I watched her video. That’s how I know.

Also (to me when I asked if Posie actually said it) "Are you seriously arguing she is not trying to get her sacked?"

Another poster who has read a transcription of the podcast:

"At no point does she say she wants the driver sacked, or even disciplined. She in fact states she understands that Waitrose may not want to deliver to her any more"

Which in Discovereads world means "KJK is pushing Waitrose to have the delivery driver sacked".

No wonder No Debate was the only tactic allowed.

You said -

"Posie was probably spoiling for a fight". You are suggesting (with no evidence) that KJK was significantly responsible for the conversation about politics that the driver inappropriately started.

"This person did not need to be told about women’s spaces". No, and he wouldn't have been told had he not started the chat. You are suggesting that KJK should not voice her opinion even though someone else has voiced theirs, and opinion which KJK thinks is deeply offensive and dangerous,

"I am sure they [the driver] knew and were also looking for a reaction". You are telling KJK that she has an obligation to take the moral high ground in her own home when deliberately provoked. I do not think that she has any such obligation.

"Posie inflamed a situation unnecessarily". You are saying that she should have prioritised de-escalation over disputing the nonsense someone was inappropriately saying. (This may be true, but only for reasons of her personal safety).

"A simple “I don’t agree with you and I would like you to drop the food off and leave as soon as possible “ would have been adequate. Still, it gave her material for her podcast didn’t it?" You are telling her how to frame her own opinion in her own home despite the fact that the conversation was only happening because a TRA was starting a political argument on his bosses time!

Sorry, I get the distinct impression that you are both unfair in your assessment and massively wrong to be telling KJK how she should behave. I think that me telling you not to tell KJK what to do is very different from you telling KJK what to do.

Maybe I'm missing something.

Maybe I'm missing something.

If you are typical of the majority of posters here then yes you are missing something - the entitlement that often accompanies male gonads!

Can I just recommend anyone new to this thread, to watch the video or use the aforementioned facility & get a transcipt to read?

Yes because the only thing that was correct in the post above is that Kelly Jay does derail herself a few times. But as she makes quite plain at the beginning that's because she had intended to talk about something else entirely and some of that keeps popping into her head as she is speaking. She does always pick up exactly where she left off.

People used to pay bloody good money to see Billy Connolly do the same thing!

Your attempt to belittle me and my opinion shows that in fact it’s not just TRAs who only want people commenting when they toe the party line.

Asking a question that clarifies somebody's thinking might expose more about a process of thinking than someone cares to explore but it's surprising that it's interpreted as an intention to belittle.

It's an unhelpful or plausibly sclerotic process of reasoning to characterise this as dissenting from a party line. It feels quite strongly pluralistic because, at its heart, is KJK who roundly declares that she is not a feminist.

I agree.

Oh you used all the big words again. Such sesquipedalian loquaciousness, you naughty megaltast you!

Disclaimer: not sure megaltastic can be made into a noun like that!

You are certainly missing the part where I said she should be polite and kind
Because I didn’t.
My opinion is that she gave this person exactly what they wanted. Maybe it made K happy and it certainly gave her material for her podcast but all it achieved was another win for the TRAs.
However, she is entitled to behave how she sees fit in these situations and on her own property and I am entitled to disagree.
I might be facing attempted intimidation with big words but at least nobody thinks I should be set alight and my corpse raped so perhaps GC Feminists do still have the moral high ground here.