Waitrose delivery driver

[MsMoorhead]

Kellie Jay-Keen reported by her Waitrose delivery driver!

KJK told a transwoman to her face that they were not a woman but a man. That’s clear cut misgendering.
It's actually acknowledging biological reality. Which is allowed, for those for whom gender is not confused with sex.

Exactly. This is such a horrible invasion of her space and boundaries yet we know the police will back him, not her.

So what if the driver was misgendered? Feelings were hurt, move on. Misgendering is not 'literal violence.

Man: adult male human. Woman: adult female human.

Person refusing to leave someone else's property when told to do so: someone who enjoys crossing boundaries for the sake of it.

Any comment on that bit? You defended that.

Can I go to your house, or indeed a transwoman's house, initiate an argument, and then refuse to leave? Would you be in favour of that?

Yep, she's got a cast-iron defence against "misgendering" - everything in the house, including what she's wearing, being plastered in the definitions she's using for "man" and woman"!

There's no possible way that she can be possibly misconstrued as saying anything about anyone's "gender"...

Ffs. She didn't run after him yelling you're a man. He tried to engage her over her political viewpoint about transgenderism.

Jeez. No wonder Ricky Gervais did the skit he did.

*Man: adult male human. Woman: adult female human.

Person refusing to leave someone else's property when told to do so: someone who enjoys crossing boundaries for the sake of it.*

Yes I too am interested in comments about this.

in an abusive transphobic attack

there finished your sentence for you.

This person lied and said they were a woman. She simply corrected them. In the circumstances I'd do the same.

Give it a few hours and tweets, Datun.

We'll learn that KJK pursued the driver with pitchforks, burning torches made of puppies and kittens and was hurling spells and lightning bolts.

"She turned me into a frog!"

"...I got better..."

It’s difficult to explain this without identifying myself but the very nature of my home invites comment. My beliefs can be assumed by my address and my home is expected to be a place of welcome for strangers , as well as a family residence.

If a delivery driver asked me questions about my beliefs based on the place I live in I would truthfully answer, however if s/he became verbally confrontational as a result of my answers or launched into a diatribe about people who belong to my group, I would complain to management. I’m happy and arguably obliged to respond to genuine enquiry but shouldn’t be subject to abuse.

It seems to me that KJK signs did invite comment but equally the delivery driver knew very well what they were getting into and would have known precisely what the signs were all about. They probably also knew exactly who she was and was squaring up for a fight or to set her up.

The driver was being deliberately provocative and inflammatory by their comments and couldn’t cope with a woman giving a mouthful back.

That said, delivery drivers often do receive abuse and Waitrose response is standard policy.

While enormously sympathetic to KJK, I do think the incident was likely 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. She could have refused to engage though it’s her right to do whatever she wants on her property.

It’s not clear if the driver had actually delivered all the goods when she ordered him to leave and I don’t know what they are contractually obliged to do in that situation.

Saying that they would ‘take their time’ to finish the delivery and leave demonstrates the driver was in no way intimidated and in fact wanted to be as difficult and awkward as possible and an attempt to intimidate her.

What Waitrose should do now, is investigate the driver and give them a warning. They should also offer KJK a voucher or token apology. Their job was to deliver goods, not engage a client in a political conversation.

Its not a battle worth fighting however, because anyone whose ever worked in retail knows how much abuse staff do take and organisations will usually and rightly, take a zero tolerance approach.

The delivery driver did not refuse to leave KJKs property.
KJK states they said they’d “take their time” that is a statement of intent to comply, not a refusal.

I think KJK initiated the argument portion of the verbal exchange. It was all perfectly civil until KJK sunk to transphobic harassment by deliberately misgendering a transwoman by calling her a man…that’s when the argument started.

KJK told a transwoman to her face that they were not a woman but a man. That’s clear cut misgendering.

AKA correctly sexing someone.

Is there a reason you think KJK owed sensitivity to the person who was supposed to be delivering her milk and bananas but decided to start an argument.

I'll say it again, if you turn up on my doorstep and start that shit with me then you can fuck off. I would not feel I owed such an antagonistic person any courtesy.

there finished your sentence for you.

Somewhere, it the universe of your own imagining, somebody is crushed by the gravity of that riposte.

However, in the universe, I've just been reflecting on the distortions and PoMo attitude to accurate timelines and reports from several posters on his thread, and I'm uncannily reminded of The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model: Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It

"current Russian approach to propaganda builds on Soviet Cold War–era techniques, with an emphasis on obfuscation and on getting targets to act in the interests of the propagandist without realizing that they have done so.1 In other ways, it is completely new and driven by the characteristics of the contemporary information environment. Russia has taken advantage of technology and available media in ways that would have been inconceivable during the Cold War. Its tools and channels now include the Internet, social media, and the evolving landscape of professional and amateur journalism and media outlets.

Distinctive Features of the Contemporary Model for Russian Propaganda
High-volume and multichannel
Rapid, continuous, and repetitive
Lacks commitment to objective reality
Lacks commitment to consistency.
We characterize the contemporary Russian model for propaganda as “the firehose of falsehood” because of two of its distinctive features: high numbers of channels and messages and a shameless willingness to disseminate partial truths or outright fictions. In the words of one observer, “[N]ew Russian propaganda entertains, confuses and overwhelms the audience.”2

Contemporary Russian propaganda has at least two other distinctive features. It is also rapid, continuous, and repetitive, and it lacks commitment to consistency."

www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

From what she says, it started when he decided to take exception to her slogan.

And no, a man, on being asked to get off someone's property, and answering he'll do it in his own time, is not 'complying'. It's trying to not comply as much as he dares.

You'd think they'd teach this at some sort of "trans basics" class.

Pro tips for not having people say you're a man, if this upsets you:

Tip 1) Don't go up to random women and say "I'm a woman", or "am I a woman". This may generate a accurate response.

Of course, this doesn't apply to people like your driver, or that Edinburgh Rape Crisis manager, who actually aren't "upset" by this, but enjoy the confrontation, and trying to compel speech. (Recall that story of Wadwha at a party demanding this of guests).

It's win-win - either the woman complies, so you demonstrate you have power over her, or she does not, in which case you get to call her transphobic, demonstrating your power over her.

(Tips 2 onwards would be things like "don't apply for women's awards" or "don't try to enter female sports". It's amazing how you could lower the incidence rate of people having to point out that you're a man).

"Clear-cut misgendering", officer! And we are the ones called pearl-clutchers...

I have a question - so bloody what?

If a burglar wakes me in the middle of the night and asks me if I think they're a man or a woman, do I forfeit my rights if I give an answer they don't like?

For that matter, if I refuse to leave someone's property and they (for whatever reason) tell me they think I look like a man, or that I'm not the fairest of them all - well, so what? "You won't believe what this rude customer said about me, when I confronted her about her views, her children, and, towering over her, refused to leave her doorstep"...

If I'm confronted in a supposedly safe space by an aggressive male, am I asking for it if I refuse to tell them what they want to hear?

The trespassing delivery driver has an incel-level sense of entitlement. They need to take the enormous plank out of their own eye first, get over themselves and accept that other people have their own eyes, ears, mouths and thoughts. And rights. They might even find they enjoy life more when they stop patrolling the doorsteps of disobedient women.

Quiet.

A really useful tip might be not to engage a woman who you know disagrees down to her soul with a very basis of transgenderism and tell her why she's wrong

Allowed is it?

The judgment of the EAT in the Forstater v CGD Europe & ors UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ

“The Claimant is subject to same prohibitions on discrimination, victimisation and harassment under the EqA as the rest of society. Should it be found that her misgendering on a particular occasion, because of its gratuitous nature or otherwise, amounted to harassment of a trans person (or of anyone else for that matter), then she could be liable for such conduct under the EqA. The fact that the act of misgendering was a manifestation of a belief falling with s.10, EqA would not operate automatically to shield her from such liability. The Tribunal correctly acknowledged, at para 87 of the Judgment, that calling a trans woman a man “may” be unlawful harassment”

From what she says, it started when he decided to take exception to her slogan.

Have another listen. KJK states that she asked her what the signs meant. Asking a question is not taking exception. And remember this is KJKs version of events. We don’t have the delivery drivers version of events at all.

There is no law against misgendering. There is a law against being harassed on your doorstep.

From Kellie Jay's description of the "Woman" stickers, I would guess they are the legaly required signs denoting the registered address of her organisations. So could not be described as provocative.

I mean quite !!

The Tribunal correctly acknowledged, at para 87 of the Judgment, that calling a trans woman a man “may” be unlawful harassment”

But clearly doesn't apply in this case, because it was not "gratuitous", it was in response to this man harrassing her.

Indeed his insistence that he was a woman was part of the harrassment here.