Waitrose delivery driver

[MsMoorhead]

Kellie Jay-Keen reported by her Waitrose delivery driver!

ok. Well I must've missed the other awful things in that case.

Disappointed. Is that the best insult you can come up with.

In today’s political climate, adult human female or women signs are a political statement.

I’m absolutely not attacking KJK for displaying those signs, but one of the reasons why we put up posters, flags etc is because we want people to engage with them.

It’s a form of political evangelisation. The driver overstepped his job responsibilities by choosing to verbally engage but had a different driver attended, struck up a conversation and KJK helped them reached the summit of a mountain, it would have been job done and the signs served their purpose.

If I was delivering to a house with a rainbow flag and a slogan about TWAW, I’d remember I was representing my employer and bite my tongue.

Because KJK has less right to occupy her own house than a male transitioner. As established!

What would the purpose of insulting you be? I am describing what your pattern of behaviour looks like.

If you find the description insulting, I recommend you rethink your posting habits.

So, the long haired delivery driver decided to interrogate KJK about her business and creep her out about using the same spaces as her daughter in a short time frame. Oh, and then deliberately drag feet about leaving when asked after that. Is it ok that they were only intimidating for a little while? I would hate to be in a small enclosed space with that person; if they are like that in daylight and with people around. .

Inappropriate whether a short or long timeframe. Chit chat is 'nice day'.

Mildly amusing at best 🫤

So where is the line, women?

And now we have an activist saying a woman is rude and bigoted if she asks a male transitioner to leave her own property.

If “activist” is referring to me (and I’m not an activist btw), the above is yet another outright fiction.

I did not say a woman is rude and bigoted if she asks a transwoman to leave her own property. What I actually said was that KJK was rude and bigoted for deliberate misgendering- calling a transwoman a man to her face.

Loving the “where is the line” question, such a classic. Looking forward to the answers.

No, it’s correctly referring to their sex, which is what we see, what is a real, observable phenomenon, rather than to an unevidenced innate gender.

I don’t refer to a self-ordained bishop as “your grace” nor to a self-ordained woman as a female.

Hang on, you are defending a male claiming to be female.You can’t do that then accuse others of disseminating fictions.

You seemed to be outraged that she called the delivery driver a man to his face. This was only after the delivery driver said that they were a woman. Just WHO was lying? Not KJK.

Posie did say she used colourful language, which is sufficient for an employer to warn a customer of their future conduct with customer facing staff. You can disagree and and assert your views/boundaries without swearing at people.

I agree if this was on the phone or in a shop, but it is different when your employee is in someone's home and has been asked to leave.

Deliberate misgendering is a form of harrassment.

It depends on context, surely.

If a transwoman asks me, directly, "Am I a woman?" then they should be alive to the possibility I may give an honest answer. In the same way, if I ask, "Does my bum look big in this?" I can't really complain if told it does.

If I run down the street after a transwoman shouting, "You're bloke in a frock!" then that's harrassment. Just in the same way that running up to a stranger and shouting "fat arse!" is.

From KJK's account - and I accept we only have one side - what happened was much closer to the former.

If she had "Vote Labour", "Up the Rangers", "Meat is Murder", "Free Palestine" or any other political slogan in her window, would the driver have been justified in getting into a debate with a customer?

No.

I’m absolutely not attacking KJK for displaying those signs, but one of the reasons why we put up posters, flags etc is because we want people to engage with them.

Does your perspective change if what the driver noticed were the compulsory business display signs that people need when they run a home-based business, as mentioned upthread? Would you consider that you might have erred in your analysis? If not, why not?

www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company/signs-stationery-and-promotional-material

If you find the description insulting, I recommend you rethink your posting habits.

Just so we know, it time for our compulsory self-reflection as part of our pre-hab and pre-orientation for the re-education gulag those students were planning? Is that idea re-surfacing?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6154777/amp/Goldsmiths-student-group-mounts-extraordinary-defence-notorious-GULAG-worker-camps.html?

Since when has truth, actual, factual truth, been a crime? I'm minded to think of court cases, where witnesses etc swear an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, etc. Then they're forced, under threat of contempt of court, to say their male attacker is female. Forced to lie, in court. Maria McLaughlin wasn't it?

No male is a woman. Wear yer hair how you want. Slap on the lippi. Gaun yersel', son. Wear the pretty dress. I don't give a stuff.

I refuse to deny reality.

Have another read of this. Your gender critical beliefs to not allow you to misgender with impunity. Calling it “sexing” (which is something we do to animals) doesn’t shield you from liability under the Equality Act.

”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”

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

Yes. It may. In the same way telling someone they have a fat arse may be.

Equally it may not.

Context is everything.

I think Discovereads doesn't know what "gratuitous" means.

😀

It was plain the driver was a transwoman as they had self-identified as such earlier in the conversation. KJK then responded to their assertion that they are a woman with “No, you’re a man” and then proceeded to demand the delivery driver “stay out of womens spaces”.

Its not about lying. It’s about flatly denying the existence of the transpersons (legal) gender identity in such a way as to deliberately intimidate, harrass or bully them. KJK didnt have to take the conversation down the personal attack route, but she did. When the driver defended herself saying she’d continue to use womens spaces as that is where she belongs and she likes to, KJK then escalated it into verbal abuse with swearing/colourful language.

Pigeon chess. It's a tad boring. And the smell....whoof

KJK didnt have to take the conversation down the personal attack route, but she did.
Stating biological reality is not a personal attack.

I rather think the opposite. When the transwoman delivery driver said they were a woman, was it necessary or warranted for KJK to then deliberately deny their identity by saying “No, you’re a man”? I think KJK would have a hard time proving her personal attack was not gratuitous.