Page 18 | Misinformation correction: M&S Staff

BeeSourianteAgain · 2025-08-08T13:03:46+00:00

M&S have responded to people's enquiries, here's one: [[https://bsky.app/profile/dpdormouse.bsky.social/post/3lvuzitrplc2f https://bsky.app/profile/dpdormouse.bsky.social/post/3lvuzitrplc2f]] As expected the staff member was just doing their job, something that happens thousands of times a day in shops all over the country. As per normal, the trans panic was manufactured. I fully expect all the GCs and media pundits who were pushing all sorts of hate to apologise, but as a person on their second LGBTQ moral panic I know very well how it goes.

AnSolas · 10/08/2025 17:55

RedToothBrush · 10/08/2025 06:17

Hellofabore

What really strikes me is how FWR MNetters have almost been trained to see this bullshit by this point and just aren't having it.

The ins and outs of the story are largely irrelevant because it's a matter of public trust in m&s in terms of safeguarding which m&s pr haven't successfully managed to deal with. Indeed all these emails to agitating tra only by m&s are only serving to demonstrate the problem and show they don't understand the problem or concerns.

M&S could have dealt with this easily and said something like 'We are committed to excellent customer service for which we believe we are known for. This includes a commitment to understanding the sensitivities of both vulnerable shoppers and staff alike and taking steps to protect both through adequate training where appropriate. In light of concerns raised recently where we may have failed to maintain this high standard of expectation we will be reviewing our policy and will ensure that all staff have sufficient up to date training to reflect this. We remain an employer who is committed to supporting diversity amongst our staff and understanding the specific needs of our more vulnerable customers in a sensitive manner which reflects the best interests of all parties fairly'.

But no.

Arguments about who said what when are spectacularly poor. They are exercises in trying to control the narrative.

M&S as the company involved has to play a line of referee to a degree. It's like a teacher who has to deal with a he said she said incident. They didn't witness the event themselves but they know
a) there's some problem or the incident wouldn't have occurred
b) their priority is a damage limitation exercise
c) they have a responsibility to take their responsibilities to all parties seriously and to act like a bloody grown up
d) they should reflect the law and act to protect all parties from similar potential future incidents.
e) be seen to be doing all of the above.

They have attempted b succeeding in a Streisand effect because despite acknowledging a, they haven't done c, d and e.

As a result it's turned into an opportunity to challenge and undermine public concerns at safeguarding and rather than emphasising that safeguarding is something for everyone by everyone and creating an environment where it's encouraged to ask questions and challenge behaviours which give red flags.

People who are doing this are either useful idiots (as per Hanlon's Razor) or deliberately opportunistic and deliberately seeking to destroy safeguarding. Unfortunately it is very clear that a number of prominent transactivists fall into this latter category based on their own words and personal history which is demonstrable and can be evidenced. This may not be reflective of all transpeople - the issue here is how much influence these few people have which is disproportionate.

One of the problems here is that key principles underpinning safeguarding is transparency and accountability. Transactivism has a large contingent to whom this is a massive problem because the whole point is that they, to use the words of another poster, want to stealth. That's simply not possible in certain scenarios - it falls under legitimate interest of the exemptions for article 8.

The sooner we get to a point where transactivism is challenged over this legally and it's explicitly laid out that yes, sex is often a matter of public safety and accountability and no you can't just pretend this doesn't apply in certain scenarios especially when it's fucking obvious because we have eyes, the better for everyone.

On FWR we are particularly finely atuned to this - maybe because this is a parenting forum mainly used by women. These principles and knowledge of how to handle a problem of this nature is something many of us have to do professionally or as part of a position of responsibility. Being a parent also means you learn to a tune for similar patterns because safeguarding is particularly important when it comes to children.

What with children being the most vulnerable in society and all that, despite egotistical claims to the contrary.

It is NEVER about deciding the exact nature of events and what actually happened and then making an judgement on that as if it's a court case in these type of situations. It's playground management, where you have to manage the kids AND the parents and be seen to do it fairly.

Just reading this and agreeing.

So Quoted for anyone who missed it the first time

KnottyAuty · 10/08/2025 18:00

TheKeatingFive · 10/08/2025 10:14

If I've learnt one thing from arguing with the TRAs it's that they never miss an opportunity to bring JKR into it.

Show quote history

I know! I don’t pay much attention to her - certainly appreciative of her speaking up but I don’t hang on her every word as a disciple etc. TRAs seem obsessed with JKR and genitals from my limited understanding of their position. Always the first to mention those…

Helleofabore · 10/08/2025 18:20

PlanetJanette · 10/08/2025 15:29

Sorry but if you’re having trouble tracking what my posts are responding to that’s your problem.

The post you’re quoting was not related to JKR, it was responding to another poster who thought one had a gotcha my inferring views about trans bra fitters which is entirely irrelevant to this situation.

Show quote history

That is interesting.

I mean, I am running a low grade fever and am coming down with a virus, but you see, as far as I could see, you were referring to JK Rowling. I surmised this because, here are the quoted posts from that thread.

PlanetJanette · Yesterday 23:11
There have been no lies?
So JK Rowling repeatedly claiming that the employee was offering to do a bra fitting wasn’t a lie?

PrettyDamnCosmic · Today 10:10
Repeatedly claiming that JK Rowling claimed that the employee was offering to do a bra fitting is the lie. She did nothing of the sort.

PlanetJanette · Today 13:41
Sure. She [surely refers to JK Rowling, unless you introduced a whole new woman into the discussion] was just referring to some mythical ‘cross-dresser’ who was offering bra fittings to teenagers who doesn’t actually exist.
I mean I get that you folk think JKR can do no wrong but pretending that her statements weren’t very clearly signally that this particular employee’s impugned actions included offering a bra fitting is nonsense.

murasaki · Today 13:56
You may have inferred that, but she [JK Rowling is assumed because no other 'she' has been introduced- although I am sure that @murasaki will confirm if this 'she' is indeed JKR] didn't actually say it with her actual words, did she.
And you keep saying she did. [referring to all the past posts referring to 'she lied' which was you referring to JK Rowling]

Again murasaki might come back and clarify.

PlanetJanette · Today 14:15 (the post I queried)
Where did I say that?
It’s irrelevant whether I think they should or should not - because the individual we are discussing had nothing to do with bra fittings contrary to what so many transphobes want people to believe.

With this as an answer:

15:14 post from me.

Where did you say what? This is what you were answering.
“You may have inferred that, but she didn't actually say it with her actual words, did she.”
“And you keep saying she did.”
Are you saying you didn’t say directly that JK Rowling said that the male employee offered to fit a bra for this teenaged girl?
Because there is a list of posts a couple of pages back where you did use clear words to say that she said this.

Your reply

Sorry but if you’re having trouble tracking what my posts are responding to that’s your problem.
The post you’re quoting was not related to JKR, it was responding to another poster who thought one had a gotcha my inferring views about trans bra fitters which is entirely irrelevant to this situation.

Because if you meant the 'she' to refer to PrettyDamnCosmic, you must be quite lost. Because PrettyDamnCosmic absolutely stated that you have been mistaken and been blunt about it. So, you saying it referenced PrettyDamnCosmic (assuming PDC is female even) doesn't make sense.

Hence... the need for clarification.

In fact.. I could only find two posts from PrettyDamnCosmic on this thread. First one was this as in the quote thread:

PrettyDamnCosmic · Today 10:10
Repeatedly claiming that JK Rowling claimed that the employee was offering to do a bra fitting is the lie. She did nothing of the sort.

The second is :

PrettyDamnCosmic · Today 10:16
She didn't. You are the one who has repeatedly lied.
JKR wrote "Cross-dressing men who offer to fit bras on teenage girls belong in a police interview room." a statement that anyone who knows anything about safeguarding would support.

Both about JK Rowling and 'actually say[ing] it with her actual words'. I don't think that PDC could be clearer 'in her actual words'. Making Murasaki's post quite baffling if it was referring to PDC. And if it was referring to JK Rowling, as I expect to find that it is, that makes your post the one that has changed who was being referenced.

I am thinking that perhaps it is you that has misunderstood Murasaki's post. But hey, I could be wrong.

Thanks for clarifying though that you were referring to PrettyDamnCosmic. I find your reply to Murasaki rather surprising though in that case.

KnottyAuty · 10/08/2025 18:25

Helleofabore · 10/08/2025 18:20

That is interesting.

I mean, I am running a low grade fever and am coming down with a virus, but you see, as far as I could see, you were referring to JK Rowling. I surmised this because, here are the quoted posts from that thread.

PlanetJanette · Yesterday 23:11
There have been no lies?
So JK Rowling repeatedly claiming that the employee was offering to do a bra fitting wasn’t a lie?

PrettyDamnCosmic · Today 10:10
Repeatedly claiming that JK Rowling claimed that the employee was offering to do a bra fitting is the lie. She did nothing of the sort.

PlanetJanette · Today 13:41
Sure. She [surely refers to JK Rowling, unless you introduced a whole new woman into the discussion] was just referring to some mythical ‘cross-dresser’ who was offering bra fittings to teenagers who doesn’t actually exist.
I mean I get that you folk think JKR can do no wrong but pretending that her statements weren’t very clearly signally that this particular employee’s impugned actions included offering a bra fitting is nonsense.

murasaki · Today 13:56
You may have inferred that, but she [JK Rowling is assumed because no other 'she' has been introduced- although I am sure that @murasaki will confirm if this 'she' is indeed JKR] didn't actually say it with her actual words, did she.
And you keep saying she did. [referring to all the past posts referring to 'she lied' which was you referring to JK Rowling]

Again murasaki might come back and clarify.

PlanetJanette · Today 14:15 (the post I queried)
Where did I say that?
It’s irrelevant whether I think they should or should not - because the individual we are discussing had nothing to do with bra fittings contrary to what so many transphobes want people to believe.

With this as an answer:

15:14 post from me.

Where did you say what? This is what you were answering.
“You may have inferred that, but she didn't actually say it with her actual words, did she.”
“And you keep saying she did.”
Are you saying you didn’t say directly that JK Rowling said that the male employee offered to fit a bra for this teenaged girl?
Because there is a list of posts a couple of pages back where you did use clear words to say that she said this.

Your reply

Sorry but if you’re having trouble tracking what my posts are responding to that’s your problem.
The post you’re quoting was not related to JKR, it was responding to another poster who thought one had a gotcha my inferring views about trans bra fitters which is entirely irrelevant to this situation.

Because if you meant the 'she' to refer to PrettyDamnCosmic, you must be quite lost. Because PrettyDamnCosmic absolutely stated that you have been mistaken and been blunt about it. So, you saying it referenced PrettyDamnCosmic (assuming PDC is female even) doesn't make sense.

Hence... the need for clarification.

In fact.. I could only find two posts from PrettyDamnCosmic on this thread. First one was this as in the quote thread:

PrettyDamnCosmic · Today 10:10
Repeatedly claiming that JK Rowling claimed that the employee was offering to do a bra fitting is the lie. She did nothing of the sort.

The second is :

PrettyDamnCosmic · Today 10:16
She didn't. You are the one who has repeatedly lied.
JKR wrote "Cross-dressing men who offer to fit bras on teenage girls belong in a police interview room." a statement that anyone who knows anything about safeguarding would support.

Both about JK Rowling and 'actually say[ing] it with her actual words'. I don't think that PDC could be clearer 'in her actual words'. Making Murasaki's post quite baffling if it was referring to PDC. And if it was referring to JK Rowling, as I expect to find that it is, that makes your post the one that has changed who was being referenced.

I am thinking that perhaps it is you that has misunderstood Murasaki's post. But hey, I could be wrong.

Thanks for clarifying though that you were referring to PrettyDamnCosmic. I find your reply to Murasaki rather surprising though in that case.

Edited

Show quote history

Don’t worry @Helleofabore the only poster on here that believed the nonsense denial was PJ. We all read and appreciated your previous detailed account and had already noticed the avoidance, denial, obfuscation and “look squirrel” techniques used by PJ. But I suppose if they’re a TW it goes with the territory - facts are a minor inconvenience in that world after all?!

SabrinaThwaite · 10/08/2025 18:33

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/08/2025 12:02

I’m sure the more strategic, less obviously woman hating TRAs will be happy for “Sophie Molly” and the contents of his social media be all over the press.

Oh yes, including the ‘polycule’.

As featured in Reduxx.

https://reduxx.info/scottish-green-party-backs-transgender-candidate-sophie-sparkles-in-upcoming-elections/

murasaki · 10/08/2025 18:35

Helleofabore · 10/08/2025 18:20

That is interesting.

I mean, I am running a low grade fever and am coming down with a virus, but you see, as far as I could see, you were referring to JK Rowling. I surmised this because, here are the quoted posts from that thread.

PlanetJanette · Yesterday 23:11
There have been no lies?
So JK Rowling repeatedly claiming that the employee was offering to do a bra fitting wasn’t a lie?

PrettyDamnCosmic · Today 10:10
Repeatedly claiming that JK Rowling claimed that the employee was offering to do a bra fitting is the lie. She did nothing of the sort.

PlanetJanette · Today 13:41
Sure. She [surely refers to JK Rowling, unless you introduced a whole new woman into the discussion] was just referring to some mythical ‘cross-dresser’ who was offering bra fittings to teenagers who doesn’t actually exist.
I mean I get that you folk think JKR can do no wrong but pretending that her statements weren’t very clearly signally that this particular employee’s impugned actions included offering a bra fitting is nonsense.

murasaki · Today 13:56
You may have inferred that, but she [JK Rowling is assumed because no other 'she' has been introduced- although I am sure that @murasaki will confirm if this 'she' is indeed JKR] didn't actually say it with her actual words, did she.
And you keep saying she did. [referring to all the past posts referring to 'she lied' which was you referring to JK Rowling]

Again murasaki might come back and clarify.

PlanetJanette · Today 14:15 (the post I queried)
Where did I say that?
It’s irrelevant whether I think they should or should not - because the individual we are discussing had nothing to do with bra fittings contrary to what so many transphobes want people to believe.

With this as an answer:

15:14 post from me.

Where did you say what? This is what you were answering.
“You may have inferred that, but she didn't actually say it with her actual words, did she.”
“And you keep saying she did.”
Are you saying you didn’t say directly that JK Rowling said that the male employee offered to fit a bra for this teenaged girl?
Because there is a list of posts a couple of pages back where you did use clear words to say that she said this.

Your reply

Sorry but if you’re having trouble tracking what my posts are responding to that’s your problem.
The post you’re quoting was not related to JKR, it was responding to another poster who thought one had a gotcha my inferring views about trans bra fitters which is entirely irrelevant to this situation.

Because if you meant the 'she' to refer to PrettyDamnCosmic, you must be quite lost. Because PrettyDamnCosmic absolutely stated that you have been mistaken and been blunt about it. So, you saying it referenced PrettyDamnCosmic (assuming PDC is female even) doesn't make sense.

Hence... the need for clarification.

In fact.. I could only find two posts from PrettyDamnCosmic on this thread. First one was this as in the quote thread:

PrettyDamnCosmic · Today 10:10
Repeatedly claiming that JK Rowling claimed that the employee was offering to do a bra fitting is the lie. She did nothing of the sort.

The second is :

PrettyDamnCosmic · Today 10:16
She didn't. You are the one who has repeatedly lied.
JKR wrote "Cross-dressing men who offer to fit bras on teenage girls belong in a police interview room." a statement that anyone who knows anything about safeguarding would support.

Both about JK Rowling and 'actually say[ing] it with her actual words'. I don't think that PDC could be clearer 'in her actual words'. Making Murasaki's post quite baffling if it was referring to PDC. And if it was referring to JK Rowling, as I expect to find that it is, that makes your post the one that has changed who was being referenced.

I am thinking that perhaps it is you that has misunderstood Murasaki's post. But hey, I could be wrong.

Thanks for clarifying though that you were referring to PrettyDamnCosmic. I find your reply to Murasaki rather surprising though in that case.

Edited

Show quote history

Happy to clarify yes, she was JKR. I too was baffled by the response.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 18:36

The mother has the formal emails.

So that email is a hoax and is misinformation in itself.

The fact M&S apologised to the mother says it all. Anyone trying to defend M&S by posting a hoax message from M&S is a predator. Period.

Helleofabore · 10/08/2025 18:38

KnottyAuty · 10/08/2025 18:25

Don’t worry @Helleofabore the only poster on here that believed the nonsense denial was PJ. We all read and appreciated your previous detailed account and had already noticed the avoidance, denial, obfuscation and “look squirrel” techniques used by PJ. But I suppose if they’re a TW it goes with the territory - facts are a minor inconvenience in that world after all?!

Show quote history

I am open to being taken through my error in interpretation though. But thank you. I thought it was my fevered brain.

I am sure you appreciate why I spent the time laying out the posts like I have. Because it opens a discussion to clarify where interpretation has gone awry. I read your posts about you and your children and expect you understand my need to do this.

Strangely, I reckon the only poster I do this with is this one over the years.

Helleofabore · 10/08/2025 18:39

Thank you. I thought I was really behind the ball. Thank you for confirming.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 18:40

Maddy70 · 08/08/2025 17:26

shop assistants on an m&s floor doing their job. They were not offering bra fittings.
They were on a retail floor selling clothes. They asked a customer If they needed any help.
Do you think trans people shouldnt sell clothes?

He was not working in that section. M&S confirmed he was supposed to be in Homeware.
M&S don't approach customers, it's a rule, so they are not allowed to ask if they need help - there is the CLUE he was in the wrong!
Finally, he FLED when the mother came on the scene! He is a predator!

murasaki · 10/08/2025 18:40

Helleofabore · 10/08/2025 18:39

Thank you. I thought I was really behind the ball. Thank you for confirming.

Sorry, I'd thought it was obvious, but to PJ it wasn't. Or rather it was, but they clung to the slight possibility it might not be. I'll be clearer next time I pull them up on denying their previous posts!

I hope your fever settles down soon.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 18:42

Maddy70 · 08/08/2025 18:08

Why? I'm quite happy to be served by a man, trans or female

Can I help you?

Yes please I'm looking for a size 34d in this ...

I'll just check if it's in stock.

Or alternatively. No thanks I'm ok ...

Normal interaction

Bra fittings are different but that's not what happened here

Show quote history

You might, but a little girl going shopping for a bra for the FIRST TIME (and she was to be fitted for it, measured up, etc) does not want a MALE accosting her.

This should not bloody well need explaining!!!

The girl was so upset by it she won't go back there. You're actually defending a male making a girl feel so uncomfortable and traumatised she refused to go back. How desperate are you to defend MEN that you don't care about this little girl? This is 2025, I have to keep reminding myself. Not 1940s where men were put first always. It seems you didn't get the memo that it's no longer 1940s, womens and girls now have rights, and a girls feelings matter too!!

cosimarama · 10/08/2025 18:43

Planet, yes the employee is identifiable and could argue M&S has failed to protect them by not publicly clarifying the situation. The store could say something like “we are happy with the employee’s approach to the 14 year old girl in the lingerie department, we support all our employees asking anyone of any age if they need help, that includes children browsing underwear, and we encourage all our staff to offer such help to anyone looking at underwear in the lingerie department, whether it’s their assigned section or not. Adults and children who visit our stores should expect this type of interaction with any of our staff.”

Is it the fact that the employee has been encouraged by company policy to go up and ask anyone, even children, if they want help with underwear choices in the lingerie section, or is it that they showed an error of judgement and what they did isn’t in line with M&S policy. It’s on the store to clarify so that customers know what to expect and to prevent this employee being “vilified” as you called it.

As evidenced across these threads, women with decades of M&S browsing experience currently don’t expect female staff to come up behind them while they are browsing bras, or any clothes, to see if they need help. Nevermind a man doing this to a young teen girl. What is M&S’s policy?

If they support it, they could say so to back up their employee. But as it stands the company won’t confirm or deny that male employees are trained that it’s ok to talk to children about underwear in the lingerie department or not. They aren’t addressing it. They won’t say it won’t happen again. They’re only saying that staff work across all departments, so in fact, the closest they’ve come to supporting the employee is hinting that as far as customers go, yes they can expect any employees to approach children in the underwear department to ask if they’d like help, including male employees if they wish to do so.

So in your view this employee is entirely the victim, the child he approached should have no reason to be upset and her and any girls in the store should reasonably expect that Gavin from food or Terry from menswear may approach them while they’re shopping for first bras or buying knickers, to politely ask if they need help? That’s all M&S needs to clear up. Feels like doing so would help the employee in this case enormously.

However, would then expect more articles, Facebook posts, X posts etc along the lines of ‘just be aware if you’re shopping in Belingstone M&S, my 14 year old daughter was totally freaked today when she was looking at bras for her size and one of the men who works there approached her and asked if she wanted him to help. He was polite and obviously offering ‘help’ but since when do men or actually anyone in M&S come up and ask if you need help with bras. It was actually her first bra shop and she was left feeling totally uncomfortable and wanted to leave straight away. I was close by but he only asked her - not sure he’d even seen me and then when I said no thanks we’re fine he just said nothing and left the floor. So weird. He wasn’t there when we arrived and seemed to come out of nowhere to ask her this and then disappeared. I just think it’s so odd to have male staff members doing this and don’t think they should approach me, nevermind my 14 year old daughter to offer help in the lingerie section. The manager apologised to me and said he doesn’t work in that section but can’t say it won’t happen again. So he was called Gavin, about 5,7 with a blond beard I’ve seen him before in homeware.’ and so on and on.

DeanElderberry · 10/08/2025 18:47

@Helleofabore, your ability to be consistently reasonable outrages them.

But go and take a lemsip or whatever your favoured medication is and try to get a long night's sleep.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 18:51

Echobelly · 08/08/2025 18:21

Of course they won't apologise for manifacturing outrage about a (maybe) trans staff member politely asking 'Do you need any help' while in a lingerie department. It wouldn't have made national press if an actual male member of staff had done this - possibly someone might have complained to the shop that they weren't comfortable with a man in that part of the shop, but for some reason no one would have been interested in reporting that.

Show quote history

You seem confused @Echobelly . The person who approached the little girl IS a male.

THAT IS WHY it has got the attention it has.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 18:53

Maddy70 · 08/08/2025 18:28

Yes this. Men are employed in stores too. Noone would bat an eyelid I'd a male shop assistant asked a customer If they would like any help. This is pure transphobia

Show quote history

I think EVERY normal person would bat an eyelid at a MALE approaching a little girl to talk about underwear, unless there is a wiring malfunction in their head.
This is about a fear of MALES. Not 'twwannnnsphobia'.

Nothing remotely to do with 'trans' since he was a MALE!

DeanElderberry · 10/08/2025 18:57

The issue is an adult male person's actions wrt the young teenager. The male person's gender status is entirely irrelevant.

Except inasmuch as some people seem to believe rules that apply to all other men do not apply to men who identify as transwomen.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 18:59

SnowFrogJelly · 08/08/2025 23:48

Sorry to break it to you but many trans women look exactly like … women!!

Show quote history

😂Sorry to break it to you but NOT ONE SINGLE ONE looks remotely like a woman, let alone exactly. You are deeply delusional.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 19:00

Maddy70 · 09/08/2025 00:01

You know bras are just items of clothes right?

Show quote history

Wow. You really have not a scintilla of an idea about grooming or safeguarding, do you? No, bras are NOT 'just' an 'item of clothes'. You should be ashamed of yourself, you really should be.

Helleofabore · 10/08/2025 19:02

DeanElderberry · 10/08/2025 18:47

@Helleofabore, your ability to be consistently reasonable outrages them.

But go and take a lemsip or whatever your favoured medication is and try to get a long night's sleep.

😁

Thank you. I am making sure I sleep tonight !! Lemsip night time at the ready.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 19:03

Maddy70 · 09/08/2025 00:36

And noone is making women discuss them with anyone.

Do you want any help ?

No thank you ..

Show quote history

A male should not even be approaching women (or girls) in the lingerie section. Ever.

At all.

End of story.

You're a walking red flag the size of China.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 19:03

Maddy70 · 09/08/2025 00:36

And noone is making women discuss them with anyone.

Do you want any help ?

No thank you ..

Show quote history

A male should not even be approaching women (or girls) in the lingerie section. Ever.

At all.

End of story.

You're a walking red flag the size of China.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 19:06

sadmillenial · 09/08/2025 02:36

While the mother behind the original complaint assumed the M&S employee was trans, there is no evidence as yet that this is even the case.
The original report merely repeats that mother’s claim that the staff member was “obviously” trans because she was “at least 6ft 2in tall”.
It’s also worth noting that public lingerie sections of shops are not designated single-sex spaces, and that trans women (and, frankly, anyone else) have a right to shop for lingerie.

isnt this actual story "trans woman just does her job in a public space and 2 people get aggy because they dont want to have to talk to trans women"

The tabloid 'report' misquoted the mother, @sadmillenial .

It's a fact he is MALE. Whether or not the male is 'trans' or not is totally irrelevant.

It was a male. Who accosted a little girl to talk to her about her underwear. He's a filthy fucking predator and nonce. How he 'identifies' is completely and utterly irrelevant. He is a MALE. Start of story, end of story.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 19:10

sadmillenial · 09/08/2025 04:37

oh have a day off....

if she was trans, then my statement stands that she was just doing her job. if she wasnt then all of this is ridiculous policing of "female height" and its a non-issue.
No cognitive dissonance.

"And that if a male shop assistant approaches a teen girl in the lingerie department to ask if she wants help and slinks away when he realises the girl's mum is with her - it's a good indication his intentions were not simply to help"
- this is YOUR interpretation of the event, and it isnt how it was described by the people involved!
Nowhere in the complaint does it suggest that the mother or her daughter was asked whether the employee could perform the fitting. Instead, the complainant took issue that the employee was in this section of the shop in the first place.

Show quote history

You could start by going by the facts, not your made up narrative.

It was not his job to approach customers. M&S have confirmed they discourage employees from approaching customers. It's not his job to do they. They let the customers go to them, as part of their business model.

Secondly, he wasn't even supposed to be in that area, he skipped out on the area he was supposed to be in, which was Homeware, according to M&S.

Lastly, he fled when he saw the mum. A very good sign that his intentions were not good.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 19:13

sadmillenial · 09/08/2025 07:02

look - i honestly cant see an issue with ANY gender employee asking a customer if they need help. Its a public space, and its literally their job.
if anyone has an issue with interacting with a trans person in a shop then that's on them, i cant see that any wrong has been done here. No one should have an expectation to only meet people who fit their own standards of acceptability and get upset when they don't. Trans people exist and have jobs. We will all meet them.

Show quote history

You don't see any issue with a MALE accosting a little girl to talk about underwear? Common bloody sense would suggest IF they needed any help (and they didn't, they were quietly browsing, minding their own business) a male would know it is NOT...APPROPRIATE for him to approach a female about underwear, and that he could have GONE IN SEARCH FOR A FEMALE ASSISTANT.

The issue is not the he is or isn't 'trans'...but THAT HE IS MALE!