Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Misinformation correction: M&S Staff

929 replies

BeeSourianteAgain · 08/08/2025 14:03

M&S have responded to people's enquiries, here's one:

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.

Bluesky

https://bsky.app/profile/dpdormouse.bsky.social/post/3lvuzitrplc2f

OP posts:
Thread gallery
30
ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 20:13

PlanetJanette · 09/08/2025 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?

So JK Rowling repeatedly claiming that the employee was offering to do a bra fitting wasn’t a lie?

JKR NEVER SAID THAT, you made up that lie yourself.

Why do you have to lie about what JKR said? Is it because you know your agenda has no standing?

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 20:16

PlanetJanette · 09/08/2025 23:50

You don’t know who she is, her account is riddled with inconsistencies, but you believe her.

Did you believe JK Rowling when she repeatedly lied and said the employee had offered bra fitting?

There are NO inconsistencies in her account. The only inconsistencies are with the second, third and fourth hand re-tellers and the tabloid paper article. Her account has been consistent all round.

Yes, I believe her because she posted a copy of an email she received from Social Services.

Youve forgotten #MeToo and didn't learn from it. I BELIEVE women.

You, believe male predators.

That's the difference between you and us.

PlanetJanette · 10/08/2025 20:18

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 19:33

And they wonder why they are making us HATE transwomen more and more and more! They're the own worst enemy.

At least you admit that yours is a hate movement.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 20:19

Helleofabore · 10/08/2025 05:25

If they are still on her twitter, why didn’t you post them when your misrepresentation was pointed out?

So, do tell where does this specifically say the M&S employee offered bra fitting :

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1953137839769534796?s=46

”Once again, I marvel at how many men think the only issue with a man offering to help a teenage girl with her bra is that the girl refused. They tweet this stuff under their own names and pictures. It's astounding.”

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1952931205055430729?s=46

It's really quite astounding how many men are willing to state publicly that mothers shouldn't teach their teenage daughters to say 'no' to male strangers offering to help with their bras.”

And this in reply to Willoughby’s whataboutery about lesbians.

https://x.com/jkrowling/status/1952908877265359132?s=46

Let me make this really easy for you, India. Lesbians belong in the women's changing room because they're women. Cross-dressing men who offer to fit bras on teenage girls belong in a police interview room.

Or this

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1952498789824033247?s=46

”It's time for women to vote with their wallets. If stores like M&S continue to flout the Supreme Court ruling on women-only spaces, prioritising the wishes of men who want to undress near, or help fit bras on teenage girls, a boycott seems appropriate.”

You see, there is a difference between her responding to discussions that had started around the tasks that male employees might undertake if they are working in bra/lingerie departments/stores and accusing the specific M&S staff member of doing a particular thing.

But apparently, that distinction passed over your head. And even when it was pointed out to you, you doubled down as you have down for years.

Do you understand the difference?

If you had said ‘people on the internet are so focused on male people doing bra fittings. Even billionaire authors.’ You could be said to be writing the equivalent approach she has.

However, you specifically accused her of lying. Over and over.

Here we go:

21.08

“Because a sales assistant of any sex politely checking if customers need help and going about their day if they say no isn’t a safeguarding issue, even if the customers are a mother shopping with her teenage daughter.
Which is why every description of what happened has to outright lie (eg JKR telling her millions of followers that the employee was offering bra fitting, claiming that the girl was ‘accosted’, that the employee was ‘hovering around’), or to use really fucking weird language like the employee ‘made contact’ as if she was an extra terrestrial being bumping into the girl.
The lies are necessary because no one believes that what actually happened is actually some outrageous breach of safeguarding.”

I mean this above is a great example. This below can be debated as to whether you were accusing JK Rowling specifically if it was a single post without the prior context.

21.11

“Or as if those of us who do not want our trans friends to suffer recognise an absolutely abhorrent and dangerous trend of transphobes to identify a specific individual and use a pliant media and celebrity power to actively lie about them.”

Back to a direct accusation.

21.14

“So what’s your explanation as to why so many people talking about how outrageous this all is have to lie about what happened.
If ‘trans sales assistant politely checks if mother and teenage daughter shopping in lingerie department need help and goes about her day when they say no’ is really an outrageous safeguarding risk, why are so many folk like JKR having to lie and embellish?
There’s a very simple answer - none of you actually believe that what actually happened stands up as anything even vaguely worthy of the outrage.”

Back to general

22.59

“So no explanation on why so many people feel the need to lie about what happened?
What a surprise?”

23.03

“We can surely agree that lying about what a trans person did in order to whip up outrage is transphobic though, right?
Since you’re so compassionate and all, I assume you’ll have no problem in recognising that lying about someone from a minority group in order to stoke outrage relating to common tropes about that group is one of the hallmarks of bigotry?”

23.06

“Another one refusing to venture a suggestion on why so many people feel the need to lie about what happened.
Occams razor applies here. If one side needs to spread falsehoods about something that happened, the simplest explanation is that what actually happened didn’t support their arguments.”

And this one to me pointing out the basic fact, ie the safeguarding fail, had not been lied about. So, this is a great example.

And another direct accusation.

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?”

I am going to add this c&p of my own post where I am pointing out your dishonest representation of my own post.

/start

Helleofabore · Yesterday 23:22

There has been no lies that a male person approached a 14 year old girl in the bra section.

This is a basic fact that is not a lie”.

Notice how very specifically I did not say anything about bra fitting? Yet, you have just completely added facts to change what I said. That is dishonest but not unexpected.

”That is actually you lying though. So it seems hypocritical to discuss alleged lies of others.”

End/

Now back to you, after both Sabrina and I even pointed out you were misrepresenting what JK Rowling had said.

You are still making direct accusations despite people pointing out your error in interpreration.

23.50

“You don’t know who she is, her account is riddled with inconsistencies, but you believe her.
Did you believe JK Rowling when she repeatedly lied and said the employee had offered bra fitting?

23.56

“Yes she [JK Rowling] did. They are still on her Twitter feed. At least twice - she referred to the employee as a ‘cross-dressing man who wants to help fit bras on teenage girls’ and a ‘cross-dressing man who offer to fit bras on teenage girls’.
Why do you think she lied?”

This is where you start to pick up your error and stopped with the fuckwittery about JK Rowling. Probably because you did go back to her tweets and realised you wanted to avoid posting the evidence to support your numerous and direct claims that she lied.

Because, even after you checked the tweets were still up on her account, you didn’t link them, despite being asked. Or maybe you didn’t even check when posting at 23.56 and you just assumed your post would be true and accurate.

To finally laughably post ….

0.02

“’Oh I never said this employee was hovering around’
’JK Rowling never said this specific employee offered bra fittings’
I hope you folk never have to face a defamation trial because your defences would be hilarious.”

You repeatedly misrepresented what JK Rowling posted, just like others have done. You probably allowed their malignly intended misrepresentations to confirm your own bias.

When it was pointed out to you, and people asked to you post your evidence, you doubled down and did a swerve to insulting other people’s comprehension. I must say though, I would value the posters you insulted’s research feeding into a defamation defence over your contributions and analysis.

And all this makes your post to cosimarama at 00.10 quite outstanding considering it was discussing your personal interpretations and characterisation. Which when you look at your posts about JK Rowling would seem to be rather poorly judged.

All on a thread called ‘Misinformation Correction- M&S Staff’ which hypocritically was spreading Misinformation in the very opening post. Which is of course, not your thread/not your post but is humorous all things considered.

Edited to bold areas to make a long post a bit easier to read.

Edited

I love that you always bring the receipts. PlanetJanette and their lies, verballing and misrepresentations never stood a chance.

PlanetJanette · 10/08/2025 20:22

AnSolas · 10/08/2025 19:35

Which is it?

M&Ss male staff can and do work across all and any department.

Or

There is zero suggestion of any male person doing any bra fittings at M&S.

Both things can not be true at M&S the same time.

So either M&S is telling lies and males staff can and do work in bra fitting

Or M&S exclude male staff from some roles and some departments.

M&S have rather managed to hoist themselves on their own petard with that Schrödungers cat conundrum 🐈🐈‍⬛🐆

I don't know if M&S employs men or trans women as bra fitters. All I know is that this particular employee is not a bra fitter and did not offer to fit the girl's bra, as has been claimed.

That does not change the point that M&S have confirmed that employees work across Departments. That doesn't mean that an employee can do any job in a store - one day they're a baker, one day they're a sales assistant. It means that they can do the same job across multiple departments. So that does not mean that any sales assistant can work as a bra fitter. In fact we know that that is not the case, as the latter role requires specific training.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 20:23

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

PlanetJanette · 10/08/2025 20:25

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 19:44

Accosted means approach. It can, be aggressive, but doesn't have to be.

M&S have confirmed he was supposed to be working in Homeware. So you are wrong that we are wrong that 'he didn't work in that department'. M&S CONFIRMED he didn't. Are you calling M&S liars?

Proactively engage, WHEN THE CUSTOMER APPRAOCHES THEM. It does not mean approach customers.

So your counter claims are DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.

No, accosted cannot mean just any old approach. It's very definition hinges on aggression or threat.

No, M&S have not confirmed where the employee was 'supposed' to be working. The only thing M&S have said about this publicly is that employees work across Departments.

No, responding to a customer is not 'proactive engagement'. It is reactive engagement.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 20:28

PlanetJanette · 10/08/2025 13:46

M&S’ revenue in 24/25 was up 6.1% compared to 23/24. Is it possible that they’ve looked at the bottom line and determined that the great transphobe boycott is actually not having any damaging impacts on the business.

Their stock plummeted in the last few days. Its a lesson that pandering to femphobes, misogynist bigots like yourself who don't believe in safeguarding and thinks males can get away with what they want IF they put a dress on, will not fly with the public!

Shortshriftandlethal · 10/08/2025 20:28

PlanetJanette · 10/08/2025 20:18

At least you admit that yours is a hate movement.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as 'hate'....such a wasteful and destructive emotion...but I'd defintely say that I have had my fill of the narcissism that is inherent in trans activism - which has no awareness that others have feelings and sensitivities too.

An obvious male person, dressed as a woman and working in a women's underwear department is simply creepy ,and certainly if that person then approaches a young girl shopping for her first bra.

M&S should have known better.

PlanetJanette · 10/08/2025 20:29

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 20:16

There are NO inconsistencies in her account. The only inconsistencies are with the second, third and fourth hand re-tellers and the tabloid paper article. Her account has been consistent all round.

Yes, I believe her because she posted a copy of an email she received from Social Services.

Youve forgotten #MeToo and didn't learn from it. I BELIEVE women.

You, believe male predators.

That's the difference between you and us.

I'm afraid there certainly are inconsistencies.

She simultaneously claims that she could see the employee approach but states with certainty that the employee could not possibly see her.

She also claims that both she and her daughter first perceived the employee by hearing her voice, rather than by seeing her (we knew it was a trans woman from the voice before we even saw). Which contradicts the claim that the mother saw the employee approaching.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 20:32

PlanetJanette · 10/08/2025 14:14

I actually don’t believe trans people can do no wrong. They can and they do. Like all of humanity trans people aren’t a monolith. I certainly do reject the blatant approach of ascribing blame for individual trans people’s actions to the entirety of that cohort, because that is straight out of every oppressors playbook.

As for why I am appalled at what has happened here - it is because this story is nothing other than a trans person, one who could almost certainly be very easily identifiable, being vilified and lied about for doing their job. Even if you are right that they should have used better judgement or that M&S should change their policies (I don’t agree on either count but let’s go with it), acres of coverage about a private individual, a sales person whose only crime was to politely check if a customer needed help and step away when they said no is abhorrent.

It’s like folk in the transphobic cult won’t stop until there’s another Lucy Meadows - and even then I’m sure they’ll find some way to justify the hounding of private individuals doing nothing to justify that vilification. If you’re comfortable with that that’s fine. I’m certainly not and I think anyone who is is deranged.

As for why I am appalled at what has happened here - it is because this story is nothing other than a trans person, one who could almost certainly be very easily identifiable, being vilified and lied about for doing their job. Even if you are right that they should have used better judgement or that M&S should change their policies (I don’t agree on either count but let’s go with it), acres of coverage about a private individual, a sales person whose only crime was to politely check if a customer needed help and step away when they said no is abhorrent.

WRONG!!! It has NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING TRANS. It's about a MALE who approached a girl to ask her about her underwear, who was not where he should be, by M&S OWN ADMISSION, and who broke his job terms by approaching a customer.

That you have to twist the story to justify this MALE approaching a girl, re-write it as 'trans related' says everything about you. This is solely about a MALE. Not trans. Not anything. Just a MALE. Who approached a girl to talk underwear.

That is wrong, no matter how they MALE identifies. The fact you have to say he is trans to make what he did ok, shows the walking red flag you are.

PlanetJanette · 10/08/2025 20:33

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 20:13

So JK Rowling repeatedly claiming that the employee was offering to do a bra fitting wasn’t a lie?

JKR NEVER SAID THAT, you made up that lie yourself.

Why do you have to lie about what JKR said? Is it because you know your agenda has no standing?

No lies I'm afraid.

If your entire case is that JKR wasn't referring to this employee when she railed against 'cross-dressers' offering bra fittings, apropos of nothing and in direct response to this incident, that she wasn't referring to this specific employee, that's fine. Contort yourself all you want.

It either makes you dishonest too, or deeply idiotic if you genuinely think that wasn't her claim.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 20:34

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Shortshriftandlethal · 10/08/2025 20:34

Boundary violations are entirely what this movement is predicated upon. Dressed up as personal liberty.

TheKeatingFive · 10/08/2025 20:37

This has been pointed out to @PlanetJanette multiple
times already, but no, it is not 'doing one's job' as a male to ask a 14 year old girl if she needs help with her bra purchase.

Do you not ever stop and think 'how did I end up defending this?' 🫠🫠🫠

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 20:37

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 20:39

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

PlanetJanette · 10/08/2025 20:42

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 20:28

Their stock plummeted in the last few days. Its a lesson that pandering to femphobes, misogynist bigots like yourself who don't believe in safeguarding and thinks males can get away with what they want IF they put a dress on, will not fly with the public!

The 'public' don't determine share prices, the markets do. What the public do determine is sales level, which have risen healthily over the great transphobe boycott of M&S.

But since you see share price as a metric, M&S share price over the last few years, when they were frequently in the crosshairs of transphobes, has been remarkably healthy.

TheKeatingFive · 10/08/2025 20:44

PlanetJanette · 10/08/2025 20:29

I'm afraid there certainly are inconsistencies.

She simultaneously claims that she could see the employee approach but states with certainty that the employee could not possibly see her.

She also claims that both she and her daughter first perceived the employee by hearing her voice, rather than by seeing her (we knew it was a trans woman from the voice before we even saw). Which contradicts the claim that the mother saw the employee approaching.

There's nothing inconsistent there you complete liability.

  1. she was behind / off to the side if the employee, so could see him, while he couldn't see her

  2. 'His' voice (kindly stop being a complete idiot) which she could have heard at more or less the same time as seeing him approach. As any sane person will realise, we don't always remember events in exact, step by step, chronological time. Both things would have happened simultaneously, making it difficult to ascertain what happened 'first'.

Anyway, remember when it was fashionable to believe women when they spoke of their harassment by men? What ever happened to that, hmm?

AnSolas · 10/08/2025 20:45

PlanetJanette · 10/08/2025 20:22

I don't know if M&S employs men or trans women as bra fitters. All I know is that this particular employee is not a bra fitter and did not offer to fit the girl's bra, as has been claimed.

That does not change the point that M&S have confirmed that employees work across Departments. That doesn't mean that an employee can do any job in a store - one day they're a baker, one day they're a sales assistant. It means that they can do the same job across multiple departments. So that does not mean that any sales assistant can work as a bra fitter. In fact we know that that is not the case, as the latter role requires specific training.

Being a Baker will like being a bra fitter specific training

If you dont know if M&S employs males as bra fitter how you know if this male has been trained to fit bras or not?

Or you do know if he had been trained or not?

If you dont know if he was not trained you can not say that he was not able to offer a fitting service if one had been booked online or arranged in person.

But even if he is not trained as a bra fitter he still approched a child in the underwear department.

Are you trying to claim that M&S management had specifically requested that he work in the underwear department that day?

Or claiming that M&S management had specifically instructed him to go up to female customers and offer assistance in the selection of the female customers underwear?

He was old enough to be employed by M&S so he is old enough to understand he should not go up to a 14 year old girl in the underwear department and begin a discussion about the surrounding products.

He knows or should know that such conduct is not socially acceptable and that even for a male shop assistant it is inappropiate contact with a female child.

TheKeatingFive · 10/08/2025 20:45

PlanetJanette · 10/08/2025 20:42

The 'public' don't determine share prices, the markets do. What the public do determine is sales level, which have risen healthily over the great transphobe boycott of M&S.

But since you see share price as a metric, M&S share price over the last few years, when they were frequently in the crosshairs of transphobes, has been remarkably healthy.

How would the share price have been affected before it happened?

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 10/08/2025 20:46

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

TheKeatingFive · 10/08/2025 20:47

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

What surprises me most about all this is the degree to which posters don't seem to realise how badly their comments reflect on themselves. Let alone the guy in the bra department.

RedToothBrush · 10/08/2025 20:55

I don't hate the gender movement.

I am very very disappointed in its lack of critical thinking skills and it's reliance repeating the same tropes so clone like that you start to think it's plagiarised off chatgpt.

ThatBlackCat · 10/08/2025 20:55

PlanetJanette · 10/08/2025 19:25

Ah I see she’s transformed from a 14 year old into a ‘little girl’ now. Whats the matter, not enough traction even with the bra fitting lies, the not supposed to approach customers lies, the not able to work outside department lies?

14 year old girls getting fitted for their first bra are still little girls to me.

But keep pouncing on wording because your hateful agenda has no legs to stand on so you have to resort to petty tactics. I feel embarrassed for you at this point.