Are equality laws clear on sex and gender expression at work? Kids Toy Shop AGP

[MyShyCat]

So yesterday I was in a local branch of a well known National Toy Superstore.

I needed to Click and Collect a large lego item for my daughters Birthday. I needed to be in and out as I was rushing to get back to set up for her party so i was already a little stressed thinking about getting stuck behind a long queue of people collecting random items and not being able to find their Order Number etc etc.

In the end, there was no queue and I was able to collect my item in record time.

However, I wasn't expecting to be served by a 6ft male member of staff with a receding hair-line called "Boudica" who had clearly "brought all of himself" to work that day. I wasn't prepared for the enourmous fake latex breasts that he was clearly wearing under his corporate uniform.

Problem is, what do I do? The teacher in me sees this as a safe-guarding issue (especially in a kids toy shop!) I don't believe for one minute that anyone has consented to be part of this mans fantasy.

Do equality laws actually permit this type of behaviour (even in a kids toy shop?) or am I just a big transphobe?

Exactly. Can't find clothes, can't find bras, can't stop men looking at your chest, can't be taken seriously, the list is bloody endless.

I'm guessing the 'can't stop men looking at your chest' bit is a massive part of the fetish.

Craving the objectification that they impose on women.

I completely agree with this. I remember I think it was a Kathleen Stock article around the time of the American / Canadian teacher with the enormous fake boobs was in the news. A point she made was she thought the fake boobs were too big but then thought again about what size fake boobs would be appropriate. It really got me thinking. I’m now in the camp that men shouldn’t wear fake boobs for work at all. Why should their desire / fetish take precedence over every women or child they might meet and their feelings. The Oxford employee like wise should not wear fake boobs at work.

Anyone who disagrees I now put in the same bracket as Laurie Penny. When the WiSpa incident was in the news when asked why a 14 year old girl should have to put up with it replied that the child involved ‘shouldn’t stare at other people’s genitals without their permission because it’s rude.’

replied that the child involved ‘shouldn’t stare at other people’s genitals without their permission because it’s rude.’

At which point you think - there's a person who's grip and boundaries are totally fucked, and you edge gently away as fast as possible.

Yes, if I remember correctly, it was right after he had fake breasts made and was gleefully buying 'sundresses'.

It became obvious to the women here that he genuinely thought the bigger the boob the more admiration women generated from their female friends.

This is the man who had written an entire book about AGP. Couldn't shut him up about trans this, that and the other in fact.

The man who had apparently so intellectualised his fetish he wanted to be the (paid) go-to authority for the most sanitised version he could come up with.

Turns out the only version he had was a porn addled one where the rank objectification of women was a gimme.

That’s the thing about anarchism as an anti-authoritarian philosophy, you’re free to think what you want, but we definitely do not all think the same.

What you’ve described is not anarchy as I know and practice it, you might say I am a traditional anarchist. I do not agree with Queer Theory and believe it uses the principles of anarchism to justify its oppression of women (the real ones).

I’m now in the camp that men shouldn’t wear fake boobs for work at all. Why should their desire / fetish take precedence over every women or child they might meet and their feelings.

Same. Autogynephilia doesn't change just because there's a massive fucking neon sign across the chest of the man who has it.

There is an added layer, of course, and it's the boundary pushing.

But In my opinion, the boundary has already been pushed as far as it should go just by bringing your AGP self to work.

This bloke's deliberate 'I'm a fetishist and there's fuck all you can do about it' signalling is a direct result of allowing the boundary to have been pushed in the first place.

I thick there's a bit of difference between sexy lingerie and a fucking dildo.

This is why I'm wondering why the toy shop hired him in the first place.

Did he not wear his fake boobs to interview, and he had loads of retail experience, was personable, had great references, etc.? ( so they were not aware he was going to "bring his whole self to work")

or

He did wear them at interview, and they hired him anyway. (were they stupid, afraid that if they didn't hire him, he would encourage an activist boycott of the business, or are they perfectly happy with their choice?)

Deception, fear, or collusion?

Men and women's sexuality is different, im surprised this is news to you. Thats why you never hear stories from transmen about sneaking into their dad's room to try on their dad's underwear as a kid and getting aroused by it. Its why you dont get lesbians arranging lunchtime hook ups with strangers in a bush in Hampstead heath, its why you dont get whole streets dedicated to men selling sex out of shop windows.
To try a pretend that women having boobs is the same as a MALE purchasing a huge latex set of tits to wear under his work uniform, is the most disingenuous horseshit I've seen TRAs push in sime time. In fact, many of the places that sell this stuff, sell it as fetish gear.

I thought that the first two definitions of anarchy were the definitions used by traditional anarchists, but I guess you would know more about that than I would. I don't want to derail the thread, so thanks for clarifying your view.

I instinctively and immediately agreed with you, SpecialAgentMaggieBell, but confess to having taken a few entertaining moments to carefully consider the characteristics of both before confirming that yes, I agree with you, there is definitely a bit of a difference😂

I think EmilyinEverton has gone, so we may never get answer to our questions.
I'd still like to know how she thinks you could wear a strap-on dildo under your clothes without it being visible - any hints, Emily? asking for a friend. Not.😁

Honestly, the things that get posted on here!🙄

This story so reminds me of that whole scandalous period of men taking hormones and chemicals to lamely mimic women breastfeeding.
And the number of people, including doctors and others with science backgrounds, and so many Labour politicians (yes Angela Rayner and Clive Lewis, you both amongst many) who said both there were no issues re babies health, and also that any objections were anti trans bigotry.
Periods like that, and now this growing penchant for AGPs to flaunt their fetish in front of women, seem to be almost "the rage of the age".
The argument that men can become women has been lost, the law via SC reflects that, soon toilets etc as a battleground will be neutered, so new battlegrounds must be found, these including men demanding the "right" to breastfeed uncriticised, and men to wear fake tits to work.
The war to humiliate women and deliberately blur sexual boundaries, and I'm not afraid to say so, legitimize grooming, carries on.
As a male, I know very well how single minded my clan will be, to the exclusion of all else.

It occurs to me (after re-reading Emily Whosis' posts) to wonder: If it isn't possible to be sure whether this man is a fetishist or not, how is it possible to be sure he is trans?

I am not convinced that trans people of either sex necessarily agree with the "trans umbrella" crip-crap, and I am absolutely sure that quite a lot of people included under that umbrella without being consulted find it madly annoying to be told they are not homosexual after all, but trans really. Maybe honest old-fashioned fetishists are as irritated as people who were of indeterminate sex at birth, when they are lumped in with a group in which they don't feel that they fit.

And, just to add, re: afraid that if they didn't hire him, he would encourage an activist boycott of the business

a) I am not saying that this is what all trans-identified people go around doing all the time (this for our "friends" across the Pond who will undoubtedly be rejoining the thread after Mummy has made their breakfast)

b) I am saying that I have personal experience at a previous employer where one, very determined individual was going around applying to every post available in my specific area of finance and audit (having NO financial or audit experience whatsoever), with the intention of suing every employer for racial discrimination when they did not hire him. And he did. And he won a lot of money, until the word got around in the sector. So, applying with the intent to cause trouble does happen.

I'm full of admiration for all the women (and some men) taking the trouble to engage with the grubby denial of safeguarding children in favour of celebrating men with a fetish.

Thankfully the more men (and mothers with 3 children 😂) promote and celebrate fetish aimed at children, the quicker the general public get to grips with what is being demanded of society and reject wholesale all the demands.

So. Well. Put.

I’m still puzzled by butch lesbians putting rolled up socks in their knickers. Makes a change from a wad of loo roll in an emergency I suppose…

What has shocked me most about the whole, sorry TRA debacle is the degree to which ALL OTHER CONCERNS are overriden by these men's demands.

Women's rights, safety, dignity is one thing - I probably should have predicated that.

But child safeguarding? Offered up on the altar of men's fetishes? I will be shocked about that til the end of my days. Depravity on another level.

You just need to look at grooming gangs to see how far down the list safeguarding children sits.

Apart from anything else, that's a clear health and safety issue. Everything - including the hair - needs to be tied up out of the way.

My dad used to be a coalminer and lads with long hair had to wear hairnets to stop their hair tangling in machinery.

I've always prided myself on being forthright and non-BS.
But even I refrained from using the word "grooming".
Well, fuck that, I'm done with self censoring.
I'm talking grooming culture. The destruction of barriers, expecting women to ignore their evolved early warning systems and triggers, the increased amorphousness of child safety and safeguarding, I'm afraid it's ramped up as AGP men have imposed their demands on society, and too many have acquiesced.
I mean, big tits in a shop or on campus is one thing, but thin end of wedge leads to thick...I mean if women don't/can't object to this fetish in these circumstances, then they certainly can't where safeguarding really is an issue.
This is a bookend to male breastfeeding and drag queens reading to kids.
The grooming doesn't have to be overt as in the rape gangs or religious sects...it can also be in breaking barriers in children when they're young and hugely pliable mentally.
Big tits here, male breast feeders there, drag queens imposing in child-centered social situations that men can become women, is both the ultimate misogyny and sowing the seeds/collecting the harvest in the next generation.

An end to child safeguarding was what the PIE (and PAL, but they were rumbled sooner) wanted back in the nineteen-seventies and -eighties, and those mostly-young-male members of that group haven't gone away; they've just morphed into another group under a different name and got forty or fifty years older. So they are now DOM as well as sincerely opposed to the protection of children from inappropriate sexualisation.

We in the GLF didn't think much of them back in the seventies either. Funnily enough, we were able to see a difference between what we called "kiddy-fiddlers" and homosexuals who wanted relationships among consenting adults without being persecuted about them.

The main thing PIE had going for them was that both Mary Whitehouse and the National Front detested them, which made some misguided people think they must be OK really! Affiliation with the PIE definitely wasn't the NCCL's finest hour. (That organisation changed its name to "Liberty", possibly because of unfortunate associations remembered by a few of us.) And I think the Liberal Party may still blush a bit when they are forced to think about that decade, as may some older members of the Labour party.

I love a good acronym.
What's PAL? And DOM?
And GLF for that matter?

Sorry. I forget people don't remember this lot any longer....

Paedophile Action for Liberation.
Dirty Old Men.
Gay Liberation Front.

(And PIE is the Paedophile Information Exchange.)

Well, dirty old men, how could I forget them?
Gay Liberation Front, yes of course
Paedophile Action For Liberation... that's a new one on me