I Loved Her Books, But She Is An...

Ass.

One again JK is having a hissy fit. This time because a trans woman who worked in the store asked a customer if she could help her like she did to other customers hundreds of times before!

JK Rowling calls for Marks & Spencer boycott amid media hysteria over ‘trans’ employee

JK Rowling has called for a boycott Marks & Spencer (M&S) after a customer complained that a supposedly ‘trans’ employee approached her and her teenage daughter in the bra section and asked if they needed any help.

Pink News

By Sophie Perry

August 5, 2025

Earlier this week, The Telegraph reported that the iconic high street brand – best-known for its products such as Percy Pig and Colin the Caterpillar – had apologised to the mother who shopped in one its stores hoping to get a bra fitting for her 14-year-old daughter.

In the complaint by the anonymous customer, the mother said whilst the staff member was “polite” the interaction was “completely inappropriate” and left her daughter feeling “freaked out”.

Alongside issuing an apology, M&S confirmed the staff member was one who worked across the clothing section and is not an employee who carries out bra fittings, meaning they simply would have just been doing their job asking if customers perusing the clothes need any help.

So now comes the massive hate campaign blowing this way out of proportion!

Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at gender-critical group Sex Matters, previously condemned the brand in a statement to The Telegraph, saying it needs to “rethink its priorities”.

[...]

“It is entirely inappropriate for a man to approach a teenage girl in a lingerie department. Being dressed in women’s clothes doesn’t change that. It’s extraordinary that a man would regard himself as entitled to do such a thing; most men know how unwelcome that would be.

I bet you, if was a cis-gendered man who asked that question it would not have been a problem, but since it was a trans woman who asked that... OMG!!!!!

In the complainant itself, the customer said the employee who spoke with them was a “transgender ‘woman’, ie, a biological male” and stated this was “obviously the case” because the person was “at least 6ft 2in tall”.

i.e. Any tall masculine looking must be a trans woman!!!!!

The Jim Crow laws were justified by saying Black people made them feel uncomfortable! In The Supreme Court case PLESSY v. FERGUSON in 1896 wrote [My emphasis]...

So far, then, as a conflict with the fourteenth amendment is concerned, the case reduces itself to the question whether the statute of Louisiana is a reasonable regulation, and with respect to this there must necessarily be a large discretion on the part of the legislature. In determining the question of reasonableness, it is at liberty to act with reference to the established usages, customs, and traditions of the people, and with a view to the promotion of their comfort, and the preservation of the public peace and good order. Gauged by this standard, we cannot say that a law which authorizes or even requires the separation of the two races in public conveyances is unreasonable, or more obnoxious to the fourteenth amendment than the acts of congress requiring separate schools for colored children in the District of Columbia, the constitutionality of which does not seem to have been questioned, or the corresponding acts of state legislatures.

We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it. The argument necessarily assumes that if, as has been more than once the case, and is not unlikely to be so again, the colored race should become the dominant power in the state legislature, and should enact a law in precisely similar terms, it would thereby relegate the white race to an inferior position. We imagine that the white race, at least, would not acquiesce in this assumption. The argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured to the negro except by an enforced commingling of the two races. We cannot accept this proposition. If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other's merits, and a voluntary consent of individuals. As was said by the court of appeals of New York in People v. Gallagher, 93 N. Y. 438, 448: 'This end can neither be accomplished nor promoted by laws which conflict with the general sentiment of the community upon whom they are designed to operate. When the government, therefore, has secured to each of its citizens equal rights before the law, and equal opportunities for improvement and progress, it has accomplished the end for which it was organized, and performed all of the functions respecting social advantages with which it is endowed.' Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts, or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences, and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation. If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.

In other words segregation made them feel comfortable, just like with us... banning us makes them feel comfortable.

Discrimination cannot be justified because it makes you feel comfortable at the expense of others!