This story is an example of how companies act against their own interests by sacrificing themselves on the altar of gender ideology.
Two years ago, John Lewis set up a Pride in Partnership photography exhibition at its Oxford Street store in London. It also published a staff magazine produced by the partnership’s LGBTQIA+ network. Both were timed to coincide with LGBT History Month, previously known as February. Identity magazine promoted Mermaids and the use of breast-binders. The photography exhibition featured two members of staff in fetish gear.
Facing a backlash, John Lewis distanced itself from the magazine, saying it didn’t “constitute a corporate position on the issues covered”. It also closed the exhibition early, “for the safety and protection” of its staff.
On 17 Feb 2024, a twitter account run by a gender critical woman calling herself Alice Harper GC had a little laugh at the debacle, posting:
“I used to work with the John Lewis comms director, and know how badly he reacts to criticism. Hope he’s having a great time with the blowback from their stupid ‘look at all the pervs we employ!’ campaign 🤣”
Someone at John Lewis took exception to Alice Harper’s tweet, and set about tracking her down. The vindictive sleuth soon discovered Alice’s real identity – let’s call her Katie – and where she worked.
Katie had moved on from working with the John Lewis comms director, and in 2022 was employed by a large, multinational organisation. Katie inherited a failing department, but within two years she had sorted things out and her team was a beacon of profitability.
On 19 Feb 2024, the John Lewis sleuth emailed Katie’s firm, alerting them “to an employee of yours targeting people on social media with anti-trans rhetoric. As a company that promotes inclusion and works with Stonewall, I thought you should know.” He added: “Her name is [Katie]. She uses an alias of AliceHarperGC on social but I could identify her so l imagine others can.”
Witch Hunt Initiated
Katie was quickly placed under investigation for alleged “Gross Misconduct due to Misuse of Social Media networks”. In early April 2024, without warning, Katie was invited by HR to an “informal” meeting. Her boss was present. During the meeting, Katie admitted she had control of the AliceHarperGC account. Katie said her anonymous account had never mentioned or linked to her Large Multinational employer. Katie also argued that making the connection between her and the AliceHarperGC account would require both inside knowledge and “extensive stalking”.
According to the minutes of the interview, the HR rep asked Katie: “Do you understand that [Large Multinational] is an inclusive employer?”
Katie replied: “I would like to understand what is the problem here… there have been multiple HR court cases which demonstrate [my views] are based on reality and [should be] respected within a democratic society. If you want to make a big stink it is your prerogative. It is not defamatory and non-inclusive [to speak up] in defence of women’s rights.”
After seven more weeks, Katie’s employer produced the fruits of their investigation. Without really explaining how anyone without insider knowledge could identify AliceHarperGC as her alias, the Large Multinational found Katie guilty of Gross Misconduct. It said her offending tweet “ascribes the status of ‘pervert’ to an entire group of people”.
The investigator sternly noted that “gender, gender transition and gender expression are considered Protected Characteristics in the Company’s Equality and Diversity policy” and any transgression of this policy “may result in summary dismissal.”
By admitting AliceHarperGC was her account, Katie had admitted writing a tweet which the Large Multinational considered discriminatory. The report concluded that “further Formal action” against Katie was “warranted”. Katie was informed she had no right of appeal against this conclusion and that her next meeting would be a disciplinary hearing.
Katie Fights Back
Somewhat hacked off, Katie called in the lawyers. On their advice, she sent in a response to the findings against her.
She argued her employers’ investigation “was carried out inadequately” and she wanted to “strongly dispute” its conclusions. She said “It is clear that [Large Multinational] has taken on board the interpretations provided by the complainant without challenge or question, and has failed to properly investigate the context in which comments were made. It is also clear that my advocacy of gender critical views is seen by [Large Multinational] as an offence in itself, and has prejudiced the chances of a fair and balanced assessment of the case.”
Katie addressed her offending tweet, calling it: “an expression of amusement that a former boss was having an uncomfortable day at work. The only negative comment towards [the complainant] is an implication that he reacts badly to criticism. Given that his reaction to this was to try and get me fired from my job, I consider this implication to be factually supported, and is in line with my previous experience of working with him.”
Katie turned to the word ‘pervs’ in her tweet, which her employer said “ascribes the status of ‘pervert’ to an entire group of people”, and was therefore discriminatory. Katie wrote: “It is entirely untrue that I ascribe that status to an entire group of people, unless that group is ‘kinksters’. It appears that the investigation did not look into the context of the conversations on Twitter that day around the John Lewis campaign, and is instead relying on the interpretations provided by [the complainant] or the presuppositions of the investigators. The campaign materials in question featured two men (one trans-identifying, one not) wearing kink outfits and holding sex toys… One of the men was dressed in a bondage harness, with additional accessories that made it clear he was an advocate of ‘pup play’, a fetish in which participants dress/act as dogs. The other, Ruby, was dressed in what appeared to be a PVC dress and was holding a whip. It had emerged during the day that Ruby had publicly posted other photos of himself dressed in similar outfits, including a red PVC nurse’s uniform, carrying out various acts in front of the camera including wearing a gag with a dildo inserted, and flashing his crotch at the mirror while covered in (I presume) whipped cream. I have these pictures available as evidence, but will not be sending them as they are objectively disgusting and would certainly be a breach of other company policies if emailed.”
Katie told her employer: “I strongly oppose the normalisation of kink, and consider it entirely accurate to describe as ‘pervs’ these two men who would happily display their sexual activities to their colleagues in this way. I do not see how objecting to this behaviour would bring [Large Multinational] into disrepute, other than by wilful misinterpretation of my words.”
And then she went on holiday. Katie’s lawyers also approached the Large Multinational, mentioning (amongst a number of legal points) that “no margin of appreciation has been afforded to our client’s gender critical views. The contemporaneous concerns and decision-making process have been principally predicated on the view that the beliefs/views expressed were unacceptable, rather than on the basis of an acknowledgement that [Katie] was entitled to her beliefs and the manifestation of them.”
When Katie returned from holiday, she found the disciplinary process against her had mysteriously melted away. She got out of the company as soon as she could, with a suitable exit package. Several months after she left, a former colleague begged Katie to come back. Everything had deteriorated in her absence to the extent her department was once more, failing. Katie politely declined.
My work on this blog is crowdfunded. If you would like to make a one-off donation and receive the Gender Blog newsletter in your email inbox you can sign up here. Your email address will be stored securely and confidentially, never given to a third party and will only be used to inform you about things I think are interesting.
Leave a Reply