And in “inclusive” retailer news:

So says James Bailey, Executive Director of John Lewis & Partners.

Or, as an earlier John Lewis “Inclusion Report” put it, “inclusivity” will result in “a better connection to our customers.” Customers who will learn to “respect difference,” while freeing themselves of “judgement.” The project, it seems, is an educational one, and customers are among those deemed in need of education. And so,

The Identity Project will also “come to life” in “a travelling exhibition on display at various John Lewis locations.” Regarding the project, its creator, photographer Chris Jepson, says,

However, all has not gone entirely to plan:

The chap in question, Marc Geoffrey Albert Whitcombe, now known as Ruby Geoffrey Michael Porcelain Whitcombe, is portrayed in the Identity Project, and presented to customers, thusly:

“My identity is the chance to express my true inner self and be accepted and supported for who I am,” says Ruby. Photographed in a rose-adorned wig and while clutching what appears to be a whip:

In search of further education and deep moral improvement, sceptics unearthed other treats from dear Ruby’s social media presence:

One of the tamer offerings:

Yes, I know. You’re feeling inspired and uplifted.

Presumably, the way to “redress the visual narrative that LGBTQIA+ people look a certain way” is to celebrate the existence of dysmorphic and autogynephile men who are also devotes of bondage and sadomasochism, and who like to share photos of themselves posing with sex toys while flashing their collection of ladies’ knickers to random passers-by.

It also seems that the way to become more authentically “queer” – to express one’s true, inner self and who one really is – is to elaborately accessorise and play dress-up, and to pretend to be something that, by definition, one isn’t.

Other John Lewis employees highlighted in the Identity Project include an in-store nursery advisor and enthusiast of the ‘pup’ and ‘furry’ communities, and who is helpfully pictured wearing a bondage harness. Because that’s the mental image you want when shopping for baby paraphernalia.

This, lest we forget, will “give young queer people role models to look up to.”

Whether female customers, the backbone of John Lewis’ customer base, will be inspired to shop harder and more often by the thought of employees bringing their autogynephilia to work, as Maya Forstater put it, remains to be seen. Ditto bondage fantasies and wearing rubber dog costumes. Perhaps well-off ladies in search of posh frocks and upscale furnishings will be dazzled and enchanted by the thought of sad, cross-dressing men in thigh-high boots who like to share photos of themselves smeared with unspecified white substances.

Also unclear is whether the elevation of employees’ tiresome kinks to the status of unassailable “identities,” and therefore something to be gushingly affirmed, will result in “a better business.” With customers feeling a warm affinity, on account of those “similarities in the identities we share.”

Needless to say, the memes have begun.

Update, via the comments:

Liz notes the unhappy combination of baby products and bondage harnesses, and asks, not unfairly,

Well, quite. I was in John Lewis recently, buying towels, and at no point did I feel a need to know about the cross-dressing bondage activities of the sales staff. Whether the person bagging my towels likes to dress up as a pantomime dame while brandishing instruments of torture was not, it has to be said, foremost in my mind.

The weirdly woke marketing of John Lewis – and the jarring mismatch with the tastes of its customers – has been noted here before, in the update to this.

And the ideological shoehorning currently underway has been explored by James Esses, here.

Update 2:

Following media coverage and widespread customer disaffection, the touring Identity Project has now been withdrawn.

However, rather than acknowledge the incongruity of the project and its dubious conceits, points aired many times by critics, a John Lewis spokesman has claimed, “We have closed the exhibition for the safety and protection of our partners.” Apparently, being mocked on social media by unhappy customers is a safety issue now. One therefore has to wonder whether anything much has been learned by John Lewis executives.

Via Darleen, Terry Newman on life among the Mao-lings at Concordia University: 

For readers, Alice’s journey in Wonderland is amusing. But to be Alice is something altogether different. The experience is hard to pin down with words. With few exceptions, no one on campus is officially censored. But the culture itself exerts power. One feels constantly judged. One is always on-edge. To perceive nuance, to be sceptical, to ask questions, gets one quickly accused of moral deficiency. The students are zealous, the professors often unprepared, fearful, or complicit. And make no mistake — to be told unendingly that the whiteness of one’s skin is disqualifying, one’s morals questionable, one’s words offensive, one’s opinions invalid, has a significant cumulative psychological effect.

John Ellis on presumptuous and revolting male feminists: 

I understand that Dr Michael Kimmel is accomplished in the non-scientific field of sociology and traffics himself as a gender-studies expert. And I understand that some consider him “the world’s most prominent male feminist.” But why does he get to speak for me and my fellow “heterosexual white ones” at a condescending conference with a priori commitments to the silliness called intersectionality? 

And Andy Ngo on the inexplicable demise of an intersectionally feminist bookstore: 

The customer wasn’t always right. In fact, he was expected to “abide by” seven “guidelines” including this one: “Cishetero-patriarchy exists, white supremacy exists, ableism exists, racism exists, colonialism never ended, capitalism is bad. This is not a space where we argue about the basics of the situation.” […] Signs denouncing police, the U.S. military and immigration authorities lined the windows. Inside, I looked at some of the merchandise for sale. There were “Riots not diets” buttons and a “Fuck patriarchy” T-shirt. The latter was double-extra-large—too big for me. One piece of merchandise carried a label that read “Trigger warning: gendered and patriarchal language.” The offending verbiage? Instructions for using a feminine-hygiene product. I attempted to make a small purchase but didn’t have any cash. A sign at the counter declared: “Due to patriarchy we require a $5 minimum on all debit/credit card purchases.”

No, he’s not kidding. 

I left empty-handed.

As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.