Ok, let’s pretend that working girls all bound their breasts in 1910 so that they could wear fashionable dresses. What that has to do with the Lush situation I really don’t know, but whether they did or they didn’t is diverting the conversation from the point of the thread, which is that very young girls are being encouraged to go behind their parents’ backs to get body-modifying garments that could cause them serious harm, and are actively intended to prevent their natural development.
This is being done in the name of what? Freedom of choice? Fine for adults, but arguably not for children who by definition will have serious MH issues.
Profit for the company? If one agrees with an unregulated market there may be a case to be made for profit to over-ride ethics, but at least they should be above board in their dealings? Or is it being done in the name of trans rights activism, in which case, the rights of children and of parents, along with those of women are irrelevant?