no, it was a misguided feminist.
It was not a matter of law
You are attempting to move the goalposts. Nobody claimed that it was "a matter of law", rather the claim was that the government was involved.
The original statement in the post by SoFloFreeper that you referenced was:
NONE of this is the business of the government.
Your earlier statement in reply to that was:
Actually, the government was not involved. The change was proposed by a retailer.
I then commented that:
If the retailer has come under pressure from a 'lawmaker' (who is evidently an 'MP') then it can be fairly said that the government was involved.
Your follow-up to my comment was:
no, it was a misguided feminist.
It was not a matter of law
When a government official has put pressure on a retailer, it is undeniable that "the government was involved". The change was clearly not originally motivated at the volition of the retailer, and there does not seem to be any evidence that the retailer would have made the change absent government involvement.
Evidence that Paula Sherriff is an MP:
http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/paula-sherriff/4426
Evidence that the UK Parliament (and therfore the MPs who constitute that body) are part of the UK 'government' is here:
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/
While it appears likely that Paula Sherriff may indeed be a 'misguided feminist', no evidence has been presented to substantiate any possible claim that Paula Sherriff was not acting in her official capacity when pressuring the retailer. Regardless, it is difficult to see how any MP can credibly disassociate her actions in such a case from her government office and status, unless she would have contacted the retailer anonymously (which clearly she did not do in this case).