Teacher sacked for copying trans child's safeguarding info

This is just reporting restriction to stop the child’s identity being revealed in the press and that inadvertently leading to other people in their life finding out about their trans status.

Whatever your views on whether trans people are morally compelled to tell romantic partners about their trans status (and I think they are), it’s only fair that they should be able to impart that information themselves and not through the medium of a newspaper report.

Pensions. Facilities. Maternity rights. Etc.

I don't think anyone disagrees.

This is the DofE guidance on gender questioning children

https://consult.education.gov.uk/equalities-political-impartiality-anti-bullying-team/gender-questioning-children-proposed-guidance/supporting_documents/Gender%20Questioning%20Children%20%20nonstatutory%20guidance.pdf

She absolutely should have been sacked. Her actions with the safeguarding data were completely unacceptable.

This IS utterly insanity. Wouldn’t this sort of ruling allow sex by deception/rape/ goodness know what sort of other deceptive actions? There have already been several successful cases of sex by deception cases involving trans identifying people.

I would assume so they can provide single sex toilets and changing rooms for their employees, as the law requires.

Her behaviour was disgraceful and her sacking justified. If you think otherwise you should not be anywhere near vulnerable people professionally.

I understand children and parents needs to know, but why does an employer need to know?

"This could result in Child X’s biological sex becoming aware to groups of people including for example their future classmates, employers, partners, friends and indeed, in time, their own children."

I'm very uneasy with the idea that a trans person has a "right" to not talk about their trans status to their partners and children. At this point, it's not a right anymore, it's a closet.

This could result in Child X’s biological sex becoming aware to groups of people including for example their future classmates, employers, partners, friends and indeed, in time, their own children.

This is gibberish. I think I know what the person who wrote it meant to say, but the grammar makes no sense.

That sounds insane.

there is a risk that the biological sex of Child X could become known in the future. This could result in Child X’s biological sex becoming aware to groups of people including for example their future classmates, employers, partners, friends and indeed, in time, their own children.

Surely their future partners have a right to know their sex. People have gone to prison for the crime of sex by deception when they have not disclosed their actual sex to sexual partners.

Surely their own children have a right to know the actual sex of their parents, and employers usually need to know the sex of their employees.

It's not an EAT so isn't binding/doesn't apply to other ETs.

But perhaps someone with more legal knowledge than me could confirm.

As far as I can tell, the bit about anonymity for life is only in relation to reporting restrictions on this specific case?

'260. We also conclude that the restricted reporting order should remain in place
indefinitely. In short, the right for X to live a life in their chosen gender identity for the rest of their life prevails over the Claimant’s Article 6 and 10 rights. If we were to place a restriction on the duration of the restricted reporting order, there is a risk that the biological sex of Child X could become known in the future. This could result in Child X’s biological sex becoming aware to groups of people including for example their future classmates, employers, partners, friends and indeed, in time, their own children. Child X has a right to privacy regarding their biological sex for the remainder of their life. Through the process of jigsaw identification, there is a substantial risk that Child X’s identity and biological sex would become known if the Claimant’s name were made public. We therefore conclude that the indefinite time duration is justified given the substantial interference with Child X’s Article 8 rights in this matter.'

In a statement after the ruling, A said she would appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Judgement is here.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/a-v-nottinghamshire-county-council-2600413-slash-2023