Another GC employment tribunal. Adam's vs Edinburgh Rape Crsis

[Rainbowshit]

x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1746830866020442400?s=46&t=AjtjSItRj-kgZwRzL-pdyQ

Claiming constructive dismissal for GC beliefs.

ERC CEO is a well known transwoman know for controversial "reframe your trauma" remarks.

I think her 'offence' was leaving the outgoing email in the 'sent' folder for the shared email. The defence problem is that is NOT what was asserted in her disciplinary case, not the official reason for her torture by process.

Two different things.

DPA/GDPR is about an individuals personal data so a NB being AFAB is disclosing sensitive personal data. Sensitive personal data has a high degree of protection.

It would be unlawful to tell a client AB was NB or AFAB. That could be misconduct or gross misconduct.

Telling the world there are no men working at ERCC whilst factually incorrect is not a breach of an individuals personal data. Whether you agree with it or not MW identifies as a woman and even though they don’t hold a GRC it would be a breach of DPA/GDPR in a work situation for an employee to out them as not being a woman to colleagues and particularly to clients.

I really dislike this whole discussion of 'disclosure' - it's bloody obvious in person what sex someone is. This whole idea that no-one will tell unless told is unmitigated bollocks. Of the male variety. It's lying, pretending no-one can tell is lying. It's framing this whole discussion from the point of view of biology / reality denial and gender ideology.

Dogs can tell male and female humans apart ffs. What happened to not lying in court?

I also don't see why, if a service user needs single sex for trauma based reasons (which will be a lot of them) then why they can't just assign someone of the same sex. There is no need for anyone to be 'outed'.

In the case of transmen, I think there is a need for nuance. You could argue that someone who is trying to identify out of their sex and does not acknowledge sex as material reality maybe has such personal bias that they cannot appropriately provide a service to someone who's been raped. It seems to me a bit like asking someone who's a signed up member of the BNP to provide counselling to refugees who've been victims of racism.

I am sure many transmen acknowledge the difference between sex and gender and that both matter, but if any counsellor is unwilling to accept the fundamental lived experience of a service users trauma how can they help them? They can't. It becomes abusive and retraumatising as soon as they ask that person to deny their reality.

Any rape counselling service which doesn't acknowledge sex as a material reality, as a protected belief under EA2010 (under both sex and religion / belief) and refuses to listen to victims needs should be defunded immediately.

I thought being NB was nothing to do with sexual orientation (the clause R’s barrister seems to be relying on).

Yes, I'm not sure I follow how this is sensitive category data.

Ye gads my SPAG is dreadful in that post, sorry, I am angry. I identify as my SPAG being perfect. Done.

Being non binary is an affectation, it's not about health or sexual orientation.

NB is not about sexual orientation it is part of the PC of Belief & Religion for GI. So in the same way you wouldn’t say a colleague was a Muslim or Jew you wouldn’t say NB or GC etc.

The fact someone was AFAB ( I prefer RFAB or OFAB) is sensitive personal data and must not be unlawfully processed e.g. shared.

She's female. Not "AFAB".

I am using the AFAB because that is what RA used.

It’s just the latest in a line of unreasonable demands. You must say I’m a woman when I’m a man. You must not use my male pronouns. You cannot confirm I’m legally a man (I have no GRC) or a woman as is the case here, when asked by someone who has been raped. Remind me who this Rape service was set up to serve..?

NB is not about sexual orientation it is part of the PC of Belief & Religion for GI.

That sounds like a bit of a reach tbh. The DPA isn't about the EA protected categories. I can see that it might be "political data" I suppose.

I am using the AFAB because that is what RA used.

She's in court. It's nonsensical language.

Sex is not normally sensitive personal data.

If we decide there are special individuals for whom their sex IS sensitive personal data, then they are immediately disqualified from any position where sex must be revealed. So this nonbinary "AB" becomes unavailable to any person requesting female care.

And in this case there was no "revealing" because it was an internal e-mail - to people who knew she was female because they worked with her. There was no revelation to the client - just a query about whether she could say in advance that AB was female to the client. A simple answer "no" - thus ruling out AB from helping - would have sufficed.

Please remember this is in a work situation and DPA/GDPR applies. It is unlawful for an employee to “process” tell anyone a persons sensitive personal data unless there is a clear lawful reason for doing so.

This is a really big deal e.g. NHS employees are dismissed for gross misconduct if they look up a patients record ( even their own child’s) without a clinical need to do so.

Or per Tribunal Tweets:
"the people* were already aware of that information. We were told that we could say that AB was NB. I don't think it was a breach"

*the two staff I emailed my query to

Hang on, what is the sensitive data supposed to be? That she's female, or that she's non-binary?

It’s about sensitive personal data and being trans is and as an employer I would put outing a NB person as AFAB as a risk.

This thread is about the ET and using the language used in the ET I feel makes it clearer about the merits of the argument.

You can't hear the capital letters in spoken language

Even Sovereign Citizens are at pains to point out that their bizarre naming conventions are in lower case with their legal strawman in upper case because they don't expect the court judges to be able to discern that during verbal transactions. (SCs frequently don't understand their own script when they're arguing the capital/lower case letter matter. It certainly makes the testimonies hard to follow.)

In 1999, a sovereign citizen guru named Roger Elvick came up with an extremely convoluted set of sovereign citizen pseudo-legal theories known as “redemption theory” or “strawman theory.” One aspect of redemption theory teaches that there are flesh-and-blood natural human beings but also artificial duplicates of each person known as “straw men,” created by the illegitimate government for a variety of nefarious purposes. However, it is possible, by making certain filings, for a sovereign to regain control of his or her “straw man” and use it to his or her benefit. Sovereigns believe that any reference to them that is written in ALL CAPS or that is written last name first, first name last is actually not a reference to them but to their straw man. Actual flesh and blood people, they say, write their names in upper and lower case, first name first

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/combating-hate/Sovereign-Citizen-Documentary-Identifiers.pdf

That AB was AFAB.

I think you could construct anything as "sensitive personal data" if you take it to mean "something which could possibly be part of their protected belief".

I think this is another aspect of this belief being NWORIADS - anything that requires something obvious to others and important to others to be deemed "sensitive personal data" that must not be mentioned by others is infringing their rights.

That she's female then, @Sisterpita, as he asked. "Assigned female at birth" is meaningless to most of the population. It means that she is biologically female, unless she has a DSD and they got her biological sex wrong, which is vanishingly rare now we have accurate tests.

I'm not interested in what a doctor said when they were born, I'm interested in what a person's sex is. Genderist language is obfuscatory.

Why is it sensitive personal data (in your view SP) to say X is a woman, but not sensitive data to say “there are no men working here”?

This is what the ICO says and guess what it includes philosophical belief.

What is special category data?The UK GDPR defines special category data as:

• personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin;
• personal data revealing political opinions;
• personal data revealing religious or philosophical beliefs;
• personal data revealing trade union membership;
• genetic data;
• biometric data (where used for identification purposes);
• data concerning health;
• data concerning a person’s sex life; and
• data concerning a person’s sexual orientation.

Special category data includes personal data revealing or concerning the above types of data. Therefore, if you have inferred or guessed details about someone which fall into one of the above categories, this data may count as special category data. It depends on how certain that inference is, and whether you are deliberately drawing that inference.