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.

How can this be sensitive personal data? If someone is NB then they have to be "assigned" something - either male or female - at birth? No-one is born non-binary or is ANBAB.

So surely the outing information is only that they are non-binary, not that they are AFAB or AMAB?

Or is "information about me that I feel sensitive about" the same as "sensitive personal data about me under GDPR"?

Believing in "non binary" isn't an essential component of the "gender identity belief". Plenty of trans people and their supporters reject it.

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

AB being female is not a philosophical belief.

If we were saying that revealing she was non-binary was the issue, then I'd agree that's covered. And it makes sense. No-one can tell she's non-binary and she should be able to conceal that.

But you said it was being female, not non-binary.

Can someone clarify if RA sent the email (on AB AFAB) to the requesting client or just to two of the internal team?

Is it illegal for people to tell other people that there is a vegan working there?

My head hurts.
You're not supposed to "out" anyone as trans as everyone will look at their lipstick/short hair & see their new/pretend sex.
But you're not allowed to "out" someone as being the sex they are if they declare themselves non-binary because you're supposed to get everyone to see them as having NO sex & TELL everyone that they're trans 🤷‍♀️

They seemed to have disciplined her for a breach of data, sensitive or not, and transphobia, and the transphobia bit was not upheld. (I think, but not that clear)

The problem the defence have is they harassed her by calling her transphobic, before a decision was made as to whether she was or was not behaving in a transphobic way (whatever that means)

TTBOMK, just to the two team members, asking for guidance on how to reply to service user.

Question how many of you at work introduce yourself to a client as Hi I’m Sisterpita and I’m female and this is Jane Smith who is male?

We do not declare our or other peoples sex as a matter of routine. In a work situation you will be contractually required to not disclose personal data.

RA was asking a good question she was not outing RA to the client.

Not allowed to say someone is trans now, eh? Any other demands while you’re about it?

Has anyone defined what NB is yet in this ET?

that would be really handy to have.

Also the judges will have to decide wether policy and procedure were reasonable and clear, and then flowing from that,

Did they follow their own reasonable or not policy and procedure in the way they took disciplinary action, and if the outcome was reasonable.

Further were they reasonable in handling her grievance, since they rewrote it for their own benefit

I think know to all of the above.

It’s not necessary to declare one’s sex - it’s obvious!

We do not declare our or other peoples sex as a matter of routine. In a work situation you will be contractually required to not disclose personal data.

We do not conceal sex as a matter of routine, and presumably neither does AB.

Unless this AB is taking care to never actually physically reveal herself - communicating via text or whatever - then her sex is apparent, and hence not sensitive personal data.

By your logic we should be required to permit staff to never have any physical interaction.

Fair point it was the NB, trying to answer too many questions.

But it's not a "matter of routine" and most of us probably don't work in a single sex facility. There are single sex exceptions in the law. For that, women are going to ask if the support they get will be female only.

Not only are you not allowed to say, you're also not allowed to ask, or ask for guidance on how to answer without not revealing anything anyone might ever consider to be sensitive. Otherwise you are clearly a massive transphobe and deserve everything you get.

I think you will find that has been the law since 2004 at least.

No @Sisterpita this is not the law since 2004 for most people who identify as "trans" because they don't have a gender recognition certificate.

Best tell the media then not to refer to transwomen or trans women (as they do).

This is where we have explained to ourselves the rational behind pro nouns so folk who are gender different can out themselves or not as the case may be.

Obviously this would only actually be effective in a sensory impaired environment ffs

Fair point it was the NB, trying to answer too many questions.

Okay, but if it's that, is she concealing that she's NB from her colleagues?

If she is clearly "out" as NB at the office then again, an e-mail to people in the office mentioning it is not revealing anything to anyone.

In this case everyone in the trial and everyone here apparently knows. Are we breaching sensitive personal information?

You can't simultaneously tell people something and claim they're breaching your "sensitive personal data" when they discuss it among themselves. Disclosing it to a third party that you would not have told is where the protection should be kicking in.

Non binary people have no right to a gender recognition certificate which requires a binary change of "gender" (something affirmed by a judicial review only yesterday).

So does that mean I must refer to Mridhul Walha as a man, rather than a transwoman (given MW does not have a GRC)?

If MW's trans status was considered "sensitive personal data" in all circumstances literally no one would be able to mention it.