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 am talking in a work situation, which is what this ET is about, and not in general life. The ET will be decided on the law and case law and the evidence.

DH is trying to show RA breached DPA/GDPR and so the disciplinary action was justified.

What about when people in that environment talked about Wadhwa being trans?

What about when people in that environment talked about Wadhwa being trans?

Good people are allowed to mention it. Bad people aren't.

I'm losing the will to live with this particular line of questioning.

I imagine it's the bulk of what he's got.

Yes, I think if he had anything better he'd be going with it. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

So do service users have to close their eyes and wear earplugs in order to access care - because that's the only way they won't know the sex of anyone they're in a room with.

Is it ok to DELIBERATELY put a rape survivor in a position that will retraumatise them knowing that it will retraumatise them because they've already made that clear.

The coercive control is off the charts. Everyone can SEE and HEAR sex.

As far as trans status goes, you can't have it both ways be shouting it from the 'authentic selves' rooftops one second and then expect secrecy from others at the same time.

That is coercive, abusive, harrassment.

By going to ET this information has been lawfully put in the public domain.
I agree RA asking the question internally was not a breach.

”you’re entitled to female only care Ms B. No I can’t confirm your adviser is female. Take pot luck!”

Sent it internally. Made no disclosure to 3rd parties.

I think that it would be 'wrong to bring your own prejudices and beliefs to a session with a service user' is a bit of an own goal.

You know like the belief and dogma that SEX doesn't matter for a RAPE VICTIM.

Ye gods.

Yes - we in TT call this 'bad facts syndrome'. Grab the tiniest of loosest threads that is even the tangentially related and see if the claim can be unravelled, so to speak.
Two pronged approach:

• you joined with bad intent, meaning to cause trouble

and or

• you did bad things anyway

Yes, from what I can see she didn't confirm the NB sex to the service user, just asked for advice on how best to reply. So far so normal yeah?

Ahhhhh, but you're not allowed to ask questions see? Especially questions about the sacred caste of the gender brigade, and extra especially when asking for clarification - as they can't clarify anything cause it makes their feelings hurt.

So just imagine how, how MUCH poor NBs feelings were so incredibly hurt when NB realised a question had been asked! On an internal email no less, and only to the relevant people mind, but it's THERE, in the sent items folder, hurting away with it's nasty bigotry.

You don't ask for clarity for goodness sake, you reply with a blanket statement that means fuck all, surely everyone knows that?

Never mind reassuring rape victims, the women they are there to help, bollocks to them, no, the gender woo has been questioned, and that will never do. 🙄

Someone who's all about gender identity and believes it matters more than sex and they should compel the beliefs of others can't counsel the majority of rape victims. Because it would be 'wrong to bring your own beliefs and prejudices into the interaction with the service user'.

That's just a fact.

His legal problem is - that's not what they charged her with.

That is not what I am saying. I am trying to explain how the DOA/GDPR applies in a work situation.

For the record I 100% believe females, irrespective of any trauma, should have the right to request female service providers be they medical profession, counsellors, providers of personal care, beauty therapists.

I'm getting really handmaid's tale vibes about ERCC.

Mridul Wadhwa literally stropped off out of the SNP because the majority of them voted for an amendment to change the word "gender" to "sex" so that female rape victims could have a medical examination by a female examiner. The Forensic Medicine Bill.

How could that be achieved if no one was allowed to know whether someone "non binary" was female or not?

I know.

How could that be achieved if no one was allowed to know whether someone "non binary" was female or not?

By treating non-binary people logically. They are ineligible for sex-specific positions.

They need to follow through on their beliefs. If they're asking for special "I'm neither sex" provision, then they should get that.

They're free to do whatever they want to do in situations that are not sex-specific. But they can't just act as if they have a sex wildcard.

Sorry I have not been following the tweets. Is there any evidence that the Centre had policies and procedures in place with regards to data protection, records of training undertaken, privacy notices given to employees (identifying what data can and cannot be shared), a recognised point of contact for queries? Or was it just an expectation that everyone who worked/volunteered knew it all. I was of the understanding that unless most of the above was in place responsiblity fell with the employer.

And to think, if they'd just filed RA's query in the 'Hate' folder with the other emails raising questions they could have moved smoothly on and forgotten all about it. Ah, hindsight.

There's an incredible sadness to the fact that a woman was turned away from a rape crisis centre in a time of need. No matter what way its spun it can never be justified.

'Sex Wildcard' would be an excellent user name. Just saying...