HMRC gives trans people access to VIP hotline

[HannahinHampshire]

‘HMRC gives trans people to VIP hotline’. Why do the records of transgender people require greater protection? I spent an hour waiting for HMRC to answer my call the other day and then I was cut off before I could speak to an advisor.

www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/cfbb2461a6f96ebf

Gosh all these holiness, wonder if it is the same dept as the DBS trans hotline who've had to be given a bit more work to do as they've never had one bloody call?

Fucking hell. That is bloody ridiculous.

Window dressing, I would imagine. Because HMRC must now start following the law, they have give the activists something, so they don't turn up with a piss protest.

Yup, have read it now. This is a discrimination case waiting to be won. Anyone else who has a protected characteristic should be able to make a case, because they've issued this new edict on the basis of trans people's "gender reassignment" status. Which is favoring one protected characteristic over another.

What would be really interesting, is for someone who doesn't have a GRC to try to sue HMRC for discrimination. Would possibly start to hash out in law, what does "gender reassignment " actually mean?

That is a very shit stirring article from The Telegraph. Frankly anyone who has to phone HMRC is about to enter the fifth circle of hell anyway, regardless of what number they’re calling.

still, it’s hard to understand the confidentiality rationale HMRC are putting forward:

HMRC insisted the policy was necessary because the records of transgender people required “greater protection” to ensure confidentiality under equality laws.

a person’s trans status will certainly not be a secret, not least because they’ll never stop bloody going on about it, but also because people have eyes. I met two trans people yesterday. One was indisputably a man despite his fake boobs and breathy voice and the other a woman despite her beard and plaid shirt.

Nonsense. It's perfectly permissible to "favour" a protected characteristic if it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, as you should already know since that's precisely the basis on which service providers can provide women-only services without it being discriminatory. Trans people's data is dealt with in a particular way to protect their privacy, this is nothing new it's been this way for years, and it's perfectly legitimate to direct them straight to the service that can deal with them. It helps no one if trans people have to call into the main service only to be told they can't be helped and forwarded on - that's taking a space in the queue and an agent away from other people they could be helping. It's also not unusual at all for big contact centres to give out different numbers for different services, it helps them monitor traffic and filter calls, and it most certainly isn't "discrimination" if some services have a shorter wait time than others.

This entire article is just rage bait aimed at the sort of people who'll start fuming about anything that has "trans" in the headline, if you want to waste your cortisol getting pissed off about it when it doesn't affect you in the tiniest bit, more fool you.

For all you know, you met four trans people yesterday, you just weren't aware of two of them.

The "never stop bloody going on about it" part is nothing but a nasty stereotype.

So can I be trans only when I need to speak to HMRC?

Sounds like a plan 👍🏻

It might be that they don't want their colleagues receiving the usual abuse from TRAs so they have given a separate phone line only to be answered by people trained in dealing with abusive calls.

Might not be of course and I'm sure trans people themselves would just see this as 'more evidence of segregation'.

However, if it is legitimately to sort out problems from changing details such as sex, etc. on paperwork then I don't see why there shouldn't be a dedicated line as it's specialist knowledge.

I am willing to bet 90% of this policy is to protect staff because of complaints about misgendering or access to personal data during calls.

Staff will be trained to manage this cohort and protect the rest of the call handlers from dealing with it all.

So everybody who needs to contact HMRC can in future claim to be trans. I mean, are they gonna ask you to prove it?

Is it because their voice wouldn't match their sex, and it could lead to awkward conversions with the caller having to prove that they are who they say they are?

This has existed for 1000 years, or several decades at least, and has been legally endorsed as part of the minimum privacy that trans people should expect. It’s just the Transigraph stirring shit yet again. Must be miserable working there for the past few years, it used to be a newspaper.

TBH I have found HMRC to be particularly helpful on the phone. Long wait but excellent once you’re through.

No, because one fact this article conveniently forgets to mention is this applies only to trans people who have a GRC, so you'd need to get yourself diagnosed with gender incongruence first, then spend 2 years socially, medically and legally transitioning, send evidence of this to the GRC panel, then wait about 8-12 months for their verdict, and by the time you've done all that, you might as well have just spent 16 minutes on hold to speak to someone in the main service.

But they're not allowed to ask if you have a GRC

No medical transition is required for a GRC

proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

Well, that's going to be the interesting part about it! What's proportional about favoring gender reassignment over ethnicity or religion, for example? HMRC seem to be claiming that trans identified people have data that needs special protection. I would hazard a guess that you could argue that disabled people also have data that needs special protection, especially because you are not allowed to ask at interview or in employment if someone is disabled (they can't then ask for reasonable adjustments if they don't tell their employer, but that's a different discussion).

I still think someone might try to take HMRC to court over this. They are clearly favoring some trans identified people over other trans identified people.

Then you've lost that bet (£20 please), this is nothing new, it has been in place since the GRA 2004, because legally changing gender affects your pension rights so it can't be expunged entirely from your HMRC data - as such the data is considered sensitive and is dealt with by a specialist team to protect confidentiality.

But they always say nobody can ever tell...

Except HMRC doesn't actually hold information on people's ethnicity, religion or disability status since it isn't necessary to know these things to calculate someone's taxes. They do hold data on sex because pensions etc are calculated differently for men and women. When someone legally changes gender with a GRC, their pension entitlements changed, as such HMRC can't help but retain the information. As such, they offer trans people with a GRC a particular service to maintain their confidentiality.

But by all means, do take HMRC to court if you enjoy wasting your money.

nah, I can tell what sex people are

interesting point from a PP that getting some sort of certificate to warrant that you’re role playing as a member of the opposite sex can affect your pension rights

I’m still not at all clear why trying to keep the fact that someone is role playing as a member of the opposite sex tippy top secret is a legitimate aim though

Technically, no, but you are much more likely to be rejected if you haven't.

But why is keeping the cross sex role playing secret a legitimate aim? Why not just put a note on this person’s file that their pension calculation has changed and why?

Oh, it won't be me, but I expect some trans identified people who do not have a GRC might be pretty miffed by this, but we'll see.

ps. age is also a protected characteristic and HMRC clearly do hold that information or they wouldn't know who's eligible for a pension and who is not. Why should someone who is 85 be treated less favourably than someone with a GRC?