4 Comments
User's avatar
Jon Esner's avatar

I think your argument that sex is not special category data is correct - largely on the simple grounds that Article 9. 1. UK GDPR doesn’t refer to sex.

I’m not sure that your reference to the Scott case is relevant though as that was decided under the previous law-which had a very different definition of personal data.

Jai Byrd's avatar

When the true sex of a human is intentionally misdocumented this will lead directly to "rape by deception".

This also creates blasphemous deceptions within religious tenants...i.e. CHRISTIAN Scripture: Marriage is sacred between (only) a man and a woman.

These days you don't know if your getting the opposite sex, but the Imposter knows.

How did the West get like this❓️

This is the New Edition of Slavery. And ALL Slavery is demonic and inhumane

Daniel Howard James's avatar

Thanks for this detailed scrutiny. I note the implication of this guidance that sex status is private and mysterious works directly against the health outcomes of gender non-conforming people, who are likely to be given inappropriate medical treatment in an emergency.

Compounding this problem will be those cases where the sex marker on a birth certificate has been falsified and a new, wrong-sex NHS number issued. If this data is treated as 'special' and private, we won't be able to ask for it, and written records won't be reliable either.

Sex Realist's avatar

I am fucking SEETHING! We can't hate this POS government enough!!