Is Gender Personal Information?

[elsiegee40]

Agreed. By that same measure, we could also refuse q7 (the gender of the Headteacher) but it would actually take longer to type "this information is in the public domain, please refer to our website" than it would to type "male" or "female"!

 

I think it is a question of balance - if responding to an FOI which asks 20 requests, one of which is public domain already, I'd be inclined to answer all the questions; if answers to 10 of them were available elsewhere, I might tell you to go do the legwork.

 

Actually I have a bone of contention with q7. That may not be obvious from the website, nor may it be something that the individual wants discussed.

 

These days there are too many people who identify as a gender other than the one on their birth certificate and Mr may well have been born Ms or vice versa.

 

So how do you answer q7 when it’s nobody’s business where the staff member concerned is with their gender?

[hardtailstar]

Actually I have a bone of contention with q7. That may not be obvious from the website, nor may it be something that the individual wants discussed.

 

These days there are too many people who identify as a gender other than the one on their birth certificate and Mr may well have been born Ms or vice versa.

 

So how do you answer q7 when it’s nobody’s business where the staff member concerned is with their gender?

 

According to a training day I went to, There are more than two genders....

 

But also sexuality is nobodies business too.

 

I am quite happy to let people know Im a straight male but I have a friend who does not disclose he is gay to anybody except close friends and family.

 

I also know of one teacher who is transitioning but its currently under wraps at their request.

Edited April 17, 2018 by hardtailstar

[elsiegee40]

A number of schools have put "prefer not to say" on the grounds of data protection, i.e. it's someone's personal information, but there's a picture of the headteacher on their website with Mr., Mrs., Miss or Ms. as their title, so it's already in the public domain. My impression of schools who behave like this are they are being deliberately awkward for no good reason, but I could be wrong!

 

Government's advice on asking for gender: https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/design/gender-or-sex

That's where we differ. If you have ever worked with, or known, someone with gender issues you learn not to make assumptions and don't distinguish how you treat them from anybody else.

 

A person's gender is a private thing and you cannot judge by appearances, names or titles. In my view, those that declined to answer have done the right thing. Make assumptions on gender from the school website if you must, they may prove inaccurate though, but don't assume the school is deliberately being awkward. There is a duty of care to staff and students alike.

Edited April 17, 2018 by elsiegee40

[Edutech98]

That's where we differ. If you have ever worked with, or known, someone with gender issues you learn not to make assumptions and don't distinguish how you treat them from anybody else.

 

A person's gender is a private thing and you cannot judge by appearances, names or titles. In my view, those that declined to answer have done the right thing. Make assumptions on gender from the school website if you must, they may prove inaccurate though, but don't assume the school is deliberately being awkward. There is a duty of care to staff and students alike.

 

If the website has explicitly put a title though, are we not safe to assume that's what the person relates to? So if they put Mrs then we presume they identify as female? Or is it common amongst people with gender issues to use Mrs/Mr etc but not actually identify as male or female?

 

If there isn't a title and just a picture and name, then I agree its best not to presume.

 

It does seem a bit pedantic for the school to say they prefer not to say, but then use gender specific pronouns on their own website. That seems inconsistent.

[elsiegee40]

If the website has explicitly put a title though, are we not safe to assume that's what the person relates to? So if they put Mrs then we presume they identify as female? Or is it common amongst people with gender issues to use Mrs/Mr etc but not actually identify as male or female?

 

If there isn't a title and just a picture and name, then I agree its best not to presume.

 

It does seem a bit pedantic for the school to say they prefer not to say, but then use gender specific pronouns on their own website. That seems inconsistent.

People with gender issues are frequently embarrassed or bullied. An outward title that matches the appearance that people expect to see for that title is a way of avoiding trouble.

 

No you cannot make accurate assumptions using photographs and/or a title.

[sparkeh]

People with gender issues are frequently embarrassed or bullied. An outward title that matches the appearance that people expect to see for that title is a way of avoiding trouble.

 

No you cannot make accurate assumptions using photographs and/or a title.

I have to completely agree with @elsiegee40 - a member of my family is in this position, the legal title does not match the gender that they identify with and assumptions cannot be made on title or appearance.

[Katy]

I have to completely agree with @elsiegee40 - a member of my family is in this position, the legal title does not match the gender that they identify with and assumptions cannot be made on title or appearance.

I also agree, while there isn't really a "legal" title (you can pick what you want unless it's got restrictions such as Dr, Lord/Lady etc) someone's title/name/public appearance are unlikely to match the gender they identify with at some part of their life - usually between working out what is wrong, and transitioning, for example a friend delayed her transition until her pupils had left school (they attended the school she worked at), or personally in my case I waited until I'd spent a fortune on facial hair removal.

 

Also (although I'm aware we're probably off-topic) I'd like to pick up that "sex change" referred to earlier is a very outdated term, and that name/title can be changed on anything, and the gender marker on pretty much everything but pension/tax/police records without the need for any sort of surgical procedure or obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). (You need a GRC in order to get an updated birth certificate).

 

(Whoops, this thread annoyed me enough to out myself.)

[Edutech98]

I have to completely agree with @elsiegee40 - a member of my family is in this position, the legal title does not match the gender that they identify with and assumptions cannot be made on title or appearance.

 

I'm confused about this lol!

 

I thought this;

 

"An outward title that matches the appearance that people expect to see for that title is a way of avoiding trouble."

 

Meant that if the person explicitly says they are Mrs, and their appearance suggest they are presenting themselves as a "female", and they have a "female" name, then you could safely presume they identify as female because they have expressed to be referred to as Mrs. (or Miss etc)

 

 

If there legal title doesn't match the gender they identify with, then they wouldn't put the legal title on a public site because they don't identify with it?

[Katy]

If there legal title doesn't match the gender they identify with, then they wouldn't put the legal title on a public site because they don't identify with it?

"they" might not have control over what goes on the website (imagine if it's a science teacher or something rather than the head), or the people who do might not know they don't identify with that gender yet.

[Edutech98]

"they" might not have control over what goes on the website (imagine if it's a science teacher or something rather than the head), or the people who do might not know they don't identify with that gender yet.

 

Then that would be a breach of data protection, to put someone's personal data on a website would require the person to consent. I agree with everything that is being said, you shouldn't presume someone's gender. But if some tells you they are a Mr or a Mrs then you are no longer presuming because they are telling you what sex they identify as. Because that's what titles are, they are pronouns that identify a person's sex.

[enjay]

their appearance suggest they are presenting themselves as a "female"

 

Which means what? Long hair? Doesn't wear a tie?

 

I think you're drawing very binary dress codes there. You're also assuming the person dresses as they identify - they may identify as male but dress "female" because they are biologically/anatomically female and don't want the hassle/awkward conversations (or don't want to cause someone else embarrassment).

[DJ-1701]

Because that's what titles are, they are pronouns that identify a person's sex.

 

The Doctor, Professor, Reverend and Vicar don't agree. Can be shown to use gender or sex, they can also show status, you can also use the Mx title.

[Edutech98]

Which means what? Long hair? Doesn't wear a tie?

 

I think you're drawing very binary dress codes there. You're also assuming the person dresses as they identify - they may identify as male but dress "female" because they are biologically/anatomically female and don't want the hassle/awkward conversations (or don't want to cause someone else embarrassment).

 

 

I think must people know what the very general statement of "dresses like a female" means. But I agree there isn't a specific meaning to that and just because a person dresses feminine or masculine doesn't mean much on its own. But if the person dresses in a feminine manner, and then tells you they are a Mrs, then we no longer have to presume that they are female because they have told us be virtue of the title they identify with.

[Edutech98]

The Doctor, Professor, Reverend and Vicar don't agree. Can be shown to use gender or sex, they can also show status, you can also use the Mx title.

 

I agree, but the context of Mrs, Mr, Miss, Master, Ms etc is used to denote sex. Its a gender pronoun to identify someone's sex. If someone says they are male, I take it they identify as male. I don't need to presume because they have told me. Likewise if someone tells me they are a Mr, I don't need to presume they are a male, because they have just told me they identify as male.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Edutech98

[Katy]

Then that would be a breach of data protection, to put someone's personal data on a website would require the person to consent.

I would be very surprised if any school with a full staff list on the website actually got all the employees to consent to that data going up there.

[DJ-1701]

I agree, but the context of Mrs, Mr, Miss, Master, Ms etc is used to denote sex. Its a gender pronoun to identify someone's sex. If someone says they are male, I take it they identify as male. I don't need to presume because they have told me. Likewise if someone tells me they are a Mr, I don't need to presume they are a male, because they have just told me.

 

I think it's a point to clearly identify something here. Gender and Sex are not interchangeable. Gender is identity and Sex is genetics. The word gender is used for correctly respecting and addressing someone, the word sex is used for medical and biological reasons.

[elsiegee40]

I think must people know what the very general statement of "dresses like a female" means. But I agree there isn't a specific meaning to that and just because a person dresses feminine or masculine doesn't mean much on its own. But if the person dresses in a feminine manner, and then tells you they are a Mrs, then we no longer have to presume that they are female because they have told us be virtue of the title they identify with.

 

No. We know what they are presenting as. What they identify as may be the opposite. In professional terms, it is probably easier to present as Ms X until such time as being Mr X is feasible. You aren’t telling everyone you are female, or that you identify as female, you are using a naming convention which keeps things simple with parents, colleagues, students, etc ... you may be far from comfortable with this arrangement.

 

Going back to the FoI question.

 

Asking what gender the Head is opens a can of worms. The picture looks like Ms X, the name is Ms X, the person inside may or may not identify with that gender, may or may not have been female all their life and may or may not have intention to become Mr X.

 

That is their business. Nobody needs to know. So what do others answer?

“The Head is called Ms so we will put female”

“It’s personal information and we cannot answer this question”

 

The data gathered in the FoI immediately becomes weak. Schools which have a head of a particular gender appear to do something... or do they?

[elsiegee40]

This has been split from the FoI request thread as it is its own Personal Data issue

Edited April 18, 2018 by elsiegee40

[Edutech98]

I agree it's unlikely the school get consent to put this information on their website, but they should do. The school shouldn't work on the presumption that all staff are happy to have their name and title on a public website for anyone to see. This is personal information that belongs to the employee not the school.

 

I'm not sure I agree with splitting sex (genetic) and gender (identity) because that sounds like your saying a person can change gender but they can't change sex. If sex is genetics, you can't change your genetics (or can you, I'm presuming you can't lol). And I support that a person can change sex/gender to what every they choose.

 

 

I still agree with BMalloney on this (I never thought I'd say that!) If the person has accepted that is just simpler to be called Mr and they put that out in the public domain (i.e on their website), then it does seem strange that they then don't want to answer the question on a FOI, even though they have put the information in the public domain anyway.

[Garacesh]

I agree, but the context of Mrs, Mr, Miss, Master, Ms etc is used to denote sex. Its a gender pronoun to identify someone's sex. If someone says they are male, I take it they identify as male. I don't need to presume because they have told me. Likewise if someone tells me they are a Mr, I don't need to presume they are a male, because they have just told me they identify as male.

 

I'm not sure I agree with splitting sex (genetic) and gender (identity) because that sounds like your saying a person can change gender but they can't change sex. If sex is genetics, you can't change your genetics (or can you, I'm presuming you can't lol). And I support that a person can change sex/gender to what every they choose.

Well, yes. Precisely. You can't change your sex, because your sex is biological. It's in your DNA. So until we get some freaky mad scientists doing some freaky gene splicing stuff (someone give me plasmids!), you can't change your sex. A transwoman will still be biologically male. If you took a DNA sample and passed it to a scientist to analyse, they'd tell you it was male. But as a generalisation, we as a society respect gender identity and refer to people by their self-identity instead.

 

Sex is a label given to biological and genetic characteristics. There are two contrasting sexes in human beings and most other mammals: Male and Female. Males have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome, while Females have two X chromosomes. This is referred to as the XY Sex-Determination System. There are, as always, genetic outliers to this system, such as XXY or XXXY Males, but as a general rule, this is Sex.

For example, a vet would 'Sex' your puppies to tell you if they were biologically male or female.

 

Gender is a psychological term referring to one's self-identity. A biological male can have a female gender identity, and vice verca. Of course, a biological male can also have no gender identity, or a gender identity that is neither male nor female. In fact, there are some that argue that gender in of itself shouldn't be such a focal part of identity. After all, we don't ask what your 'racial identity' is, do we? Or any other biological characteristic? We don't have transrace people. Or transspecies people (discounting 'otherkin'), so why should such a focus be on gender?

 

In the case of male/female gender identity, though, many people with gender dysphoria choose to still present their gender as matching their biological sex until some form of criteria is met, which varies from person. This could be anything from 'when I think people will accept me', 'when my children are mature enough to understand', 'when I start HRT' or simply 'when I feel I can 'pass' for my gender identity' - it doesn't really matter what the reason is, the point is that there are plenty of people who present themselves as having one gender identity when really they have another.

 

So.. Is Gender Identity personal information? Well, yes. I'd say it is. It can be used to identify you, after all.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Garacesh

[Bompalompalomp]

I agree it's unlikely the school get consent to put this information on their website, but they should do. The school shouldn't work on the presumption that all staff are happy to have their name and title on a public website for anyone to see. This is personal information that belongs to the employee not the school.

 

I'm not sure I agree with splitting sex (genetic) and gender (identity) because that sounds like your saying a person can change gender but they can't change sex. If sex is genetics, you can't change your genetics (or can you, I'm presuming you can't lol). And I support that a person can change sex/gender to what every they choose.

 

 

I still agree with BMalloney on this (I never thought I'd say that!) If the person has accepted that is just simpler to be called Mr and they put that out in the public domain (i.e on their website), then it does seem strange that they then don't want to answer the question on a FOI, even though they have put the information in the public domain anyway.

 

Think of it in another scenario. If a person is struggling with their gender identity but they've accepted (for now) to remain as X title rather than Y at work, they may have an issue if then that work is in the news or public media and publishes them as X title, to the world. A website is that in a way, a more public declaration than they're comfortable with.

 

Also, sex *is* the biological term for the genitalia you're born with (and inherently in a lot of cases, your genetics). Just because it's been put on forms for a long time as the same thing doesn't make it the same thing as gender. It's just that more recently the distinction is becoming more talked about. That's why sex reassignment surgery is called so, because it doesn't change their identifying gender (they already identify that way before an operation), it just changed their genitalia to match. Not their genetics, but their genitalia.

 

... Sorry for anyone's filter being hit!

[Katy]

That's why sex reassignment surgery is called so

That's another old term, it's "gender reassignment surgery" or more recently "gender confirmation surgery" is starting to appear as the term.

[Edutech98]

Think of it in another scenario. If a person is struggling with their gender identity but they've accepted (for now) to remain as X title rather than Y at work, they may have an issue if then that work is in the news or public media and publishes them as X title, to the world. A website is that in a way, a more public declaration than they're comfortable with.

 

!

 

That sounds like you are saying their title shouldn't be on their website? I agree with that, I don't think it should be unless the person consents. But if the person consents to be called Mr on the website for example, then they receive a FOI request, it seems strange to reject it saying you don't want this information in the public domain. The FOI is asking what sex you relate to in your professionally capacity, so if in your professional capacity your refer to yourself as Mr, then you would answer Mr/Male?

Edited April 18, 2018 by Edutech98

[Bompalompalomp]

That sounds like you are saying their title shouldn't be on their website? I agree with that, I don't think it should be unless the person consents. But if the person consents to be called Mr on the website for example, then they receive a FOI request, it seems strange to reject it saying you don't want this information in the public domain. The FOI is asking what sex you relate to in your professionally capacity, so if in your professional capacity your refer to yourself as Mr, then you would answer Mr/Male?

I was using it as a lesser example, in the same vein of making that information more public than just their workplace. Not saying I don't think it should be, but that they should have the choice. If you knew a person was struggling with gender dysphoria, it would be nice to think twice about what they would want published online. I don't really have a strong opinion either way, but personally I didn't like it when my name was on the website full stop. I'm not the head teacher so it's not need to know information, and I'd rather not take the chance that someone can search my name and find my job without me listing it online myself.

 

That's another old term, it's "gender reassignment surgery" or more recently "gender confirmation surgery" is starting to appear as the term.

I'm aware it's outdated now, but I think it's still common in a lot of people's vernacular, so using it as an example of why the term sex doesn't apply to identity, as surgery doesn't overrule someone's identity. Gender confirmation surgery is the much better term.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Bompalompalomp

[Edutech98]

In the case of male/female gender identity, though, many people with gender dysphoria choose to still present their gender as matching their biological sex until some form of criteria is met, which varies from person. This could be anything from 'when I think people will accept me', 'when my children are mature enough to understand', 'when I start HRT' or simply 'when I feel I can 'pass' for my gender identity' - it doesn't really matter what the reason is, the point is that there are plenty of people who present themselves as having one gender identity when really they have another.

 

.

 

But for the purpose of the FOI request when someone asks what sex is the headteacher I don't think they are literally asking what X or Y chromosome they are. I think its safe to presume that what the person is actually asking is what gender are you professionally known as. But it's just accepted that we don't say this, we just say what is your sex.

 

Your answering the FOI on behalf of your employer in a professional capacity, it's not interested in what do you identify as on a Saturday night at 10:30, what you are medically known as or what your children refer to you as. It's only interest is within the professional capacity and what you are known as or referred to as within your profession.

 

If as the head teacher you choose not to publicly declare this information, then it would be legitimate to reply to the FOI request say they don't want that information publicly available. But if the headteacher has chosen to publicly declare what they are to be professionally referred to as, but then for the purpose of the FOI they say they don't want this information public, then that is inconsistent and I would question if the person was just being difficult.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Edutech98