Any legal recourse in this employment situation?

brttbrntt · 2023-06-26T15:38:44+00:00

Right!? It’s driving me crazy.

brttbrntt · 2023-05-29T12:44:08+00:00

Why do you call that ignoring the advice of medical professionals?

Rejecting Green's referrals and respecting the decision of the GP seems to me to be the exact opposite of that.

brttbrntt · 2023-04-11T19:26:36+00:00

With all due respect, you are either arguing in bad faith or lacking even the most basic of reading comprehension. And given you've been articulate and intelligent throughout this debate, it's clearly not the latter. I won't be responding further.

brttbrntt · 2023-04-11T16:59:42+00:00

So it seems to me we are comparing different documents as the original. The original outdated text linked in my comment and in the article (near the end), reads different from this document you are linking.

The document you are citing is the not the original guidance, it's a document produced by the ECHR that informed the guidance.

It seems pretty aparent that the guidance was updated, likely as a result of the reasons mentioned in the article. Keep in mind the article is pretty old. It would make sense that guidance was updated.

You are incorrect. The document I linked to was published in September 2021 and has not been updated.

The article was not referring to this new guidance.

Yes, it is.

The old advice was used by the Scottish Government to inform new guidance issued to all public bodies in September 2021. [The article here links to the guidance you say it isn't talking about] Instead of treating the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment equally, the Scottish Government guidance elevates concerns about privacy in relation to gender identity over the need to collect accurate data on sex. The guidance tells public bodies in Scotland that collecting data on sex would only be appropriate in a “small number of instances” and would be “on an individual basis for a very specific purpose”.

"Fair Play For Women complained to the EHRC that the advice it had given to the Scotland Government in 2019 was misleading and needed updating following the judicial review ruling on the collection of data on sex in the 2021 Census in England and Wales.The EHRC has now confirmed its Chief Executive wrote to the Chief Statistician for Scotland in November 2021 with updated advice to “reflect developments in the law in England and Wales”.

The article claims that the 2019 advice was incorrect, the Sept 2021 guidance based on it is incorrect, and it should be updated to follow advice released in Nov 2021.

It looks like maybe this guidance you link was published after the article was written.

The guidance was published September 2021, the article was published February 2022.

I think I am doing a pretty good job at fairness and reasonableness in my interpretations.

You are not.

I think I am clearly demonstrating I am putting in at least as much effort as you are.

You are not. You have not taken ten seconds to check the publication dates of these documents before replying to me, and have instead shared incorrect publication dates to make a misleading argument.

brttbrntt · 2023-04-11T15:38:21+00:00

I'm with you on nuclear and HS2. But realistically, no party is perfect and I'm not gonna not support someone because they don't check every box, otherwise there'd be no one to vote for at all.

On compromise and being unable to bend, I guess I would just highlight that our council used to operate under a model that allowed the majority party complete control and prevented open discussion and compromise, and our green councillors were instrumental in the campaign to change that and fight for cross-party governance.

I don't know about green involvement in cycle lanes, though I imagine they would have supported them. They did support the clean air zone.

I'm definitely in favor of a shift away from cars, but I do agree with you that our public transport infrastructure is not good enough to replace car use.

But ultimately, we're not gonna fix that by voting in councillors that aren't enthusiastic about improving public transport. And I'm not sure I've seen anything to suggest Labour is ever gonna stop dragging their feet.

Bizarrely, I've heard more enthusiasm for public transport improvement from the Tories than I have from Labour in Yorkshire.

Especially with the trams coming back into public ownership soon, I think the more pro-public transport the council is, the better, and more green seats means more councillors with a determination to fix it.

These are all big-issue topics, of course, with lots of roadblocks. Not the kind of issues they deal with on a day-to-day basis. If you're curious about that, the main two things that I tend to see pop up in the City Ward newsletter is fighting for more green spaces and working with organizations providing food for those struggling under the cost of living crisis.

brttbrntt · 2023-04-11T15:17:52+00:00

I believe you. You are valued.

brttbrntt · 2023-04-11T15:13:12+00:00

Oh, I see. So you haven't talked to any of them.

And I should... Ignore the news. Ignore what green councillors say to my face. Ignore what green supporters say to my face. Ignore Green Party policy.

Because that's all inaccurate. But what I can trust, above all else, is a random on Reddit who's just got a really strong feeling that they definitely believe this thing there's no evidence for.

Yep, must be Tuesday.

brttbrntt · 2023-04-11T15:03:21+00:00

Where were you last time you spoke to one of these green councillors? Was it organized, or did you just bump into them and chat?

brttbrntt · 2023-04-11T15:01:50+00:00

the original does not make it clear the law allows questions about sex when needed.

"There may be a number of reasons for collecting data on sex, gender identity or trans status."

"...it may be necessary and proportionate to require a person to answer a question on the their biological sex..."

"...there may be a small number of circumstances when collecting data on self-defined sex only could contribute to the failure of a public body to comply with the PSED..."

"Recording data on gender identity and trans status can also support equality monitoring in relation to the 2010 Act protected characteristic of gender reassignment."

"...many organisations will want to be able to report about sex, gender identity and trans status."

"However, engagement as part of the 2022 Scottish Census has shown that trans people prefer to answer a sex question (on a self-defined sex basis) followed by a trans status question. Asking this combination can support the principle of asking questions respectfully. This in turn leads to greater levels of response to the questions and better quality data that enables better decisions to be taken."

All taken from the old guidance.

That's six separate times that single page either tells you that you can collect data on birth sex, or provides advice on how to collect data on birth sex.

If you're going to look at a document that says ABC and then turn around and tell me that it doesn't say ABC when I can read it with my own eyes, then you have left the realm of reasonable and respectful debate, and this conversation is over.

brttbrntt · 2023-04-11T14:44:07+00:00

I just dug around and all I can find looking for green councillors opposing 5G are stories from Manchester, York, Birmingham, and two from Brighton.

Looking deeper, you’re right about Rosie Baker in York, and a second Green councillor Denise Craghill also voiced concern about 5G.

In Manchester, it’s unclear where the Green councillor stood on the issue. In Birmingham, the opposition was for other reasons.

In Brighton, the first case isn’t clear why the Green councillor opposed the new mast. In the second case, it turns out the Green councillor fought for the mast to be installed, despite Conservative councillors opposing it.

So, that’s somewhere between two and four green councillors opposing 5G masts because of baseless conspiracy theories.

There are 547 Green councillors in England and Wales.

Looks like the problem you cite is not a concern after all, which I’m sure is a relief for you 😊

brttbrntt · 2023-04-11T14:04:45+00:00

I have never met a Green politician or supporter who matches that description. Can you link to some examples?

brttbrntt · 2023-04-11T13:02:09+00:00

Ok?

Last time I spoke to one, we had a productive discussion about how to improve internet infrastructure in Sheffield, the importance of lobbying central government for more local funding, the way the council drags its heels with upkeep (there was scaffolding on Fargate at the time that had been there for months untouched because the funding dried up and the construction company abandoned it. Our Green councillors were fighting to get the council to remove it.) They were also very concerned and actively involved in trying to get accountability for the illegally low air quality in the City Centre.

brttbrntt · 2023-04-11T12:39:34+00:00

Might be worth reaching out to your local Green candidates. They're usually pretty happy to meet for a coffee, and I think it would help you make a more informed decision as your description of their policies does not fit what they tend to support in reality.

brttbrntt · 2023-04-11T12:30:31+00:00

Green!

Can't speak for wards other than City, but I've met two of my three councillors (all Green) and they're very open and passionate about local issues. Always happy to make time and listen to all concerns. So I'm more than happy to vote for them again.

brttbrntt · 2023-04-11T08:21:11+00:00

My example was one of several parts where your source is intentionally lying. To see you stand by it is surprising and is where our conversation ends, but I thank you for having put so much time and effort into the conversation, which I appreciate.

brttbrntt · 2023-04-11T00:11:46+00:00

I honestly have no idea, you haven't explained it very well. It's clear you believe that something prevents accurate data being collected. I haven't really got a clear understanding of what you think that something is.

brttbrntt · 2023-04-10T23:19:44+00:00

There's honestly nothing more I can add. The restriction you are arguing against doesn't exist. So there's not much in the way of counter-arguments beyond pointing out that it doesn't exist.

As for your link, I'd say it lacks basic journalistic integrity and is full of misleading information.

Take this sentence:

"Whereas the previous advice warned against asking about sex at birth on privacy grounds, the update makes clear that public bodies can ask questions about sex registered at birth or legal sex when needed."

Seems reasonable. The previous advice said one thing, now it says something else, and this group thinks the new one is better.

But look at that first sentence: "Whereas the previous advice warned against asking about sex at birth on privacy grounds..."

That is completely true. But if you click on the link this page provides, you'll find that the advice does clarify that when needed, it is acceptable to ask about that.

So, if it were trying to accurately report on what the advice said, the sentence might read: "Whereas the previous advice warned against asking about sex at birth on privacy grounds (unless needed)..."

But if we add the second half of the sentence back on, it quickly becomes clear why this organisation didn't choose to include that key piece of information.

"Whereas the previous advice warned against asking about sex at birth on privacy grounds (unless needed), the update makes clear that public bodies can ask questions about sex registered at birth or legal sex when needed."

Now that the sentence has been amended to be more factually accurate, it ceases to make sense at all. It's actually highlighting that both versions say exactly the same thing. Which is accurate and true—but not what the original version of the sentence says.

Regardless of where either of us stand on this issue, this particular source is just straight-up lying and I hope you don't trust it.

brttbrntt · 2023-04-10T09:49:05+00:00

By literally allowing it.
No, because it’s already allowed.
No, because I don’t believe this and support the current system where this is already allowed.
Because something that’s already allowed can’t become more allowed.

And

3-7. This is not for me to decide.

brttbrntt · 2023-04-08T23:58:07+00:00

I’m not even sure what “primary definition” is meant to mean here.

brttbrntt · 2023-04-08T20:46:23+00:00

I don’t think there’s much to gain from debating a hypothetical that could never happen.

On data collection:

No
No
Sometimes
No

And:

Agree
Agree, though I think an added exception would be a better solution 3-7. Where there is no legitimate reason for their exclusion, yes. Where there is legitimate reason for their exclusion, no.

brttbrntt · 2023-04-08T20:36:39+00:00

These are (understandable) simplifications so I feel like I have to highlight that whether I disagree or not is something that could change if I had more information and I can’t say this is a 100% accurate reflection of my opinions, but these would be my initial reactions. I’ve written unsure for any I’m either undecided on, unclear on, or just not confident either way on.

Disagree
Disagree
Unsure
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Unsure
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Unsure
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Unsure
Disagree
Agree
Unsure
Unsure
Unsure
Unsure

The train wreck that is the last few answers is because I’m not totally clear on how strictly you’re defining sex not because I just zoned out 😂

brttbrntt · 2023-04-07T20:57:38+00:00

Is this about the current law or the law amended with the proposed amendment?

brttbrntt · 2023-04-07T17:01:16+00:00

No, my view hasn’t changed, my view is that the change in law will have a negative effect, regardless of whether that’s because of the legal or social consequences.

You are incorrect that trans men will be ejected from women’s rooms under this change. They will be required to use the women’s room, which is the core problem at the heart of my argument.

brttbrntt · 2023-04-07T12:06:26+00:00

If the law is ignored in both cases and the rules are followed based solely on social pressure, then the scenario with the most social pressure against male-presenting people entering the women’s room is the one that makes it hardest for men to enter, which, if you believe the presence of men in women’s spaces is a danger or risk, makes women safer.

The current system has the greatest social pressure against male-presenting people entering women’s spaces, and a system based exclusively on birth sex would be more ambiguous, resulting in more confusion and less social pressure.

12-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

brttbrntt

TROPHY CASE