- cross-posted to:
- lgbt@jlai.lu
- chemindefer@jlai.lu
- transgenre@jlai.lu
- lgbtq_plus
- cross-posted to:
- lgbt@jlai.lu
- chemindefer@jlai.lu
- transgenre@jlai.lu
- lgbtq_plus
French operator SNCF has previously asked passengers to self-declare as ‘Monsieur’ or ‘Madame’.
The EU’s top court ruled on Thursday that requiring rail passengers to declare a gender when buying a ticket is in breach of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
You must log in or register to comment.
Their mistake was not to add the “prefer not to say” option, now they can’t collect any gender stats.
Removed by mod
Wonder if it was a weird cost thing, like it’s ridiculously difficult/costly to change their ticketing infrastructure to cope with this?
Probably not “ridiculously costly” but companies like cheaping out on… well, everything.
deleted by creator
Age is another one […]
Well, Deutsche Bahn offers discounts for people under a certain age, so the question is relevant, at least when you apply for said discount.
If they’re not verifying the age, then surely a checkbox is enough?
Dropdown menu, but yes:
it’s impossible to open Deutsche Bahn Website in my Browser,
What kind of browser would that be? https://www.bahn.de/ works just fine on Firefox (uBlock and PrivacyBadger) and chromium-based browsers.
deleted by creator
Is this like the first step towards having gender-specific train cars? Does France have an issue with harassment on trains like some other countries/cultures? Or are they just being weird about gender?
I think it’s the opposite of that. They stopped asking about the gender of the passengers.
Understood, and I should have been more clear. My question was, why ask in the first place?
Probably a mixture of tradition/inertia and old-fashioned identification ideas.
Asking whether they write sir or madam on the ticket as a form of politeness. Sure it helps collecting statistics too.
Conservative are weird, the will be fine with asking sir or madam, but would throw a tantrum if you ask them a pronoum which is exactly the same question
Sure, but is that a reason to make it mandatory? If someone does not want to share the information, then saying “non, we must be polite to you!” doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Probably whoever drafted the requirements for the software team just didn’t think to add a third option, and the software team didn’t want to add additional requirements.
https://www.euractiv.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/01/CP250002EN.pdf
“data gathering” basically.
But their reasoning for gathering the data wasn’t good enough for the court to allow it, as they basically said “it’s so we know how to talk to passengers”, but as the court says, they can use less gender-specific wording.
As a form of respect.
That’s the excuse, anyway. Only SNCF’s marketing department knows if it was the real reason.
In Europe we don’t really have the toxic American gender war.
It’s just how it’s always been. But I guess someone decided to sue.
It was probably just data harvesting later used for marketing optimization.
I thought this was just a cynical take at first, but it prompted me to read the very brief press release attached to the OPs article. Your answer actually seems to be correct. Apologies!
It sounds like this case was actually brought to court as a matter of unnecessary dara collection under GDPR and said if this data has no ligitimate use that it violates data minimalism requirements and should be discontinued. The rail system said they used it to tailor language used to the customer, and the courts decided that generic language could be used adequately without any gendering and to remove the question of gender.
the Court reiterates that, for data processing to be regarded as necessary for the performance of a contract, that processing must be objectively indispensable in order to enable the proper performance of that contract. In that context, the Court finds that personalisation of the commercial communication based on presumed gender identity according to a customer’s title does not appear to be objectively indispensable in order to enable the proper performance of a rail transport contract. The railway undertaking could choose to communicate based on generic, inclusive expressions when addressing a customer, which have no correlation with the presumed gender identity of those customers. That would be a workable and less intrusive solution.
the fundamental freedoms and rights of those customers can prevail over that legitimate [business] interest, in particular where there is a risk of discrimination on grounds of gender identity.
It’s barely over a page to read, and as someone not covered under GDPR, is very enlightening to see a court actually defend private personal party data seriously. I recommend giving it a full read to anyone interested in data protection.
Few years back I have been attacked in a high speed train in France because of my gender. I only survived thanks to other passengers who defended me.
Does France have a general problem with violence on trains? Stories like that can come from any place on earth with trains and humans.
General no, but it happens, mostly in the Paris region - then again the regional trains of other big cities don’t really make the news unless it’s a big one, so I can’t be sure.
Now do Ryanair too:)
Chere SNCF, je suis eune mondame, comme mon genre est non-binaire! [Liebe SNCF, ich bin eine “mondame” [Geschlechtsneutrale Alternative zu madame/monsieur, entsprechend Herr*in], da mein [soziales] Geschlecht nicht binär ist!]
Englisch: Dear SNCF, I am a “mondame”, due to my gender being non-binary!
What does the parenthetical “Herr*in” in your German comment refer to?
Genderneutral version of Sir/lady/lord
In America it would have been said that asking passengers to self-declare is necessary to “Keep women safe”
Removed by mod
Unironically. Excess data collection must be stopped for it threatens privacy and security.
Removed by mod
