There's already an abundance of katas asking you to do a mapping between possible inputs and outputs.

What does fromAustrianToLithuanian even have to do with Austrian grades? It has percent as its input.

"—" is a dash, it can't be used before a number as in "—1". And in the Wikipedia article the uppercase "1" is a reference to a note, so facepalm.

I like the aim of this kata and I also like requirements that might occur in real life. Nice. But there are things I don't like about this kata:

Person has two responsibilities: (1) manage a person's data and maintain the invariants and (2) read a person's data from a line of text and also be able to construct that line.
When the storage of the person changes, or you want to add another storage type or you want to create a Person object without a file you would either have to modify the class or build a converter that builds that string to pass it to the constructor of Person.
In a code review I'd strongly suggest that Person should only deal with one responsibility: manage a person's data and maintain the invariants.
The other aspect could be handled by a different class or functions, say personFromString(const std::string &) and toString(const Person& p).

Person::print() and Person::writeString() sound like they print or write a representation of that object to std::cout or to some file, but instead they create and return a string representation.
Also, it looks like Person::writeString() only exists to be called by Worker::writeSplitedItems(). Now Person and Worker have the shared responsibility of writing gender-split files.

Worker::writeAllItems() and Worker::showItems() sound different but they do nearly the same, print a representation of all persons, the first to a file, the latter to std::cout. I'd suggest renaming.
Worker::showItems() is the only function not concerned with reading or writing a file. Should it really be in there?

Worker::writeSplitedItems() uses a different format than Person::print() and, in extension, Worker::readItems() and Worker::writeAllItems. IMHO that should either be made mor clear in the function name or that function should not be grouped with the others.
Also, shouldn't Worker::writeSplitedItems() be called Worker::writeSplitItems()? (I'm not a native English speaker, but see Wiktionary)

In conclusion: Your kata aims to train static functions, reading/writing files, and writing data classes. But it does not separate its concerns and the resulting code is therefore harder to read and maintain than it should be. And you should be more consistent with your names, e.g. use print for std::cout related things, write for file related things.

Given what the intended solution is this isn't a interesting kata by any stretch. Much more of "another attempt at shitposting a bugfix kata".

Please just unpublish this. It's not fun to anyone out there, and it teaches nothing.