This is relevent of course as with any job requiring a DBS there may well be specific sex-based Safeguarding policies and responsibilities. If an employer is unable to know the sex of an employee how can they ensure that the female service users/ patients/ pupils etc are protected from male members of staff?
Oh this I also agree with, but that's a problem around ignoring Equality Act exemptions too - we very rarely need to see a birth certificate to know what sex someone is, whatever the law says or doesn't say. Male people should not be providing personal care to female people. I don't care if they identify as flying teapots, and have paperwork to attest to that. There should be a blanket no. But as we all know, Girl Guides are jettisoning that one even without a GRC, so we have a group where everything we know about safeguarding is just ignored for fear of hurting adult male people's feelings.
99% of the time a GRC isn't going to hide what sex someone is, anyway. But if there's no reliable way to check past offending, and people are refusing to retain single sex provision, then effectively there's no safeguarding around one specific group of male people at all. Can't check their past, and ignore the single-sex safeguards, and then send someone off to provide overnight care? What could possibly go wrong. Clearly trans people are no more likely to offend than anyone else of their sex, but they're no less likely, either, so WTF.
Has anyone asked for clarity on this, in terms of whether a loophole exists - was an answer provided? I know it's naive but I can't help hoping there's something on such a birth certificate that would flag this up, in this sort of context.