Trans rights and consultation on legal gender - cold hard facts and sources please?

AFAIK, deed poll name changes show up on normal records, people with GRC have their records sealed, including NHS records.

But that suggests to me that The DBS will not cross check names unless given the information by an (honest) applicant - the employer will just do a normal DBS check, completely unaware that the applicant has / hasn't contacted the DBS themselves.
If a gender changed individual would show up on the DBS database as both the original and new identity, why would they need input from the applicant?

uktrans.info/attachments/article/180/DBS-check-for-transgender-persons.pdf

Will I have to reveal my previous names when I apply for a DBS check?
The law requires that you disclose all of your previous names and addresses to the DBS so that they can correctly process your application. The DBS does however have a process whereby you can disclose your previous gender/name to the DBS only and not reveal this on the CBS application form. This is known as the ‘Sensitive Applications Process’. This process ensures that your information is handled sensitively and securely by the DBS and not revealed to the person who asked you to apply.

But people don't contact the DBS themselves. They are instructed to by the employer. Then, I can't remember if they write off themselves or their employer does.

Either way, if the employer is in a position where a DBS check is necessary for their employees, they can't employ the person without a check.

So it will get picked up. The person is under a legal obligation to disclose their previous identity to the DBS.

Although, how the DBS check that the person has done that, I'm not sure.

If someone rocks up with a new name and it gets put through the police database, I don't know if there is any flag to show that that name has only been in use for a few months. Thus alerting them to the possibility of a previous identity.

I'm assuming the process is already in place though for people who change their name by deed poll?

Otherwise criminals could constantly change their name and have their records wiped.

There is nothing on any of the official documentation I've been able to find, or on any Trans-support sites, that mentions criminal background checks for gender recognition applicants.
The gender recognition panel looks at all supporting evidence for applications, but there is absolutely no mention of checking criminal records.
So it looks like a job applicant with a GR certificate and new ID or someone who wants to volunteer , does indeed have to be honest and contact the DBS themselves - and if they don't, the DBS will have nothing to connect the original identity with the new one.
I honestly hope I'm wrong about this .

No, I don't think they are checked beforehand. It's not a prerequisite of the certificate. But if they are required to have a check, they are not required to put their previous sex and gender on the certificate. But they are required to disclose it to the DPS office.

The only area where there is any kind of lack of candour, is the employer may not realise that they were previously the opposite sex. Or, in fact still are the opposite sex.

I don't know how it works with other institutions though.

There was a transwoman on here last year who was mightily looking forward to getting a letter from his doctor calling him for a smear test.

There is obviously going to be some subterfuge going on though.

If you consider that 98% of sex offenders are men and then someone becomes a woman, and they pass, you're going to make different assumptions about them.

Although most late transitioning transwomen don't pass at all.

Someone who has been trans since they were a teenager, might well pass. But I don't know how much of their male socialisation would have been diminished.

Gawd.

So they are DBS checked before being allowed a GRC?
That's some comfort then , can you imagine if a convicted sex offender was able to obtain a GRC to erase their past?

Although I still think it's insane that people can have a new birth certificate.

BelaLugosisShed

I misread your post. I thought they didn't have to disclose their previous identity. They do have to. It's against the law not to.

They can however, have that information excluded from their certificate. So the certificate will have their current name, current sex and the fact that they have passed the DBS protocols.

But yes, their employer will have no way of knowing their birth sex, unless it's obvious.

So you could think you are employing a woman, when actually you are employing a fully intact male.

BelaLugosisShed

Good Lord!!! It's insane!

There is a petition about 38 degrees silencing women here

Can anyone tell me if someone requesting a Gender reassignment certificate has to have a DBS check as part of the process?
I've looked at employment law and someone with a GRC does NOT have to tell a prospective employer about their previous identity - they are supposed to voluntarily contact the "sensitive applications department" of the DBS with details of their previous history instead.
If people don't have background checks as part of the GRC process, the potential ramifications are horrific.

It encompasses many fields, most of which I'd argue are sciences, some not.

One for Academic Corner, perhaps.

There is an alternative petition here
www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-a-review-of-how-laws-based-on-gender-identity-conflict-with-laws-based-on-biological-sex?

How come body dysmorphia is a mental disorder

Body dysmorphic disorder is a mental disorder in which you can't stop thinking about one or more perceived defects or flaws in your appearance

This is the NHS reference.

However, a non-NHS psychiatrist would be at liberty to diagnose a patient using a DSM-5 diagnosis, for example. Psychiatry is, in general, a political exercise as well as a medical one. One of the concepts that might need to be understood about diagnoses is that as entities they are transient over time. They cease to be entities as well as new diagnoses coming into being.

The canonical example is that homosexuality only stopped being a diagnosis in the DSM in 1987, but there are other examples.

erinaceus

Is there a UK equivalent, in that case?

Datun

The DSM-5 seems to be the basis on which people accept or not whether something is a mental illness. It's the bible for mental disorders.

There is considerable debate around the role of the DSM-5 in psychiatry. It is not the basis on which people accept or not whether something is a mental illness. Some clarification comes from Wikipedia:

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and offers a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. It is used, or relied upon, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the legal system, and policy makers together with alternatives such as the ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders, produced by the WHO.[1]

I imagine there's a distinction (in the UK only?) between a condition and a mental illness? I did puzzle over it.

The DSM-5 is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the US.

Whether any given entry into the DSM-5 is indeed a mental disorder, and further whether this entry into the DSM-5 represents a mental illness, a condition, or something else is a whole other thread.

NHS Choices is not a particular source of authority when it comes to conversations about the law and gender.

Thank you mrsroboto for starting this thread.

A phobia is an irrational fear of something, fear being also described as hatred.

No one on this thread displays fear or irrationality against trans people. No one on the 38 degree petition did either. Simply put it's censorship. Blatant as well.

The question to be asked is are trans people enacting a phobia against females?

The DSM-5 seems to be the basis on which people accept or not whether something is a mental illness. It's the bible for mental disorders.

Trans people did not want to be considered mental, obviously. But they had to be in order to get the treatment.

You can come at this ideology from any angle you like, it's illogical. It moves goalposts like there's no tomorrow.

There's a bloody good reason why a public debate has not been held. It's house of cards. It makes no sense. Because the underlying motivation is partly sexual, partly misogynistic and a very small minority who have a genuine reason. But believe me those people are not the ones who are pushing for this.

The whole transsexual agenda has been hijacked. You are looking at the face of men who want to erase women. It's really, really nothing more than that.