Does theDBS Sensitve Application Route for trans applicants undermines the value of a DBS check and pose a safeguarding issue

DVLA, Passport Office, NHS all effectively operate self ID
despite it NOT being UK law

It becomes another form of id with the incorrect sex listed, along with passport and driving licence

This. None of these things should be available to people of either sex without a GRC (obviously I think the GRA should go too but that's more of a long term goal). We don't have self ID in this country.

It is an addititional function offered and it's best to focus on the idea that safeguarding works as there are no exceptions rather than coming up with ideas like what if the dbs is used in ways that it's never used.

We're going round in circles. If the fuction of the dbs is only to declare convictions, why lie about names and sex? Thats an additional function only given for people wanting to hide their sex.

It becomes another form of id with the incorrect sex listed, along with passport and driving licence.

Chances are, the DBS will be seen by head office/HR... not the people who you actually spend any time with. They wouldn't know who was using which toilet or even what toilets there are in the first place.

Its not the function of DBS... thats to find out if you have any convictions.

I can't see any employer using the dbs check to decide on which toilets should be used. That would be very odd.

Why would it be odd? If the applicant has gone to the trouble of hiding their real name and sex from their employer on a dbs, why would they disclose it another way?

The DBS give the applicants name, date of birth, and gender. Then lists the convictions that aren't spent. (Im not sure if thats the correct term)

The special hotline will ensure that the name and gender is at the request of the applicant, and no othet name or gender is given.

I can't see any employer using the dbs check to decide on which toilets should be used. That would be very odd.

Thanks @illinivich I wasn't sure how it would be written.

If the crime was sexual assault, the dbs check would say that [womans name] committed that crime.

If the crime was shop lifting, the dbs check would say the [womans name] committed the crime.

Even if those crimes were committed 20 years before the man started use a womans name, the dbs check would say they were commit by [womans name].

So the dbs special helpline gives the impression that this man is not only a woman, but had been one for years.

If a business employed Janet despite committing a crime years ago, what changing rooms and toilets would they assume they should use?

Did someone say testerical?

Could you please either explain or link to the simple explanation you say there is of exactly how the information that a man has a rape conviction would be communicated now he's identifying himself as a woman, without "outing" him?

What does the certificate actually say? Does it just say "conviction, rape, 7 years"?

This is a genuine question.

I did google, thanks and there was no clear answer, but thanks for finally bothering to answer my question rather than frothing about how terrible I am for having concerns, and I am somewhat reassured that any future employers would at least be told of the rape conviction.

But I still see no need for the "sensitive process" unless someone has a GRC. Men shouldn't be able to conceal their sex. Or women, obviously.

Here's a crazy thought, wouldn't it perhaps be a better use of your time, rather than whipping yourself up into a froth about a what-if scenario you've imagined in your head, you could actually just take 2 seconds and google how DBS checks under the sensitive route actually work, and you'd learn - much to your relief - that if someone has a rape conviction, that would indeed be listed on their DBS check. The name under which they committed it wouldn't be, and you're right to conclude the check wouldn't say IT'S A FUCKING MAN in big red letters across it, but it wouldn't need to, since it would have already provided information about the conviction, which is all an employer needs to know.

Seriously, if you need any evidence at all of why trans people might prefer not to be forcibly outed to potential employers, you only need to read this thread.

Without a gender recognition certificate, they are legally the sex they were born. They shouldn't be able to conceal this for safeguarding reasons.

The fact remains, being trans isn't a crime and does not need disclosing on a DBS any more than someone's race, religion or sexuality needs disclosing.

This is about sex. Not "gender identity".

This is absolutely untrue. The sensitive applications process does not mean your DBS won't show previous convictions.

So how will it show his rape conviction if it was in a different, male, name. Explain please.

And I'm not saying it should say he's "trans" I'm saying it should say he's a fucking man. Drop the obfuscation.

I've read the thread. The fact remains, the poster I quoted made a false statement. The fact remains, being trans isn't a crime and does not need disclosing on a DBS any more than someone's race, religion or sexuality needs disclosing.

Using the DBS sensitive route does not prevent people from having their crimes disclosed nor does it mean their check is less thorough. What it does do is protect trans people from discrimination from employers who think merely the fact they exist is "a red flag".

Seriously, if you need any evidence at all of why trans people might prefer not to be forcibly outed to potential employers, you only need to read this thread.

Have you read the thread? We're talking about safeguarding children and one group of adults demanding special dispensation from the rules that apply to all other adults wishing to work with children.

Anyone demanding exemption from this process raises a red flag. No exceptions, no sacred castes. The rules are there to protect children.

He is entitled to not have his DBS show his sex or any of his previous convictions.

This is absolutely untrue. The sensitive applications process does not mean your DBS won't show previous convictions.

It won't show that you're trans because being trans isn't a crime, much as some people here seem to believe it to be or wish it were.

Nobody should be able to hide previous names. It's pathetic how testerical trans people get about names, if James calls himself Judy then absolutely nothing bad will happen if people find out his original name.

Given men are the main perpetrators of sexual assault and related crimes and that ( I believe this is true?) the % amongst trans women is higher still, it is very important that sex at birth is on all records, especially DBS.

So what gets put on the certificate in my scenario?

No it's fine, what it means is that the dbs record will not disclose their previous name for instance whereas mine states I've changed name. They have still fully checked the person for whether they have convictions or cautions. The new employer does not need to know that they were once John and are now Josephine unless it's a job in a an area where they legally can ask about protected characteristics. Most dbs applicants are not for roles where sex matters remember - I have an enhanced dbs and whether I'm female, male or none of the above makes no difference to my job as it's not care related