How does it even affect you? Just be kind.

You have evidently not read the KPSS document I linked. On page 21 it states that the authors asked the DBS whether the special confidential route for transgender individuals could be used by others (the example they used was a DV survivor requiring confidentiality in terms of personal safety)
The DBS responded that this loophole was only for transgender individuals - hence the OP asking why this safeguarding loophole exists just for that group?

As an adult and parent who's spent a lifetime working with children and safeguarding, the very fact that there's a special loophole for trans people gives a message to those charged with safeguarding children about which group are entitled to exceptions. Safeguarding is too important for that.

And as this thread shows, every time women talk about safeguarding there's a (fortunately small) number of posters who arrive and dominate, sneer and accuse posters. Always seeking to derail. Admittedly this thread has yet to have the accusations of pearl clutching and prudes, merely allegations of stupidity and failing to agree.

It's a really unhealthy to see and when it relates to safeguarding, it's dangerous.

I do recommend reading the KPSS report - it covers more than this issue and raises concerns about sex offenders generally being able to conceal identity via name changes and more:

https://kpssinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/DBS-Checks-and-Identity-Verification.pdf

No, I worried they'd just claim that you cannot tell when a man is aroused unless he says so or something stupid like that. Besides, it was a couple of years ago when women were supposed to shut up and put up or else.

One of the very good points that Stella O'Malley makes about the employees above and trans employees too is that it's actually very helpful and healthy for everyone to get a break from these complex personal issues and focus on our work. Which is the one thing that we all really have in common in our workplaces, no matter what else is going on in our lives.

I found it very helpful that my own organisation is not at all politicised. As a result I am well able to stay professional, polite and kind when dealing with trans people at work. It helps that no-one at work has made a fuss about it, nor offered me "training" in their favourite point of view, nor asked me to wave rainbows about.

My question would be a different one. Is there anything 'kind' about telling an individual that their mental delusion of having a 'gender', whether that is congruent with their sex or not, is kind to that individual or to anyone else?

Increasingly it seems to me that to do so is like encouraging a person with an eating disorder to obey their mad thoughts. Not kind to them, or to people they interact with, or to society at large.

Everyone can do what’s being said. Not just trans people. It’s fraud for anyone to do it. Trans people are not allowed.

The fact that it is possible needs to be closed for everyone; not just trans people. The OP has misunderstood what is happening and is claiming this as a trans problem. It is a DBS problem for everyone.

Indeed. Having any kind of exception to the safeguarding process for a particular group of individuals is completely unacceptable and can lead to all sorts of issues - not least of which is the presence of an apparent sacred caste that leads to so many individuals refusing to accept any form of criticism for that group.

Long overdue for the DBS (and society generally) to stop treating trans people as exceptions to normal expectations of adults. For those interested, here's a detailed analysis of the procedural loophole for trans people wanting to work with children that this special process allows them:

https://kpssinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/DBS-Checks-and-Identity-Verification.pdf

You’re claiming that they have to change their names because of “trans” in order to do this. You also further repeated that in another post when you said they are only able to do it because of trans guidance. But it’s nothing to do with it. At all.

They are entirely separate issues.

issue 1 - name change confusion -
Anyone can change their name and attempt to commit fraud to hide a criminal record. This is completely unaffected by trans people or trans guidance or anything else trans. It’s always been a possibility and always will be unless DBS make changes.

issue 2 - the trans helpline and sensitivity -
after completely a full check on all past names, trans people can have their old name redacted. All their crimes are still shown, but their old name is hidden. This comes with a whole host of its own issues but does not allow a trans person to hide their criminal history.

You are angry about both, rightly. But you’re treating them as the same and acting like issue 2 caused issue 1. They are unrelated. Trans people are not the reason that some men have cheated the DBS system and committed fraud. That’s just simply fraud the old fashioned way.

Both issues are wrong. DBS is shitty. They need to make changes. But it’s not what you said it was.

But they could always do that. It has absolutely nothing to do with trans people. At all. You don’t have to be trans to commit fraud. Trans guidance doesn’t allow for fraud.

A man can go from John Smith to Jack Smyth and do the exact same thing. You don’t need to claim trans to commit fraud.

What do you think the sensitive application team do?

Trans people have the same application rules as everyone else. They can try and commit fraud if they want, just like any other man could. It has nothing to do with being trans. They’re not allowed to do it. They cannot hide their criminal record legally.

It’s been discussed at length. ANYONE CAN DO THAT AND COMMIT FRAUD.

Your opening post claims that trans people are ALLOWED to do it. They are not.

Anyone who does it is committing fraud. Trans people are not allowed to do that. You’re saying that they are. That is not true.

Tbf the national insurance number stays the same even if you transition. They just change the gender mark.

I assume though that the NI number is not tracked against convictions, or anything else for that matter - otherwise they would presumably give trans people a new one.

How do fraudsters, these people deliberating new IDs, get round the NI issue?

It doesn’t allow them to hide their crimes though. Not at all. Which is what OP has alleged.

Maybe a woman used the sensitive application route. Good for her if she did. But the point remains, it is clearly indicated as being for transgender applicants, not for women-at-risk-of-male-violence applicants.
Guidance
Transgender applications
Guidance and information regarding the sensitive applications route for transgender applicants.
Transgender applications - GOV.UK

@MumOfYoungTransAdult those are such good points. So many workplaces and be-kinders never consider the impact on the entire family when one person questions their gender.

I'll never forget the clip of Stephanie Hayton and what she suffered when her husband started watching sissy porn and decided to throw a bomb into his entire family's life.

No-one dares say that to me. In fact no-one at work dares say anything about it to me at all. But if you want to tell people why "be kind" at work isn't kind at all this podcast episode is a good start. "Trans Inclusion at Work: Time for a New Approach" - interview of Stella O'Malley by HR commentator Tanya de Grunwald on the "This Isn't Working" podcast

https://thisisntworkingpodcast.co.uk/trans-inclusion-at-work-time-for-a-new-approach/

From the shownotes -

In trying to make our workplaces ‘inclusive’ to people who identify as trans and non-binary, have employers managed to exclude and alienate too many others? In some cases, it looks like we are actually causing distress to our colleagues, without even realising.

In this episode, Stella O’Malley, director of Genspect, explains who in your workforce is currently suffering in silence.

Consider:

• Parents of distressed children or teens who identify as trans or non-binary, who don’t believe medical transition is the right path for their child
• Estranged parents of older children who have lost touch after saying they identify as trans
• ‘Trans widows’ and children of transitioners – the exes and kids of biological males who transition later in life don’t always want to celebrate this change
• Detransitioners’ and ‘desisters’ – who identify as trans for a while, but later decide it is not the right choice for them

Do you know if these groups are in your workforce? Have you insisted they attend gender diversity training where contested ideas were presented as fact? How will they feel about your plans for Pride this summer, if the activities include uncritical affirmation of a medicalised approach to trans? And is your organisation appealing to talent from these groups, when seeking a new role?

It's not just social media. As I say the same individuals try different organisations to get work.

It's not just about convictions. For example, you are supposed to contact every previous employer where the applicant has worked with children for a reference. You can't do this if you don't know their previous name. You can't ask around locally about an individual. DBS not sharing this is actively preventing the sharing of information vital for safeguarding.

Unless the job is using the single sex exemption, then sex doesn’t matter. From an equality point of view.

Or the workplace has single sex toilets or changing rooms.

Fine.

DBS withholding vital information that prevents employers being able to safeguard children is huge.

DBS is providing a legal way for people to hide their identity via the very system that is supposed to safeguard children.

And the people who will take advantage of it are exactly the kind of people you want to keep out.

Sorry OP will stop derailing your thread.

Which I understand. Even a quick and someplace social medial check is made harder by redacting the old name. But… that’s the only thing they do. Redact the old name. It is still checked for a criminal history and if they don’t include it then it’s fraud. But the OP still believes it wholeheartedly.

Going back to your original question OP, just one transwoman entering a woman only space can change the entire dynamic. It either becomes all about the transwoman with the original purpose of the group derailed and/or some women becoming so uncomfortable that they leave the space entirely.

They don't have the right for DBS not to check their old name but this loophole prevents the employer doing their own checks locally.

Yes, and all of those are valid points. But not what I’m asking OP about.

OP is still claiming that trans people can legally leave their name off the actual criminal record check, and therefore not be fully checked for their criminal record and hide those crimes.

Their name is not removed from the check. Their crimes are not removed. They cannot legally hide their past crimes or legally keep their name off the criminal record check.

Redacting the name may cause a whole load of other issues for employers, but that’s not what OP posted about. I’m not arguing with that.

OP can start whatever threads she likes. But if she posts the same lies then I’ll post to correct them.

When doing due diligence when recruiting for jobs working with vulnerable young people, it is vital that you know previous names. This loophole allows trans people to legally get around this. That's the problem.

Yes anyone could omit previous names, but this would be actionable.

There are so many red flags to look for apart from convictions, including colluding with kids, talking about inappropriate stuff, etc etc. The same individuals repeatedly try to get jobs with vulnerable kids and soft intelligence helps to keep them blocked. DBS not sharing previous names is a massive safeguarding concern.