Do people actually believe that trans people have a legal right to only DBS check their new identity?

"Outed"? You mean trans identifying people hope to keep their sex a secret?

I think you're over-estimating the scope of documentation Bee!

All we want documentation to do is to state the relevant objectively verifiable details about a person, without recourse to the kind of flights of fancy you suggest.

'Awful' and 'Decent' are too subjective to be valid entries on an official document.

People reveal those characteristics through their behaviour. Like you often do.

I don't care about anyone being outed, I care about ex criminals, fraudsters, rapists and paed0philes not being employed in sensitive jobs in the first place.

Operation Let Them Speak for the win. Again.

You’re the only person saying this.

What others are pointing out is that those few who are both trans and a danger to vulnerable people can take advantage of a system that allows them more opportunity than others to game.

The sensitive application route allows a "trans" person to hide their real name from a prospective employer.

No other category applicant is accorded the same privilege.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transgender-applications

Makes other employer safeguarding checks pretty irrelevant.
As they are barred from knowing WHAT the previous name was
and WHY the applicant wants to hide it.

A 'reputable' Trans person would not hide their original name
just ask that it was not used on current paperwork
(a bit like married women not having their birth name listed randomly)

That is utterly horrific. It’s insane to allow such a system because there are bound to be mistakes made and those mistakes could have dire consequences. But the feelings of a self selecting group who cannot stand there own reality must take precedence.

Plopped back in from Planet Hyperbole, I see.

I repeat my deleted post.

@BeeSouriante

A DBS check is there for the safeguarding of children and vulnerable people.
The vast majority of people that go through one have now criminal record nor are they going to commit crimes.

It is there to protect those that have difficulty protecting themselves.
As such they come before the wants of those that want to work in that sector.

This means quite rightly that the whole of the person gets checked not just the bit that you want.

The problem isn't whether the person in the street believes it.

As with most things in the trans-person discussion its whether the trans lobby believes it.

It's important to me that 'gender critical' activists are also indicated on documentation so people can find out that they're the sorts of socially regressive horrors that wish to out queer people and remove their rights. This is only fair so that such awful people may be avoided by decent people.

Doesn't look like either of us will get our wish.

There is an alternative 'sensitive applications' route to reduce the chance of being outed to an employer, but yes, the idea that trans people are changing their sex and going thru all the palaver so they can go commit crimes is just one of the eleventy zillion GC fever dreams

To steer on to a more fundamental point.

If a man with a GRC applies for a DBS and puts down "female" under "sex", is that treated correctly as fraud?

It should be clearer now, post the supreme court judgment, that that's what that is.

TBF I do think that @TruthOrAlethiometer is in complete agreement with you, just that this is a different point to the special trans rule.

@TruthOrAlethiometer

In fact the solicitor had to show the Crown a newspaper article showing the reporting of the crime before it was taken seriously. They didn't seem to have wondered why they had a convicted man in their custody, who according to their records, had committed no crime.

@TruthOrAlethiometer have you heard of this thing called lying?
It's all very well saying "but it's fraud" except that people DO commit fraud to get a job, and paedophiles will do more or less anything to get close to children.
They will court and marry a woman and have children with her in order to have access to them.
Do you really think they'll disclose all their former names when nobody is going to catch them out?

The police say this was a 'screw up'.

As was pointed out, though, the only reason the news of the 'screw up' surfaced was because this prisoner (a man in women's prison) was involved in a court case and the opposition's lawyers asked for his criminal record as a matter of procedure, and realised that his crime (murder, iirc) wasn't recorded.

If there are other 'screw ups' like this, nobody would know.

I’ve read both threads and I think OP is getting a hard time.

Her sole main point is that the loophole in the DBS application that means people can omit past names and therefore the names and any crimes are no longer linked is the same for everyone - not just trans applicants.

She has also acknowledged that the special exemption which means trans people can leave their old names off the certificate is a problem for employers who want to do their own extra checks.

Especially on the other thread there were some posters who were definitely confused about the difference between the application - same process for everyone - and the extra strep - sensitive info team available for trans applicants and subsequent difference on the certificate.

Op hasn’t defended the system or the trans certificate exemptions - in fact she’s been very critical of most of it.

The pile on though is awful.

And what if the name they changed to was unisex like Alex or Robin and they told you it had never changed?

(I know it seems I'm overthinking it, but honestly what some people will do to gain access to kids can be so mind-blowing. I'm not just talking about trans - any loophole will be exploited).

Here's a detailed report from KPSS about problems with the DBS

It covers both the loophole that applies specifically to trans individuals via the "Special Applications Team" - a team devoted only to trans applicants and not to any other adults who may wish to keep details of name changes confidential (ie Domestic Violence survivors). It also covers other flaws with name changes that sex offenders can use. It's lengthy but very clear about the problems.

As someone who's worked with children and safeguarding for years, I see no reason why any adults should be able to conceal their birth sex when applying to work with children. There may be numerous occasions when sex is relevant in schols (toileting, changing children, supervising changing etc), now clarified by the SC judgment.

Children's rights to safety, dignity and privacy from the opposite sex in relevant situations is far more important than adults wishing to conceal their sex from employers.

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

And on that, surely if the whole point of the special trans rule is to be discrete, it'd be better that the employer just knows about it than having to have a potentially very awkward conversation with the person?

Which I guess begs the question, what's the point of DBS hiding it in the first place? If it's obvious the person is lying about their sex, what's the point of pretending they aren't?

All it does is create more work for the employer.

If they gave you a different name to the one they gave to DBS? How would you know? Could they claim not to have docs in previous name?

Tbh I'd worry that some employers wouldn't push it which is another issue in itself.

and as i said on the other thread, we had moved on from that and at least 3 people posted the relevant info and trans guidelines.

Why the heck can't you accept that the conversation moved on?

There is a loophole, and yes, it does apply to anyone doing a DBS check, but the only people who get to falsify their documents in terms of sex and name are the trans ones. Everyone else just gets to change their name.

AFAIK there are no official procedures to link changed names to old names, and there is no actual robust way of checking that anyone who is completing a DBS form has actually included ALL their previous names. THAT is the problem.

Apologies

caught up with the thread and can see that one person on another thread has said it

not sure it needed another thread but hopefully it clarifies some things

I’m not talking about any of that. I’m only asking why people seem to believe that they have been given the legal right to hide their criminal record by only having to check their new identity

I don’t believe they have a legal right and i don’t remember seeing it (i will be honest, its not like Ive made a study of it)

im not sure that its a widely held view on FWR