Challenor showing off their 'new' birth certificate

[MrsSnippyPants]

I will never accept this 'legal fiction, it is a travesty.

Sakura184 - exactly the same thing happened to me earlier. MN must be having some technical issues

sakura mn has been very glitchy for me today too
To be fair it is an important question. Trans ideology relies on rewriting history not just for the individual but for their wider family and friends, spouse, children etc. How this has gained such widespread acceptance is beyond me (esp when it’s a spouse and to go along with it you have to effectively become ‘ homosexual’ because your husband has always been is now a woman

First it was about being 'real women' (whatever the heck they were, that never got pinned down because it couldn't be, but could just about be argued on the grounds of a polite social inclusion), then it was 'lesbian', then it was 'female' (both of which were plain ridiculous and made a nonsense of the whole thing) and now it's 'cis'. Give it five minutes and we'll have 'uterus havers' and 'bleeders' too. As women here have been saying for years, if biological women said they were Jups, there'd be an immediate claim that TW were Jups.

See: autogynephillia, (some very good articles by Kay Brown around this) and the whole principle that the sexual core fantasy is about being a woman. Which means appropriating, owning and having every single bit of it, there can be nothing biological women have that can't be taken. Any barriers of any kind deny the full sexual core satisfaction. So even the word 'TW' and third spaces and any name for women that can't be owned - thwarts. Is unbearable. That's what is driving this movement.

Whether male sexual fetishes should be more important than half the human race and their rights (and their children) is a question I continue to ask my MP. But I continue to believe women are not born to be props used in male fantasies and that sexual behaviours have socially appropriate limits in public places and around other people.

Great post Michelle and so glad that you are speaking to your MP. Only MPs can change the law around this.

So, another reply from the DBS..... we were right. The onus is on the transgender person to inform their employer re previous identities, OR contact the DBS Sensitive Applications Team. So green light for paedophiles to "change gender" and apply for positions as cub leaders/youth workers, etc.

Let's start spreading the word - I intend to write to my MP about this.

*As my previous email states, a transgender applicant does not need to disclose their previous identity to their employer if they don’t wish to, but they do need to disclose all previous names/identity to the DBS sensitive applications team. Contacting this team prior to submitting an application will also help to avoid the applicants previous identity being disclosed on the DBS certificate.

The DBS has a process in place which allows any details indicating a previous gender to be checked without being disclosed on the completed certificate.

Transgender applicants are protected in legislation and are not obliged to include details indicating a previous gender in their application form. They are, however, required by law to provide all name details to the DBS in their current and any previous identity. Deliberately withholding this information may be an attempt to prevent conviction information being revealed and is an offence.

You can find out more about how we use and protect your personal information online. Please visit our privacy policies on our website at:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/dbs-privacy-policies

If you require any further assistance please don’t hesitate to get in touch.*

(Why is MN not formatting stuff at the mo?)

FFS. It was already pretty clear to be honest where the onus lay but it's still shocking to read it in black and white.

DBS is worthless now.

littlecabbage

Would you have time to send a reply? To get them to put it in writing?

Asking the question, so if they do not disclose previous identities, there is no way for the DBS office to access previous convictions?

Get them to write it down.

Datun

I have stolen some of your wording, and replied thus:

"So to be crystal clear,if someone has "changed their gender identity" and they do not disclose their previous identity/ies, there is no way for the DBS office to access previous convictions?

I understand that you are saying non-disclosure is an offence, but I wish to know what would happen if someone did not disclose as required by law."

Criminal convictions are not a barrier to getting a GRC which means this DBS self-declaration issue is a massive safeguarding fail.

How can this possibly fit with Safer Recruitment, which is statutory?

In the end, it will lead to discrimination in employment for trans applicants who use the sensitive route - how will the prospective employer be able to take on trust that the applicant has used it and provided previous identities, and simultaneously meet Safer Recruiting standards?

DBS was created as a system to close the loophole Ian Huntley's murders demonstrated.

Quick show of hands please: who thinks Ian Huntley would have honourably chosen to disclose previous names associated with previous offences?

How on earth have these groups been allowed to dismantle our safeguarding regimes? I can see that if they have regulatory 'captured' those organisations mandated to keep children safe (the NSPCC, Childline?, social care etc) then they have 'neutered' the groups who prioritise the safeguarding of children. Somehow I naively assumed that the DBS Service would be independent and able to focus on the safeguarding of children and the vulnerable above all else.

How very wrong I was.

I understand that you are saying non-disclosure is an offence, but I wish to know what would happen if someone did not disclose as required by law.

This is the crux of the matter - it seems a person doing this would be able to leave past criminal convictions behind - and there is nothing that would flag this up?

This is a nightmarish loophole in safeguarding. These are scandals just waiting to happen, I can't believe nobody's noticed/raised this before. Relying on people's honesty in declaring past identities? Well, sure - everyone who would like to gain access to vulnerable kids is going very diligent in declaring facts truthfully, which will reveal past criminal convictions, I'm sure

Thanks for your diligent hard work in getting to the bottom of this littlecabbage.

So, to be clear: a man with ill intent towards children or vulnerable adults, with perhaps criminal convictions under a previous name, could use the cover of 'changing gender', acquire a GRC and then choose NOT to disclose their previous gender/names and get a clean DBS check?

Yes, I can see it is a criminal offence to not disclose previous names/identities, but that's not going to put them off is it?

Am I missing anything? I feel like I must be missing something, because this is a massive loophole.

Yes, I can see it is a criminal offence to not disclose previous names/identities, but that's not going to put them off is it?

If people would only realise what is a criminal offence and not do it, then it would make life so much easier for us all. Save a fortune in prisons and DBS checks

Are there any journalists that may be interested in this?

I imagine the Daily Mail could get the sensationalist-type story they love by writing this up...

Crikey-we know that sex offenders are leaving prison in a 'new' female identity.....the thought that DBS checks won't catch them out is just not good enough.

Quick show of hands please: who thinks Ian Huntley would have honourably chosen to disclose previous names associated with previous offences?

Exactly the bleedin' point.

I'm sick of hearing "it's a criminal offence" used to entirely dismantle safeguarding because - y'know - men's feelz. That the DBS service is blithely allowing this absolutely beggars belief.

"It's a criminal offence not to disclose your previous names to the DBS" seems to assume that no-one with ill-intent ever attempts to work with the vulnerable. Which makes the whole DBS pointless - doesn't it?

Again, anyone could fail to disclose former names. It’s not specific to just trans people. How do you make anyone disclose a former identity?

I've just found out that my MP is the new children & families minister. I'm currently on holiday, but I'll try to put an email together to her later on.

@littlecabbage would you mind if I quoted your reply from the DBS?

I'll also use some of the info provided in this thread about safer recruitment. I understand Safeguarding & DBS from a health service perspective, but I don't have any deep knowledge of the education sector.

the thought that DBS checks won't catch them out is just not good enough.

Even if they didn’t change sex how would a dbs catch them if they lied about their name?

This is what happens when you make a sacred cow out of any group in society and raise them above the law and normal standards for everyone else. Which is exactly what is argued right across the board in the ideology.

Crikey-we know that sex offenders are leaving prison in a 'new' female identity.....the thought that DBS checks won't catch them out is just not good enough.

Oh god. Yes. The sex offender anti-androgen programme that Jenny Rossity on Twitter uncovered. More than a third of the subjects treated went on to transition.

Again, anyone could fail to disclose former names. It’s not specific to just trans people. How do you make anyone disclose a former identity?

Thats kind of the point - predators will abuse a loophole that has been created to protect trans feels.

Even if they didn’t change sex how would a dbs catch them if they lied about their name?

The prospective employers has to see original documents and take a copy. So yes someone could lie but would also need false documents - the onerous kind similar those required for a GRC.