@CBUK22, proper safeguarding procedures do not mean all men - or all women - are being treated like criminals. Why would you think that?
Obviously most people are not paedophiles, rapists, thieves, murderers etc etc. But how are we supposed to tell, until they offend and are caught? Nobody hangs a sign round their own neck or tattoos a warning on their own forehead. Offenders look just like anyone else.
But some jobs and volunteer posts involve working with money, say, or with vulnerable people like children, or women who have experienced rape or violence, or people in bed in hospitals or care homes.
We need to be as sure as we can possibly be that anyone we trust around vulnerable people or valuable things is trustworthy, so we have checks into people's backgrounds to see whether they have ever been caught and convicted.
Most of us have had to be DBS checked at some point in our careers. Mine was always an enhanced one because I had access to children in my work. It was exactly the same check I would have undergone had I been a man in the same job; there's no special check just for men. Of course nothing shows up if someone has offended but not been caught, but best practice like not being alone with a vulnerable person helps keep everyone safe, including from false accusations. It was always a faff updating my DBS, but never did I feel indignant or resentful or that I was being accused of criminal behaviour.
How can you twist safeguarding the vulnerable into the equivalent of a blanket accusation that all men are criminals?
All people are potential criminals and that's why checks are done. I can't believe I'm explaining this to an adult!
What would you propose instead? No safeguarding and turn everyone loose? Do you understand that predatory abusers go to enormous lengths to gain access to potential victims? How would you suggest society weed them out?