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

[IwantToRetire]

From a recent NHS job advert:

The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) offers a confidential checking service for transgender applicants in accordance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004. This is known as the sensitive applications route, and is available for all levels of DBS check - basic, standard and enhanced.

The sensitive applications route gives transgender applicants the choice not to have any gender or name information disclosed on their DBS certificate that could reveal their previous identity. To contact the sensitive applications team, please telephone

https://www.nhsjobs.com/job/UK/North_Yorkshire/Scarborough/York_Scarborough_Teaching_Hospitals_NHS_Foundation_Trust/Physiotherapist/Physiotherapist-v6767892

Government Guidance
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transgender-applications

KPSS wrote about this being a safeguarding issue 2 years ago
https://kpssinfo.org/dbs-checks-and-identity-verification-pdf/

No sacred castes. No exceptions allowing adults to avoid fundamental safeguarding procedures. If you want to work with children / vulnerable people and need a DBS, then openness and transparency are critical.

The safety of the vulnerable always takes priority over the personal wishes / feelings of adults. Safeguarding 101.

It doesn't allow adults to avoid fundamental safeguarding procedures - that's precisely why it exists.

Wrong.
Have a read of this. Change of identity creates a loophole.
No exceptions to safeguarding. Children & the vulnerable matter much more than the personal demands of any group or individual.

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

Hiding information about yourself is a safeguarding issue. Transwomen commit sex offences at least as frequently as other men, probably more so how can hiding the fact that you're male NOT avoid safeguarding? Women very rarely commit sex offences which is why transwoman cannot be risk assessed the same as women, they have to be risk assessed like their fellow men. Anyone who gives a shit about safeguarding would understand and accept that, the ones that fight against it are precisely the ones that need to be considered unsuitable for the job.

Sentencing for relevant crimes already covers informing the authorities in the event of a name change.

Criminals are well known for being trustworthy, I am sure nobody has changed name and not informed authorities. DBS needs to make NI number a mandatory field and the government needs to make it not possible for someone to change it. That way it doesn't matter if someone changes their name, their real identity will be found.

You are required to provide previous names to the DBS sensitive applications team to set up a case file.

No exceptions. Organisations demanding exemptions to standard safeguarding guidelines raise too many red flags. Long overdue that society starts saying NO to those demanding to be exceptions from the social contract, the law and guidance - especially in relation to children.

As Mumsnetters understand - NO is a complete sentence.

It's a compassionate safeguarding measure that exists to enhance an existing safeguarding process in order for it to not automatically harm every trans person who uses it.

The DBS is designed to safeguard children and vulnerable adults, not men who want to hide their sex and previous names from employees.

The GRA is, among other things, designed to protect members of a vulnerable minority from automatic harm when they engage in good faith with an important and necessary safeguarding process that serves to protect children and vulnerable adults.

I dont know why you decided to comment on the purpose of a GRA?

Any man who claims to be a woman can use the sensitive route, regardless of GRC status.

"automatic harm"

That's a new one

Do you understand the significance of being outed in a transphobic workplace?

Employers feeling any kind of obligation to treat trans people fairly is still only a comparatively recent phenomenon. Prior to the introduction of legal protections, it was pretty much open season on us if we were discovered, and the media periodically featured chilling stories of trans people being outed, harassed and driven from public life.

It was bad enough just hearing how non-trans people speak idly when they think nobody is listening; it was outright hellish to be Known To Be Trans.

The GRA2004 and EA2010 were part of an active, hard-fought process of making life a little safer and less miserable.

So yes, automatic harm.

I'm certain that women's history of discrimination in the workplace, sexism, pregnancy discrimination etc, means that most women understand how discrimination works. But no matter how sad the stories, safeguarding children takes precedence over individual demands for special rules just for them.

No exceptions, no loopholes. The same safeguarding standards must apply to all adults.

Trans people fill out the same forms.

They actually have to give more information in order to raise a sensitive case file.

The process is simply adjusted so it won't automatically out every one of the thousands of trans people who need to have DBS checks for work by default.

We quickly become adept at identifying and avoiding threats - any stealth trans woman who spots a vibe check failure will reflexively give that person a very wide berth. We get it beaten into us early on and it stays with us for life - it's just part of our everyday existence and is added to all the other threat management considerations that in an ideal world nobody would have to worry about.

Yeah because women never go through life risk assessing threats to us do we? (whose lived experience you've clearly cribbed this from)

No.
Safeguarding risks identified by KPSS include:

"where legal gender or self-declared gender identity is displayed instead of sex registered at birth, there is a particular safeguarding risk when the DBS check has been requested for the purposes of a role specified in accordance with the provisions in Schedule 9 Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 to provide single-sex services. As a general principle, when working with children or vulnerable adults, there will always be sex-based safeguarding considerations even if Schedule 9 is not formally invoked".

and

"an individual who is eligible to use the Sensitive Applications Route, a service specifically intended to protect the privacy of transgender applicants, can request that their DBS certificate does not show their previous identities. Whilst the DBS considers that the individual privacy rights of those who change their gender outweigh some of the requirements for safeguarding, this level of privacy is not granted to any other group. No other individual is entitled to have their previous names hidden in this way. By enabling those who have changed their gender to keep their previous identities secret from those responsible for safeguarding, the DBS has created a loophole that is ripe for exploitation. "

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

All this has happened because of self interested lobbying by trans groups a la Denton's report - positioning themselves as the most vulnerable and requiring special treatment. In fact, it's children who have always been the most vulnerable group and it defies belief that any of our institutions / regulatory bodies have prioritised the demands of these groups over the safety of children.

No exceptions when safeguarding for any adults.

How do you know people are “non-trans”?

More importantly, it’s really clear from your posts that you do not understand safeguarding. Nobody has a right to be treated in a special or deferential way if they’re seeking to work with vulnerable adults or children.

Anyone insisting they’re a special case is, in fact, a red flag.

ResisterOfTwaddleRex · Today 20:26

I couldn't agree more. Anyone claiming to be lovely and in need of special consideration in these cases is likely to be the exact opposite.

I suspect that we are seeing the same thing from opposite ends. You see the need for a trans person to have their trans history protected. I see the need for a prospective employer to be able to ensure the safety of the vulnerable people that they are responsible for.

More importantly, it’s really clear from your posts that you do not understand safeguarding. Nobody has a right to be treated in a special or deferential way if they’re seeking to work with vulnerable adults or children.

This.

Nobody working with children and vulnerable adults should have the attitude that they themselves are the most vulnerable and need to be protected at the expense of safeguarding.

The process shouldn't need to be adjusted. DBS must focus on facts like sex and past history. Trans people still retain their birth sex their whole lives as does everyone, they just choose to add a label called gender to themselves. From an evidenced-based perspective all people should complete the form with the same transparency.

Males - the oppressor and predatorial sex class - wearing a dress are not a 'vulnerable minority', that is deeply offensive and taking the piss. They are 50% of the population. Females, the oppressed and prey sex class, are the only vulnerable ones here.

Considering that trans is the most powerful, most privileged and most protected sacred caste where 99% of workplaces bend over backwards to prioritise them at the expense of females, that's rich. Its gaslighting and DARVO to say they're under threat. There is no single 'minority' group in history more powerful than trans. Not even gay people or heterosexual men have anywhere near the level of power trans particularly transwomen do. They are at the top of the totem pole.

"Do you understand the significance of being outed in a transphobic workplace?"

I would really like to understand the likelihood of this happening as I have always been able to deduct a transwoman within 2 minutes of meeting them based on visual appearance, voice, movement pattern etc. Of course that does not change my behaviour to the person in question. I'm wondering if there is a false perception that transwomen in general "pass" while actually it's just people generally being polite.