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/

I've never claimed this. What point are you trying to make here?

Your experiences are not universal and confirmation bias plays a significant part here since, by definition, those of us who remain hidden won't be included within your model of the world.

Not one single transwoman is 'hidden'. They all stand out. Not one 100% passes. Not one single one. There is absolutely no such thing as a 'hidden' transwoman. In fact, its an oxymoron.

My life is honestly made easier by people continuing to believe this so thankyou I suppose.

The idea that men pass as women, are supported by the state to lie on dbs forms, then can work in areas supporting children and vulnerable adults when everyone believes they are women is a massive safeguarding fail.

It might be in tra interests not to advertise that they are doing this.

It's a matter of safety for women to not give out any signal that they have clocked a transwoman in their spaces. You may think that women don't realise that you aren't a woman but the reality is women know that males in their spaces are a threat and will do everything they can to avoid you kicking off. Pretending that they think you are a woman is absolutely part of that defence mechanism.

As transwomen have attacked women and girls in supposedly female only places including public toilets, our perception of you as dangerous is proven to be real and therefore women will continue to pretend in your presence

‘ I'm wondering if there is a false perception that transwomen in general "pass" while actually it's just people generally being polite. ‘

Polite….or scared of their employer, the owner of the facility ( gym, pool changing room, clothes store) or very occasionally of course, the person themselves.

Wow. So we cannot suggest that 'trans' people should be able to see the gaping hole in this. Genuinely wow.

It's all "Trans Pride" these days and attempts at "Stealth trans" do not seem to be much of a thing. So policies and procedures enabling "privacy" by hiding one's previous name seem anachronistic.

If the sole purpose of hiding one's previous name is to hide the fact that one is "trans": how about if someone who has used their "trans" status to go the "Confidential" DBS route to hide their previous name(s) and (ahem!) "go stealth" should have to forfeit the right to hide their previous name(s) if their public social media or IRL activities broadcast the fact that they are "trans"?

If this came to light then, for example, the Employer would be able to report to the DBS with evidence. The DBS would then be required to disclose that person's pervious name(s) to the Employer and they would be banned from using the Confidential DBS service in future.

Otherwise, the current system seems to allow some people to have their cake and eat it.

The norm seems to be that people who have no issue about advertising the fact that they have had a previous name are nevertheless permitted to conceal what that name actually was.

I might be wrong but DBS checks seem to be the only official mechanism whereby a previous name or names might be automatically disclosed to a potential employer, ie. for anyone who has NOT used the "Confidential" DBS service?

Happy to be corrected on that.

Full knowledge of a previous name or names can help potential employers screen applicants in other ways, eg. a currently or previously registered Health Care Professional who does not have a criminal conviction but who has a history of being investigated by their statutory body would have that history hidden by a secret name change.

I do not believe that anyone should have the right to conceal previous names from a potential employer.

Also, what might have been persuasive arguments about a need for "privacy" in 2004 are completely obsolete in 2024.

The DBS protects the GRC holders privacy by allowing anyone to hide their sex and previous names. There's nothing on the form to indicate that previous names and real sex is hidden because of GRC or just because.

I agree its ridiculous to have trans days of awareness, people representing trans in work related groups and then not being able to mention they have a GRC. Its not the fact that they are trans that is private, its the fact that they have a GRC. But at the same time, having a grc is supposed to offer more inclusion into opposite sex spaces and opportunities?

The number of people using the sensitive application route
significantly exceeds the number of GRC holders

A GRC is not required in order to use the DBS "Sensitive Application Route".

DBS CHECKS AND IDENTITY VERIFICATION: SAFEGUARDING LOOPHOLES CREATED BY CHANGES OF IDENTITY
kpssinfo.org | September 2022

Page 19

The DBS Sensitive Applications Route

The Sensitive Applications Route is a confidential checking service for transgender individuals who are the subject of a DBS check. It is available to those both with and without a gender recognition certificate and for all levels of check. The purpose is to provide transgender applicants with the choice not to have “any gender or name information disclosed on their DBS certificate that could reveal their previous gender identity” to a potential employer or the organisation that requires the DBS check. In this way, an applicant’s previous names may be checked without the applicant having to reveal these during the application process or displayed on the certificate issued.

Transgender individuals are advised to contact the Sensitive Applications team prior to their application being made. The same DBS check online application form is completed. We contacted the Sensitive Applications team to determine the process for transgender applicants with and without a gender recognition certificate. We received the following information: 58

If an applicant doesn’t want their previous gender identity disclosed to their employer, and/or on their DBS certificate, and has the identity documents required by the employer to support this their now name, the Sensitive Applications team will set up a case file. The team require the information listed below to set up the case file before the DBS application is submitted. Once they have this information the applicant is exempt from answering the question, “Have you been known by any other name?” on the application form. The application should be completed using the now title, now name and now gender.

The information needed from the applicant to set up a case file is:

• full now name
• all previous name(s) including the dates they were used from and to, to allow us to begin the process, prior to receiving the applicant’s change of name deed
• gender as assigned at birth
• now gender: please note, the applicant must be living and using this now gender, if not then please contact the Sensitive Applications team for advice
• current full address including postcode
• date of birth
• contact telephone number/s
• whether the application is for a Basic, Standard or Enhanced DBS check
• job role applied for
• If you already have the DBS Application reference number beginning with an ‘E’ ‘F’ or ‘00’

In addition, if the applicant has a Change of Name deed the Sensitive Applications team require a scanned copy of this in PDF format or a photograph attachment.... If the applicant doesn’t have a Change of Name deed, we can accept a self-declaration instead, i.e. the personal details provided as above including a statement declaring the personal information supplied is true. Please note, Gender Recognition Certificates are not required by DBS.

If an applicant doesn’t have enough of the identity documents required by employers to support a DBS application, they must let the Sensitive Applications team know who will advise of any alternative options available.

If an applicant doesn’t have enough of the identity documents required by employers to support a DBS application, they must let the Sensitive Applications team know who will advise of any alternative options available.

It’s the applicant’s responsibility to let the Sensitive Applications team know each time they apply fora DBS check. They should contact us before the application form is submitted. The Sensitive Applications team will set up a case file for every new application and this allows us to search for each specific application, monitor that application throughout its checks and make sure that no previous gender names are disclosed on the completed DBS certificate.

Please contact the Sensitive Applications team before submitting an application for a DBS check if you want to use the Sensitive Application route to ensure previous names are not disclosed.

You should be aware that if you have any convictions in your previous name/gender, they may show on your DBS check. If you do have a conviction which may reveal your previous name/ gender, it would be useful if you told us as soon as possible. You may be able to avoid previous identity details being disclosed, so advising us sooner rather than later will help speed up the process.

58 Email correspondence received 27 June 2022

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

Hmmm. That last para: 'You should be aware that if you have any convictions in your previous name/gender, they may show on your DBS check. If you do have a conviction which may reveal your previous name/ gender, it would be useful if you told us as soon as possible. You may be able to avoid previous identity details being disclosed, so advising us sooner rather than later will help speed up the process".

Basically keeping your name secret is the priority rather than undertaking our role which is to prioritise the safety of children through rigorous checks for every adult. Doesn't generate much confidence in who the DBS is really concerned about does it?

Yes, I’ve always thought that last paragraph looks like subtle advice to keep quiet about previous names. Wonder who phrased it.

*MrsOvertonsWindow *

Basically keeping your name secret is the priority rather than undertaking our role which is to prioritise the safety of children through rigorous checks for every adult. Doesn't generate much confidence in who the DBS is really concerned about does it?

The Civil Service must be full of scripts like this, straight out of "Yes, Minister" or Alan B'Stard's den in "The New Statesman" - played for stomach-churning dark humour, not belly-laughs:

"We need a system to make sure that Soham could never happen again. We failed Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman and we must not fail any more children. What do you think of this? First Draft."

"Looks good so far - but what if the next Ian Huntley is a member of the vulnerable oppressed minority of men who identify as a women? This system would reveal Ms Huntley's 'dead name' and the employer would know that Ian is a man!!"

"OMG! You are so right! We need a special "get out" clause and a special system for those with such delicate sensibilities!"

"You are such an ally! We could call it the "Sensitive Applications" route, what do you think?"

"Oh anything! Just don't call it a 'Loophole' whatever you do!"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_murders

A GRC is not required in order to use the DBS "Sensitive Application Route".

Yes, i know. Its been discussed at length on this thread.

If someone applies for a woman only role with a female birth certificate, and a female dbs, is it be possible to confirm their actual sex?

Can employers check the dbs register? If the applicant has gone through the hassle of going through the sensitivity route, are they likely to admit they have a GRC?

I was replying to your comment, "The DBS protects the GRC holders privacy by allowing anyone to hide their sex and previous names."

Did you mean that by allowing anyone who claims to be trans to use the "Sensitive Application Route" that you believe that the DBS deliberately designed the system intending to disguise which "trans applicants" actually have a GRC?

What the DBS is actually doing is, to put it another way, preventing the employer from being able to operate Safe Recruitment Practices when the applicant uses the "Sensitive Application Route".

@illinivich
It is permitted to ask for birth certificate.
It is permitted to ask for GRC if paperwork does not match reality.
It is permitted to reject those of the wrong sex no matter what the paperwork implies

The applicants don't have to produce the GRC. So yes it has been designed so that anyone can use this loophole.

I think we need to ask why they didn't stress test this by thinking through 'can a convicted paedophile get a clean DBS' as they obviously could. Maybe the minutes from this decision making process needed to be FOI, to see why they allowed this humongous gaping hole in the system.

The GRC is supposed to be significant and offer the holder protections not given to non grc holders of the same sex.

So why doesnt the DBS treat the GRC holder more favourably than a person who hasnt been through this significant process? Why can't the DBS state that the person has been through this meaningful process? It already provides other very sensitive information.

I suspect its because with a female birth certificate, a female dbs and all other id in their new name, a grc holder is indistinguishable on paper from a woman. And if the holders 'passes' as the opposite sex, the dbs is a significant factor in a male person having access to female only employment, or treated as female in the workplace.

All other people going through the service will have their orginal birth certificate and can be outed that way.

The dbs will say its the employers responsibility to confirm sex through the birth certificates or grc. The two certificates arent comparable in that its odd for someone to claim that they dont have a bc, but not that they dont have a grc. Thats why i think the system is designed to help men conceal that they have a grc.

The dbs checks only crimal history, and is not a design to confirm sex, therefore shouldnt have sex listed, especially when they allow anyone to request the wrong one to be stated.

There is no requirement to have had surgery or taken drugs to get a GRC.

Regardless of the fiction in the paperwork
the true sex of an individual will be obvious to those around them
within minutes for > 99% of cases

Because you do not need a GRC to make use of it.

I think you're severely overestimating this, especially in the case of trans men.

It's true that with sufficient training and practice you can learn how to identify many of the 'tells' of a history of transition, and a sizeable portion of trans people who started treatment well into adulthood will never reliably 'pass', but the number of (often hilarious) false positives that crop up constantly on social media (not to mention those absolutely bananas 'transvestigation' groups) tells me that there's a heavy degree of confirmation bias involved.

We've descended so far down that rabbit hole now that we're seeing sportswomen - especially when they don't fit within a particularly narrow and homogenous aesthetic definition of womanhood - being driven out of their profession due to harassment. It's going to get worse as the number of trans people who demonstrably do convincingly pass under the radar increases and the desperation to find and humiliate them in order to salvage the tattered 'we can always tell' ideological standpoint intensifies.

Yes. I agree.

My concern about the dbs contributing to males getting access to women only spaces and opportunities is mainly theoretical.

But it does allows people who believe TWAW to turn a blind eye because they have so much official proof that the holder of the dbs is a woman.