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/

Wrong. Men are not as good at sex recognition as women are - and you prove this. Even trans mens have the female facial skull, female limbs, female hips, gait etc etc.

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.

Please name just one woman where this has occurred.

It's going to get worse as the number of trans people who demonstrably do convincingly pass under the radar increases

How are the numbers who pass going to increase? What change in biology that enables people to 'pass' is different from biology that has been occurring since day one? What is different with bodies and mother nature of today that didn't exist decades ago? You are deluding yourself and desperate to promote your ideological view that does not have any grounding in reality.

"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."

Like who? Are you talking about males with a DSD who were incorrectly registered female at birth, were masculinised at puberty and have been allowed to compete unfairly in women's sport despite having either failed cheek-swab sex-tests or refused to take them?

Or do you have someone else in mind?

Greater awareness of transition as an option at a younger age combined with fewer social barriers to transition forcing people to remain in the closet. It's one of the key GC talking points, isn't it? The notion of this approaching apocalyptic trans singularity?

As the total number of people accessing treatment increases, even if a tiny proportion of those people are able to do so in a timely fashion, then the number of people who win the genetic lottery that means they are able to pass in adulthood will also increase in proportion to the overall total.

Why on earth was there such a frantic effort to trojan horse a regression of transition options for under 18's despite it being a proven pathway for 16-18 year olds for literally decades even before the Dutch protocol was implemented? Why is there now a completely nonsensical drive to prevent it for under 25's that fails to stand up to any logical argument whatsoever and isn't even in alignment with the ridiculously conservative recommendations of the Cass report?

Fortunate young transitioners who are reliably able to assimilate into society really throw a spanner in the works, don't they?

"apocalyptic trans singularity"

In laymans terms? Please put the dictionary and/or AI down and talk like a normal human being.

I can't understand what the rest of your post is saying. I'd need a translator.

Also you didn't answer my question about which sportswomen are being driven out of sport. But that's because you made that lie up on the spot, didn't you. Just as you won't answer what sacrifices you've made. You just like all TRAs, refuse to answer any questions at all. You don't engage in good faith. Just like most TRAs.

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.

Who? Peter Tatchel's frail, tiny transw footballer, whose always getting smashed by rough women? And who exists only in his head?

There has been threads on here, where random athletes have been "accused" of not being female. Maybe mistakenly, maybe by trolls. They are then deleted when the error is confirmed. It does happen.

@MissingLynks suggested we were "whipping yourself up into a froth about a what-if scenario you've imagined in your head"

Thank you @POWNewcastleEastWallsend for reminding readers about Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. Younger readers may have forgotten, or didn't know.

Holly and Jessica might have been mums themselves by now, posting on Mumsnet about their own children.

I wish that this were a what-if scenario.

If a woman applied for a role that needed a DBS check and the employer, unsure of their sex, was allowed to confirm it with the government, the worst thing to happen would be embarrassment, or maybe the woman would be offended.

If men are allowed to gain access to roles they shouldn't because the system is doing its best to conceal their sex, the worst thing that could happen is abuse.

Just like with questioning women in sport. Its embarrassing to claim a woman is male, but its dangerous to claim a man is female.

Sports people don't need a DBS check though so that's irrelevant. It's relevant if they're looking to work with children or vulnerable adults. As for rabbit holes, no. I'd say more like an attempted derail.

It is an offence to carry out a DBS check for a role that does not need it.

Competing in a sporting competition is not one of those roles
therefore utterly irrelevant to a discussion about the DBS process

Some posters think that if they throw different allegations around it will distract women from the core issues:
No sacred castes.
No exceptions to safeguarding practice for anyone, no matter how much they whinge.

I lost faith in the DBS process when my DD got one in her made-up chosen name which she had absolutely no ID relating to. I have no faith at all that if someone chooses not to give their former names that the process would pick up on this.

Back in the days of paper forms, my name was misread and I got one in a completely different name. I was a bit surprised they didn't flag up I apparently didn't exist...

The DBS process just checks that nothing exists in the name you put down on the form.

You can call yourself whatever you want, it doesn't make any checks it just searches the name, against the address, that you give.

It picked up a former name I had.
I didn't use the name on any documentation and hadn't used it for 30 years.

The sensitive dbs route is not the same as everyone else's. If that was the case a different route wouldn't be needed!