How does it even affect you? Just be kind.

[Shedmistress]

We all get this endlessly from every angle. Why do you care?
Why can't you just let this vulnerable group quietly get on with their lives?
It's just a tiny minority so go do something better with your day...

So I thought it would be a good idea to have a thread of 'ways it affects other people' and the effects of losing all logic, reason, sense of reality, and how health, safety and welfare are thrown out of the window the moment the word 'trans' is mentioned.

Please feel free to add your own with a link to what you are talking about. Especially documents relating to policy and processes that are wide open to abuse.

No, other posted different points which made sense. OP seemed to latch onto those and almost made sense… then went right back to saying “trans people are legally allowed to leave their old name off the form and hide their criminal record.”

They can’t. And mumsnet really shouldn’t allow those posts to stand.

Why? Because policy has for some time considered sex to be a private matter. Even before the Goodwin case based on privacy, these ‘sensitive’ routes existed.

Analysing that from a feminist perspective (misogyny, homophobia) is perfectly reasonable but there’s not really a big mystery about it.

Until the Equality Act and after as well, there’s no doubt that plenty of trans people got sacked or attacked or isolated or missed out on opportunities because they are presenting as the opposite sex. The drive for privacy is part of that kind of discrimination.

I think the OP even said that because the helpline is not mandatory, that means they can legally leave their name off.

The helpline are the people who do the hiding. You call them and they will hide your old name. If you don’t call them, then your old name will be shown. So the OP clearly doesn’t even know what the helpline is for if she is demanding it be mandatory. If it’s mandatory, then every trans person would have their old name hidden even if they didn’t actually ask for it.

In any case, it has nothing to do with the application. They all have to fill out the same application with all their previous names. All names are checked, no matter what.
If you leave out your name, you’re committing fraud, trans or not. It is not legally allowed.

And presumably your original (ACTUAL) sex is also conveniently "left off" the certificate?

THAT'S definitely a "Trans issue" and absolutely a safeguarding problem and not ok.

Your theoretical ' "ordinary "cis" ' criminal can't do that, can he?

And presumably your original (ACTUAL) sex is also conveniently "left off" the certificate?

THAT'S definitely a "Trans issue" and absolutely a safeguarding problem and not ok.

Your theoretical ' "ordinary "cis" ' criminal can't do that, can he?

Unless the job is using the single sex exemption, then sex doesn’t matter. From an equality point of view.

The argument gets tricky when using the single sex exemption and then men apply using an updated birth certificate. For that reason, I disagree with changing birth certificates. But it’s nothing to do with a DBS check.

No, some posters did agree with the OP as the OP explained what she had meant and just so you know I won't be brown beaten by you like you have the OP and if you try that shit with me I will ignore you.

Seriously you are now becoming so annoying you have ruined the thread. You could have made your point and fecked off.
I wish MN had a block button for posters like you.

'Almost made sense.'

Well, none of this makes any sense, that's the point. There are too many points of failure and even having a trans loophole hotline for special people who say two magic words.to keep their history secret is utter madness.

Add to that the lack of police tracking and the new name and birth certificate in the wrong sex issue and you have a prime example of 'reason and safety completely out the window'.

Which is the point of the thread.

What history is being kept secret?

Their old name is taken off. If they call up and ask for that.

What else is kept secret?

What did OP explain? Because she keeps repeating that they have the legal right to not have their old name checked. They do not have that right. At all. She also keeps repeated that they have the legal right to hide their criminal history. They do not have that right. At all.

She did agree with things others posted, as do I. But those are separate to the above, which she keeps repeating.

Do you actually think it’s true?

I came back to have a look at this thread. Still going off on the same branch line.

I thought your actual thread idea was a useful one, @Shedmistress There are so many ways this affects people, and it would be helpful to have a resource reference, which it won't be if there are dozens of pages on one detail of one aspect of one area. Do the MN rules about thread subjects allow you to try again?

When doing due diligence when recruiting for jobs working with vulnerable young people, it is vital that you know previous names. This loophole allows trans people to legally get around this. That's the problem.

Yes anyone could omit previous names, but this would be actionable.

There are so many red flags to look for apart from convictions, including colluding with kids, talking about inappropriate stuff, etc etc. The same individuals repeatedly try to get jobs with vulnerable kids and soft intelligence helps to keep them blocked. DBS not sharing previous names is a massive safeguarding concern.

OP can start whatever threads she likes. But if she posts the same lies then I’ll post to correct them.

Yes, and all of those are valid points. But not what I’m asking OP about.

OP is still claiming that trans people can legally leave their name off the actual criminal record check, and therefore not be fully checked for their criminal record and hide those crimes.

Their name is not removed from the check. Their crimes are not removed. They cannot legally hide their past crimes or legally keep their name off the criminal record check.

Redacting the name may cause a whole load of other issues for employers, but that’s not what OP posted about. I’m not arguing with that.

They don't have the right for DBS not to check their old name but this loophole prevents the employer doing their own checks locally.

Going back to your original question OP, just one transwoman entering a woman only space can change the entire dynamic. It either becomes all about the transwoman with the original purpose of the group derailed and/or some women becoming so uncomfortable that they leave the space entirely.

Which I understand. Even a quick and someplace social medial check is made harder by redacting the old name. But… that’s the only thing they do. Redact the old name. It is still checked for a criminal history and if they don’t include it then it’s fraud. But the OP still believes it wholeheartedly.

Fine.

DBS withholding vital information that prevents employers being able to safeguard children is huge.

DBS is providing a legal way for people to hide their identity via the very system that is supposed to safeguard children.

And the people who will take advantage of it are exactly the kind of people you want to keep out.

Sorry OP will stop derailing your thread.

Unless the job is using the single sex exemption, then sex doesn’t matter. From an equality point of view.

Or the workplace has single sex toilets or changing rooms.

It's not just social media. As I say the same individuals try different organisations to get work.

It's not just about convictions. For example, you are supposed to contact every previous employer where the applicant has worked with children for a reference. You can't do this if you don't know their previous name. You can't ask around locally about an individual. DBS not sharing this is actively preventing the sharing of information vital for safeguarding.

No-one dares say that to me. In fact no-one at work dares say anything about it to me at all. But if you want to tell people why "be kind" at work isn't kind at all this podcast episode is a good start. "Trans Inclusion at Work: Time for a New Approach" - interview of Stella O'Malley by HR commentator Tanya de Grunwald on the "This Isn't Working" podcast

https://thisisntworkingpodcast.co.uk/trans-inclusion-at-work-time-for-a-new-approach/

From the shownotes -

In trying to make our workplaces ‘inclusive’ to people who identify as trans and non-binary, have employers managed to exclude and alienate too many others? In some cases, it looks like we are actually causing distress to our colleagues, without even realising.

In this episode, Stella O’Malley, director of Genspect, explains who in your workforce is currently suffering in silence.

Consider:

• Parents of distressed children or teens who identify as trans or non-binary, who don’t believe medical transition is the right path for their child
• Estranged parents of older children who have lost touch after saying they identify as trans
• ‘Trans widows’ and children of transitioners – the exes and kids of biological males who transition later in life don’t always want to celebrate this change
• Detransitioners’ and ‘desisters’ – who identify as trans for a while, but later decide it is not the right choice for them

Do you know if these groups are in your workforce? Have you insisted they attend gender diversity training where contested ideas were presented as fact? How will they feel about your plans for Pride this summer, if the activities include uncritical affirmation of a medicalised approach to trans? And is your organisation appealing to talent from these groups, when seeking a new role?

@MumOfYoungTransAdult those are such good points. So many workplaces and be-kinders never consider the impact on the entire family when one person questions their gender.

I'll never forget the clip of Stephanie Hayton and what she suffered when her husband started watching sissy porn and decided to throw a bomb into his entire family's life.

Maybe a woman used the sensitive application route. Good for her if she did. But the point remains, it is clearly indicated as being for transgender applicants, not for women-at-risk-of-male-violence applicants.
Guidance
Transgender applications
Guidance and information regarding the sensitive applications route for transgender applicants.
Transgender applications - GOV.UK

It doesn’t allow them to hide their crimes though. Not at all. Which is what OP has alleged.

Who is making this link, if a person leaves off the old names and addresses from the form?

You have yet to show us the through route to how these checks and links are made.