Baroness Chakrabarti in the HoL - biological sex and police data

Black-letter lawyers are especially vulnerable to treating the law as if it were magic & able to rewrite reality.

What I mean is that she can't deny the veracity and objective truth of sex and DNA, but that gender identity trumps this re the individual's control of their life, and their right to enjoy that life and have privacy for their gender identity.
I'm not arguing this because I agree with it, but because I genuinely think this is where she's going with her line of (il)logic.
The nearest analogy would be the person's soul as having an identity different from the corporeal being. That the physical body may very well be one thing (time to check that lanyard again), but the soul may be a very different animal indeed.
Soul, animal spirit etc.
Trying to jam the square peg of subjective temperament into the round hole of observable truth and physical reality.
And it's only at these exalted levels, where the crazy noise of TRA is stripped away, calm discourse in Parliament, in front of judges (SCOTUS hearings) that in quiet hushed tones, we clearly hear batshit insanity laid out so plainly.
There's nowhere else to go with this craziness, if Chakrabarti really expects us to go along with her reluctantly accepting she's a woman because her lanyard tells her and others that she is, yet she might disagree with that lanyard depending on how she feels.

She wouldn't get anywhere with that &, on the basis that her career has been (by her lights) spent arguing for individual liberty & against inappropriate State actions, she wouldn't try. Remember Andrew Malkinson, or Stefan Kiszo? Those wrongful conviction decisions hinged on DNA evidence. It's a baby that even she couldn't risk throwing out with the gender bathwater, try as she might to pretend it's not there.

I guess her "argument" is that, yes, a DNA swab will ID sex, but it's gender that trumps sex, and this can't be assumed or ascertained, dependent purely on what choice the individual has made.
She'll argue that DNA tests are intrusive, akin to profiling, one step away from a surveillance state.
I know this sounds crazy, but the moment you diverge from physical reality and common sense, the only arguments that can be made are circular definitions and subjective truth/lived experience.
That a highly intelligent woman working for decades in the law can make this argument defies belief.

Jesus wept, I missed that. Do you have a ref for it by any chance? I'll trawl through the Google slop if you don't but hoped you might, search now being so banjaxed.

Can one of Chakrabarti's legal colleagues from the Criminal Bar sit her down & explain in very small words what the DNA swab taken from all arrestees can tell us about their sex?

😂
Butler is definitely not a feminist.

She has always struck me as more of a Baroness Hunt, willing to make the right noises to the right people, than a Baroness Falkner.

Yes didn’t she get her seat in the HoL because she whitewashed the antisemitism report into Labour? Jacqui Smith’s another Labour woman letdown. She kept quiet on trans to get back in the government and HoL.

Ah, the Hamas supporting esteemed feminist Judith Butler, you mean?

I will have to refer you to the esteemed Judith Butler, to answer that one.

How can you buy into this from a feminist standpoint? The whole concept of men cosplaying as women is anti-feminist.

I think a lot of lefty women like Chakrabarti really did buy into the ideology from a 'feminist' standpoint. They just didn't reckon with the fetishists and predators.

This. It cannot be said often enough.

I'm not so sure. Watching her body language, her world weary, almost self deprecating "oh, my lanyard states Baroness, so I guess that must make me a female" maybe suggests she really does buy into the ideology.
In the past, feminists saw the barriers to women, and how hard it was to become a woman (biology, societal pressures), and worked hard to make the world a more legal playing field between the sexes to reduce the pain and effort needed to survive and thrive, Germaine Greer the perfect example, Barbara Castle too.
Today, the lanyard class feminists have done a bait and switch, and said that gender allows one to wish away the pain of a girl becoming a woman, one can bypass the biological struggle and societal glass ceiling by simply categorising oneself out of it. Ditto boys who toil against alpha male standards, can simply bow out and become a new classification.
Biology ie puberty an ssue for girls? Well, there's medication and surgery.
Societal demands an issue for men? Well, women will gladly welcome you to make your collective pain ease.
Those who say no to re-categorisation? Those who oppose the modern miracle of medicalisation? They're the ones to be resisted and in the final analysis, defeated.
Chakrabarti seems unhappy in herself, as she physically shrinks into her statement of defeat.

Chakrabarti supports the GRA because its a left wing law and human rights issue.

If it had been Thatcher policy, introduced because a right wing old guy Norman Tebbit knew didnt want to be seen as gay or wanted to be in a womens sports team, she wouldnt support it.

She comes up with bonkers reasoning because she doesn't believe the ideology, she needs to protect the the GRA, HR and politicans who were involved.

Love the gear shifts on MN.

It appears Ed Gein was a transexual. Says it all really.

Thanks. So my initial post stands really as my question related to an individual being taken into custody and possible issues relating to who could search them etc. If as the Baroness seems to argue that sex is oh too difficult to ascertain and of course we cannot expect a TiM to just tell the truth a test would assist.

Shame it’s required and wouldn’t be necessary if folk were not allowed to change their sec marker on official documents.

Might even correlate with her lanyard. Why are the cleverest people often the stupidest?

They are sent away, but the results are available in a day or so - it's not like you submit it and wait months for the result. So Baroness Chakarabati (SP) claiming to think it is impossible to find out has not even got as far as establishing that it already is found out on a routine basis, and finding out doesn't even cost anything extra.
Maybe if her complete lack of research / critical thinking / competence one day leads to an accusation of misconduct in a public office she can be arrested, her DNA taken and she'll finally know if she's a woman or not!

It was a genuine question. I thought that cheek swabs generally needed to be sent to a lab for processing. Was wondering if there was or could be a rapid test like home COVID tests.

So when those cheek swabs are routinely taken the first time someone is arrested are the results immediately available or is the test sent to a lab for processing?

Yes, but that doesn't explain Chakrabarti's speech here.
Who was it in the SNP or Scottish Greens who when talking at Holyrood said their gender was unknown to them, they didn't check to see which, that they were so much more than what was between their legs, and no-one should be judged as such?
Chakrabarti's speech says pretty much the same thing.
When you add the testimony of the ACLU lawyers at the SCOTUS Title IX hearings that they couldn't say what a man or woman is, and that the whole area defies easy explanation, yet men have advantages over women in sport, we're both getting into the weeds, but also the inherent limits of the ideology in a world where concepts and language have to be precise, otherwise worst outcomes are guaranteed.
By Chakrabarti saying we can never tell objectively, only the person can declare they're male or female, plus other highly legally qualified persons say we can't tell what makes someone male or female, we're seeing the ultimate expression of "ones lived experience".
Chakrabarti and the ACLU lawyers, individuals who spend their whole working lives parsing the syllables in words, teasing apart nuance, holding individuals and bodies and govts to account for the merest deviation from precise language and intent, are happy in the area of transgender individuals to throw all definitions overboard, hell, not even bother with definitions full stop.
The equivalent of prosecuting a fossil fuel polluter, and they ID as Milliband approved, then go on to claim one can't talk about pollution because one can't define pollution.
For me, Chakrabarti is doing us a service, a peek into the cloistered luxury beliefs mind of someone who's views mirror so many more of the elite lanyard class, not even in a place you could start to argue or reconcile.
Because if Chakrabarti says she has to refer to her lanyard to conclude "well, I must be a woman", there is no language in common to even start a conversation.
Reminds me of the Millennial woman I spoke to once. On picking up that I am GC, she said there were hundreds of ways to define women, none of which included my definitions. Conversation over.

I'm not sure whether your second point is a genuine question or your irony meter is spinning at twice the speed of sound 😁
So just in case...the first time someone is arrested a DNA sample is taken for profiling purposes (usually by means of a cheek swab, but can also routinely be done by hair root). In addition to producing a DNA profile to load onto the National DNA Database the sample also establishes (and reports) the sex of the donor.

That about sums her up.