Female security staff should be compelled to search trans women?

[Trinity333]

mobile.twitter.com/ashmeesh/status/1078667401997307905?s=20&fbclid=IwAR1n5lCwPwqJ7qxRsIO4qPEG-HfH6mATDZEil09vQT9Jn6fhrjJyPY

Male bodied trans woman describes themselves as being sexually assaulted by an airline after undergoing a search by a man. Minnymum is on there saying why not? Female doctors do.

Easy solution is to keep a couple of posts aside for trans security staff.

Yes that would be a solution, however I believe that the comments are concerning and indicate that many think that women should be compelled to do the check.

Easy solution is to keep a couple of posts aside for trans security staff.

Would they only check trans passengers? I know it's easy to think there are lots of trans people these days, but there really aren't.

Vicky - come to think of it, easier solution is to keep a lipstick and pink hair band in the office and get the burliest officer to self ID when necessary.

Yep. All that security staff need to do is to identify as trans.

solution is to keep a lipstick and pink hair band in the office and get the burliest officer to self ID when necessary.

I wish!

Why can't the male security guard identify as a woman? In order to pat down a person with an 'anomaly' (ffs).

It's absolutely an ideology that works both ways, in this case.

Unless they want to start saying you can't identify the opposite sex unless you have certain criteria????

*AS the opposite sex

So, unchastened by the horror expressed by most people who've heard about Yaniv's attempts to force women to touch his balls via waxing, mimmymum is now suggesting that causing a fuss in an airport would also be an excellent way to force a woman to touch your balls?

(Personally I try to avoid causing a fuss in airports because I'd rather not end up dead/in jail for a very long time/wrestled to the floor by security, but I guess that's just "cis" privilege talking.)

The scary flipside here, is that by this logic, we should as female passengers, also then have to endure pat downs by male bodied people who identify as Women. That is the logical conclusion to all this madness. I cannot believe some of the Twitter commenters falling over themselves to completely disregard the interests of the female officer, in order to apologise to this transwoman for her treatment?

Stop the world, I want to get off.

I think the logical solution, using TRA logic anyway, would be to have a genderfluid person on each TSA team, and have them search people of the same sex most of the time, but for people with a "gender identity" they can identify as the correct gender before searching that person.

Unfortunately the refusal to distinguish between sex and gender makes it impossible to implement solutions like this.

Sexual assault. Because of the male sexed body of the security guard? I thought penises and clitorises were the same and biology was outdated etc?

The airline can absolutely identify themself out of this dilemma.

There is no criteria.

And if there is, let's hear it. Let's take it all the way up the food chain and to court.

Let's be having it.

Come to think of it, if I was running a TSA team I'd try to get out ahead of this by compiling a list of "genderfluid" officers who can be called over in situations like this. Activists would have a hard time arguing with this unless they wanted to argue either that genderfluid identities aren't valid, or that self-ID isn't valid.

Activists would have a hard time arguing with this unless they wanted to argue either that genderfluid identities aren't valid, or that self-ID isn't valid.

Exactly. It's a non starter.

I cannot believe some of the Twitter commenters falling over themselves to completely disregard the interests of the female officer, in order to apologise to this transwoman for her treatment?

I can't find the quoted report on another thread today where a TW, asked not to try on a dress in the women's changing rooms, went in tears to other members of staff who immediately embraced the role of rescuer and in the TW's words 'treated her like a princess'.

It's always the pattern. Someone distressed and within a disadvantaged narrative shares distress; people, largely women, don their rescuer capes and provide soothing and a chorus of 'awww did those nasty women upset you?' with any women saying 'er, I'm deeply uncomfortable about this six foot male bodied person being in a room where I'm undressed/ my faith/ my culture/ my trauma history/ my small kids in tow' instantly being cast as the wicked witch of the west. What else can they do but slink silently away with their voice and their equal right to respect removed?

There is never a step away from sentimentality into the common sense of 'I can see you're upset, I'm sorry about that. However we have to balance everyone's interests in this, so let's find another solution.' Resilience to managing tears, tantrums and threats of litigation without resorting to panic and total capitulation: urgently needed by all service providers.

Activists would have a hard time arguing with this unless they wanted to argue either that genderfluid identities aren't valid, or that self-ID isn't valid.

Didn't a certain Women's Officer make a complaint about not being offered a female security guard to search them, and state they would have been perfectly happy with the male guard they refused if he had verbally identified himself as other than male.

The fact the WO's experience would have been in no way affected by the subjective self description of the person patting them down seemed to escape them entirely. Which demonstrated how surface only and performative the complaint was. I often wonder if some TRAs believe that their surface/performative feelings about it are exactly the same as women's must be, and therefore it's no big deal at all to ask women to just get over it to accommodate them. No comprehension of the real issues, feelings and needs - and no ability to listen or empathise in order to learn.

I often wonder if some TRAs believe that their surface/performative feelings about it are exactly the same as women's must be,

I think they do believe this, because they believe that they are women, so their feelings are the same as women's feelings. (Also, narcissism makes it hard to imagine that other people have subjective experiences that you don't have access to.) That's why you sometimes see them "misgendering" their enemies in the belief that it's going to distress them.

I can imagine that the highly public revelation of "an anomaly in the groin region" was embarressing. It's the sort of thing that a Gender Recognition Certificate was designed to mitigate, when dealing with officialdom.

Same-sex searches are a right, backed up by laws, guidance and protocols. The importance of same-sex searches for staff and for the detainee are self-evident and don't need spelling out.

Opposite-sex searches are the logical result of guidance and training from Stonewall, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence etc to validate the transgender state. This is a good example of the so-called Transgender Privileges Rights that they lobby for.

If our government and institutions persist in saying that Transwomen are women despite "anomalies in the groin area", then they need to persuade me that opposite-sex searches are without risk, safe, dignified and respectful of boldily integrity. I don't believe it.

In the thread recently about how to find evidence on domestic violence rates including TW, and the source for the claim that rates of DV were much higher for TW than women, I seem to remember a quote to the effect of 'TW are W, so the claim is based on the known standard rates for women as a starting point, then obviously the rate would be higher for TW because everything is always harder/ worse/ more serious/ more significant/ for TW.'

Which works in much the same way.

I often wonder if some TRAs believe that their surface/performative feelings about it are exactly the same as women's must be,

Absolutely doubtless.

I'm reminded of the two transwomen on the Victoria Derbyshire show who were allowed to speak to a rape survivor, via a monitor, who had recently used a refuge.

The rape survivor knew very little about the trans ideology and was just relating her experience of men. One of the transwomen took issue over her blithely talking about 'women' by trotting out the wankery of their mother having had a hysterectomy, and so did that make them not a woman in the eyes of the rape survivor?

The rape survivor looked bemused and just brushed it off with well she had a uterus once. In a, 'I'm probably not explaining myself but I'm sure you know what I mean' kind of way. Not for a single second did she realise it's actually a pivotal arguing point of the ideology.

They genuinely believed that this piece of illogical, insulting misogyny should be a coherent part of their argument of why transwomen should be allowed in this rape refuge next to this survivor.

I've seen the same attitude over and over. Words like tone deaf, no filter, disconnect, cluster fuck. All used to describe this mens' attitude to the female experience, through the lens of their performance of it.

I can't find the quoted report on another thread today where a TW, asked not to try on a dress in the women's changing rooms, went in tears to other members of staff who immediately embraced the role of rescuer and in the TW's words 'treated her like a princess'.

June 2018 article:
www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-transgender-woman-left-tears-12652629

It’s those ‘woke’ management that we need to be wary off to. I hope that any woman working in security would have enough knowledge to immediately ‘come out’ as a transman if management tries to bully them into searching a man that claims to be a woman. The woke will be put in a wonderful position. The choice of being a ‘trans bigot’ against the trans person wanting to be serarched by a female or a ‘bigot’ towards their own staff member. There’s the added joy of knowing that the trans person not permitting women the right to refuse to touch them will be left with the choice of either permitting another man to search them of cause the ‘trans’ member of staff of being a ‘trans bigot’.

If our government and institutions persist in saying that Transwomen are women despite "anomalies in the groin area", then they need to persuade me that opposite-sex searches are without risk, safe, dignified and respectful of boldily integrity.

The questions to ask:

What are the reasons why it is not standard practice nor acceptable for opposite sex searches to take place?

How is a woman's objective experience of being searched by a TW any different from the experience of being searched by a male?
The subjective self perceptual choices of the TW has no bearing on the objective reality of the person they wish to act on.

It is fully reasonable for women to believe that TW are TW and therefore biologically male, and to experience them as they would any other male. Discrimination then rests upon, is the woman treating the TW differently to the way they would treat any other male.

To perceive TW as W relies upon sharing in a belief and ideology system. Freedom of belief is a protected right. That this is distressing and invalidating to some trans people when they are not perceived by strangers or in all conditions as they would prefer is something deserving of sympathy, but cannot be used to compel other people to conform to something they do not agree with, consent to or believe in. Particularly in cases of privacy, dignity and intimate contact where consent in procedure is the difference between acceptability and criminal assault.