Today is a horrendous day for women.

[Catsanfan]

I haven't the energy to explain, just skim Aja's twitter this morning. So much there, I am losing heart. Especially the police thing.

Apologies, wrong thread.

Oh dear. How embarrassing.

You should probably go back and re-read the thread and in particular the PP you're misquoting.

Agree, people are scared of complaints, I believe our approach is sensible and protects all, sadly not all will do this, I use to work for The Met and they will often follow guidelines over common sense which is just as frustrating for officers who face the wrath of the public when most of the time they agree but have their mouths gagged and hands tied.

In the business world it's always poor negotiation to agree to any undesirable terms on the basis that the number is small, without any guarantees on that number staying the small.

If you can guarantee for life that the number of police officers that identify as trans and therefore have the right to strip search women will not grow beyond 0.01% then women may negotiate on the basis of this. But can you guarantee it?

Given the police already attracts abusive men do you not think the right to strip search women will just encourage more men to apply to police and identify as male?

That's not what @Echobelly s post says though. She's saying that its important make sure all strip searching is done ethically. That seems very clear and sensible

I’m all ears to hear the ethical reasons why men who identify as women should be allowed to strip search women

Isn't it interesting who is rushing to ensure that the door isn't closed for men to handle non consenting women in an abusive way? I mean what other point is there for arguing about this?

If your argument is the policy doesn't matter because it probably won't affect and damage many women then basically you feel it's important that the door is left open and that option remains available rather than close the door and upset any potential men. Because that would be the obvious solution, wouldn't it? Just to ensure that it can't happen at all. But you feel its more important that women are abused than men are told no, your self identification comes with this limit because it would be abusive to women. It's more important that this remains available to happen for men, (who are the only ones going to benefit or enjoy this), and just repeat a lot the bumf about 'but it's hardly any and not like its any women who matter'

What was that lovely phrase in the article about making policing more attractive to TW with this policy?

It's bloody nauseating to see what some women are prepared to argue and do to other women to pander to men. It really is.

" I doubt the famously tolerant and supportive of people who aren't straight white males police force will ever become a popular career destination for trans women"

The majority of trans women I've seen and met are straight white males...

So we take away a simple strategy that we already know works to keep many women safe - we make sure only female officers search women - and now we have to solve a much bigger problem instead - to make sure all strip searches are always done ethically. Because reasons.

Clear yes, sensible no.

Quite. It's a dressed up 'but if you get assaulted in the hospital ward/toilet/changing room/prison cell by a man there on the grounds that he identifies as a woman you can just report it, because sexual assault isn't allowed' wangle.

Look, all the cool girls can sign something at the desk saying that they're slavering to be searched by/search men who identify as woman and have no issues with this, that they consent, and they can crack on with it and all have a lovely time. But let's make it opt in please. And not pimp out vulnerable non consenting women to make men happy.

Not sure which post you are referring to. What is your understanding of an ethical approach?

The post under discussion actually said:

'I think this does needs putting in proportion seeing as 0.01% police officers (4) in th Met identify as trans and I expect most of those aren't trans women, and I suspect the Met is likely to have a larger number than other police forces.'

Frankly I stopped giving the post any credence when I reached the words 'I expect' & 'I suspect'...

Im aware. I read it. The fact remains that it said there were 4 in the met, so saying there are 12 (or whatever it was)in the West Mids isn’t a contradiction or an implication nobody can count.

But again, I don't think this is likely to happen based on the numbers involved.

This sort of thing comes up time and again when discussing policy. You could be right. You could be wrong. Who knows? It would involve predicting the future. It's irrelevant, because we don't have to predict the future when forming policies - luckily!

We can say either it is acceptable, and allowed in XYZ cases, regardless of the number of those that might arise, or we say it is not acceptable, and say it is not permitted.

The phrase 'straining at a gnat' comes to mind.

I don't know if that has already happened but that is the proposed threat. If the man says it is appropriate and the woman does not comply she should be charged with a criminal offence.

Fair to say whilst it isn't the first time I've heard of this guidance I remain livid about it.

This, with bells on!

An earlier poster posted this though, which I suspect is what was originally being replied to (and yes, they clearly misunderstood the stats - but we've seen that before haven't we, where misquoted stats quickly become facts that everyone quotes - "intersex people are just as common as those with ginger hair" "there are only 4 trans people in the whole of the police force" - it does a very good job of minimising the issue):

"There were 4 trans police out of the whole force ie 0,01% of the police force in 2021 - why are you targetting this is as a topic of concern? There are other much more concerning issues with the police.

Plus - article from the Daily Mail?? You don't think they might want to possibly stir people up with no basis in reason or logic?"

None of the 'vanishingly tiny' ploppers have answered the question "how many victims are acceptable?" yet. I'd be interested to know.

When safeguarding decisions are made, we weigh up risks and benefits. The risk of a woman being assaulted in a strip search by a man - versus the benefit of the man being able to insist he is the opposite sex. What is the risk / benefit ratio here? What is acceptable? I would like to know the thinking behind this?

It's OK if X number of women are at risk of sexual assault so that Y men can have their identity validated?

I'd also like to know what correlation exists between men who want to strip search women and incidence of rape and assault. Research has established a strong correlation between the 'minor' crime of indecent exposure and escalation to rape and murder. Please can some of the posters who think this is a minor non issue enlighten us on the data that supports their thinking?

A similar ratio (0.66%) for you. ONLY one rapist was employed by the Weinstein Company out of 150 employees. Is this an acceptable proportion?

It's not even about assault either - even if one trans woman is put in charge of strip searching females - even if said trans woman does everything correctly and no assault occurs* - multiple women will be made to feel uncomfortable. Women who are likely more vulnerable members of society, some who are likey to have their own past traumas. Those women's discomfort and dignity is sacrificial to the one trans woman's need to be "validated". Isn't it just easier to keep it same-sex? Or do trans women need to be validated so much that they can't be left out of performing strip searches of women in order to feel properly womanly?!

*ignoring the idea that a sexual assault is already occurring by way of a female being forced to strip search in front of a male.

We were told the risk to women of letting men into women's toilets was negligible because the number of bad apples was vanishingly tiny...tell that to Katie Dolatowski's victim.

We were told the risk to women of mixed-sex wards in hospital was negligible because the number of transwomen needing inpatient treatment at ay one time was vanishingly tiny...tell that to the woman raped and gaslit that there were "no men" on the NHS hospital ward.

We were told the risk to women of male offenders being imprisoned with them was negligible because the number of transwomen committing custodial offences was vanishingly tiny...tell that to the sexual assault victims of Karen White.

Stop fucking telling us these things will "probably" never happen!

Yet police instructions say a strip search must be done by a member of the same sex as the person being searched.

Are the police ... Transphobic ...??

https://www.college.police.uk/app/stop-and-search/quick-reference-guides/legal-quick-reference-guides/quick-reference-guide-legal-application-search-options

WRT the vanishingly tiny argument: if only a vanishingly tiny number of officers are trans why is it necessary for this tiny number of people to be allowed to strip search women? It’s a tiny number of people who need to simply understand the needs of a much bigger number of women who get strip searched.

https://www.womensrights.network/wrn-police-report

According to this, 'The paper proposed for the first time that officers be permitted to strip and even intimately search suspects of the opposite sex if the officer self-identified as the same “gender” as the person being searched.'

Can a male officer self-identify as 'cis female'? I'd say no, though I've seen some (non-police officer) TW try to claim this description for themselves. So all that should happen is the police ask a woman what gender she is, she replies, "Cis female," & she can only be searched by another cis female. Am I missing something here? I know we shouldn't have to do this, but it seems the easiest way out.

Let Women Speak also did a report (older):

https://www.standingforwomen.com/nhs-and-police-report#:~:text=It%20was%20quite%20overwhelming%20to,women%20rights%20and%20bodily%20autonomy.&text=What%20we%20found%3A%20the%20Police,report%20clearly%20outlines%20these%20findings